Al-A'raf (The Heights): Verse 143

Commentary on the Verse

The Almighty has clarified the purpose for which Moses (peace be upon him) attended the appointed time (Mīqāt): to speak with his Lord. This verse contains several profound issues concerning divine theology.

This verse proves that the Almighty spoke to Moses (peace be upon him). People hold differing views on the nature of God's speech:

1. View 1: Speech as Composed Letters and Sounds: Some say God's speech consists of organized, articulated letters and sounds.
   • The rational scholars agree that if speech is composed of letters and sounds, it must be created (Hādith), as it comes into being after not being.
   • The Hanbalis and Hashawiyyah claim that speech composed of letters and sounds is eternal (Qadīm), a view considered base and unworthy of serious consideration.
   • Argument against eternal letters/sounds: If God speaks these letters, it must be either all at once or sequentially.
     • If all at once, the words would not be comprehensible, as meaning requires sequential articulation.
     • If sequential, the second letter appears only after the first has passed away. Since the first letter ceases to exist, it is created. The second letter is also created because its existence is subsequent to another's existence. Thus, if God's speech is merely letters and sounds, it must be created.

2. Subsequent Positions on Created Speech: If speech is created, there are two main positions regarding its location:
   • Karāmiyyah: The location of these created sounds and letters is the essence (Dhāt) of God Himself.
   • Mu'tazilah: The location is a body (Jism) separate from God's essence, such as a tree.

3. View 2: Speech as an Attribute: The majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā'ah hold that God's speech is an eternal, pre-existing attribute distinct from letters and sounds.
   • The Ash'arites say Moses heard this true, eternal attribute. They argue that just as seeing His essence is not impossible even though His essence is neither body nor accident, hearing His speech is possible even if it is not a letter or sound.
   • Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī held a middle view: What Moses heard were distinct sounds and articulated letters existing in the tree, but this was not the eternal attribute itself.

There is disagreement on whether God spoke only to Moses or to him along with others.

• Apparent Meaning: The verse, "And his Lord spoke to him," suggests Moses was singled out for this honor. Singling out someone in mention implies exclusion of others.
• Al-Qāḍī's View: The seventy chosen men also heard God's speech. The purpose of bringing them was to inform the people of what transpired, which requires them to have heard it. Furthermore, God speaking to Moses in this manner was a miracle confirming his prophethood, and this miracle needed to be witnessed by others.

Our scholars argue that this verse indicates that seeing the Almighty is permissible (Jā'iz). This is supported by four arguments:

Argument 1: Moses Asked for It. Moses (PBUH) was knowledgeable regarding what is obligatory, permissible, and impossible for God. If seeing God were impossible, he would not have asked for it. Since he asked, seeing Him must be permissible.

• The Mu'tazilah's Four Interpretations of Moses' Request:
  1. Ignorance: Al-Ḥasan and others said Moses did not know seeing God was impossible. He could be knowledgeable of God's justice and unity yet ignorant about the ruling on vision, which might depend on revelation (Sam'iy).
  2. Intercession for His People: Moses asked on behalf of his people, who repeatedly demanded, "We will never believe you until we see Allah openly" (Qur'an 2:55). Moses asked so that the prohibition could be established. (View of Abū 'Alī and Abū Hāshim).
  3. Request for a Sign: Moses asked for a powerful sign that would remove all doubt regarding God's existence, whether it be necessary knowledge or a manifest sign (Abū al-Qāsim al-Ka'bī's choice).
  4. Seeking Corroboration: Moses asked God to mention the textual proofs (Sam'iy) that confirm the intellectual impossibility of vision, thereby strengthening the rational proof. (View of Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm).

