Al-An'am (The Cattle): (8) And they said, "Why is not a sign sent down to him..."

Section 1: The Disbelievers' Objection

Know that this is the third type of doubt raised by those who deny prophethood. They say: If God had sent a messenger to humanity, that messenger ought to have been one of the angels.

This is because, if the messenger were from the company of angels:

1. Their knowledge would be greater.
2. Their power would be stronger.
3. Their awe-inspiring presence would be greater.
4. Their distinction from ordinary creation would be more complete.
5. Doubts and uncertainties regarding their prophethood and message would be fewer.

When a wise being intends to achieve a goal, whatever is most conducive to achieving that objective is preferable. Since the occurrence of doubt is less likely with an angelic messenger, it was necessary, if God were to send a messenger to humanity, that this messenger be an angel. This is the meaning of His statement: {And they said, "Why is not an angel sent down to him?"}

Section 2: God's Response to the Objection

Know that the Almighty has answered this doubt in two ways.

The meaning of qada'a al-amr (the matter would have been decided/decreed) is completion and obligation. We have previously mentioned the meanings of qada' in Surah Al-Baqarah. Here, there are several interpretations:

First Interpretation: The descent of an angel to humans would be a manifest sign (āyah bāhirah). If this sign were sent to these disbelievers, they might still not believe, as stated: {And even if We sent the angels down to them... they would not have believed except as Allah willed} (Al-An'am: 111). If they did not believe, their destruction by annihilation (isti'ṣāl) would become necessary. It is God's established practice that when a manifest sign appears, if they do not believe, the punishment of annihilation befalls them. Thus, God did not send an angel down to them so that they would not incur this punishment.

Second Interpretation: If they witnessed an angel, their souls would be overwhelmed by the terror of what they witnessed. To elaborate: When a human sees an angel, he either sees it in its original form or in human guise.

• If it is the original form, the human would not remain alive. Did you not see that when the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw Gabriel in his original form, he fainted?
• If it is in human guise, then what is seen is a figure in human form. In this case, the situation is no different whether the being is inherently an angel or a human. Did you not see that all the messengers witnessed angels in human form, such as the guests of Abraham and Lot, those who scaled the sanctuary (mihrāb), and Gabriel when he appeared to Mary as a perfect man?

Third Interpretation: The descent of an angel would be such a manifest sign that it would compel belief (ilja') and remove free choice (ikhtiyār), which invalidates the requirement for religious accountability (taklīf).

Fourth Interpretation: Although sending down an angel would remove the aforementioned doubts, it would strengthen doubts from another angle. This is because whatever miracle appeared from the angel, they would say: "This is your action, which you performed by your choice and power. If we had received what you received of power, strength, and knowledge, we would have done what you did." Thus, sending down an angel, while removing some doubts, strengthens others from this perspective.

The benefit of using the particle {Then} (thumma) is to indicate that the lack of reprieve is more severe than the decreeing of the matter itself, because the suddenness of severity is more intense than the severity itself.

As for the second part of the response: {And if We had made him an angel, We would have made him a man}...