• Refutation of the Mu'tazilah's Interpretations (by Ahl al-Sunnah):
  • Refutation of Interpretation 1 (Ignorance): This is weak. Moses was certainly more knowledgeable about God than the lowest-ranking Mu'tazilites. If they knew vision was impossible, but Moses did not, his knowledge of God would be inferior to theirs, which is impossible by Muslim consensus. Furthermore, the Mu'tazilah claim that anything visible must occupy space (Ḥayyiz) or be oriented (Jiha). If Moses permitted God to be seen, he permitted Him to occupy space, which is disbelief (Kufr) according to the Mu'tazilah—implying Moses was a disbeliever, which is absurd. Alternatively, if Moses lacked the necessary knowledge that visibility requires occupying space, then he lacked necessary knowledge altogether, implying he was insane, which is also contrary to consensus.
  • Refutation of Interpretation 2 (For His People): This is flawed. If it were for his people, Moses would have said, "Show them Your sight," and God would have replied, "They will not see Me." Also, if the request were impossible (like asking for idols), God would have forbidden it, saying, "You are an ignorant people" (Qur'an 7:138). Finally, Moses would have been obligated to present rational proofs against vision, which he did not do.
  • Refutation of Interpretation 3 (Request for a Sign): This is distant. It implies the meaning is "Show me [a sign] so that I may look at Your command," requiring deletion of the object and the possessive noun. This contradicts the context: "You will not see Me," followed by the mountain's reaction. Moreover, God had already shown Moses overwhelming signs (staff, white hand, plagues). It is unfitting for someone in direct communion with God to ask for a sign of His existence.
  • Refutation of Interpretation 4 (Seeking Textual Corroboration): This is also distant. If this were the goal, Moses should have asked, "O God, strengthen the intellectual impossibility of seeing You with additional textual proofs." Since he asked to see, these interpretations are invalid.

Argument 2: The Response Itself. If God were inherently impossible to see, He would have said, "I cannot be seen." Instead, He said, "You will not see Me" (lan tarānī). This is analogous to a man holding a stone and being asked to eat it; he replies, "This is not edible," not "I will not eat it." The use of the negative personal verb implies that seeing Him is intrinsically possible, but prohibited for Moses at that moment.

Argument 3: Vision is Conditional on a Permissible Act. God linked seeing Him to an act that is intrinsically permissible: "If it remains in its place, you will see Me." Since the condition is permissible, the result (vision) must also be permissible. If the condition (the mountain remaining stable) occurs, either the result (vision) follows, proving its permissibility, or it does not, which invalidates God's statement that the result will follow the condition.

• Objection: The condition is the mountain remaining stable while it is moving, which is impossible. Therefore, the condition is impossible, not permissible.
• Rebuttal: The consideration of the mountain's stability is separate from its state of motion or rest. The condition specified in the text is simply the "stability of the mountain," which is an intrinsically possible state. This possibility is sufficient to establish the permissibility of the consequence (vision).

Argument 4: The Manifestation (Tajallī). "So when his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain, He made it dust." This manifestation is interpreted as the vision itself.

1. Knowledge manifests something, but sight (Abṣār) is a more complete form of manifestation. It is better to apply the term to the more complete meaning.
2. The purpose of mentioning this is to prove that humans cannot endure seeing God, as the mighty mountain was pulverized. If the Tajallī did not mean vision, this purpose would not be achieved.

• Addressing the Objection: Mountains are inanimate and cannot see.
• Rebuttal: God could have created life, intellect, and sight within the mountain specifically for this purpose, just as He commanded the mountains to glorify God with David (Qur'an 34:10), implying they possessed the necessary faculties to respond to the command.

The Mu'tazilah argue that vision is impossible based on rational and textual proofs. We have already addressed their rational proofs elsewhere. Their strongest textual proof is: "The eyes cannot attain Him" (Qur'an 6:103).

They use this verse and the verse in question (lan tarānī) to argue against vision in four ways:

Argument 1: The Permanence of "Lan" (lan). They argue that the particle lan implies eternity (Ta'bīd), meaning Moses would never see God, neither in this world nor the next. If Moses cannot see Him, no one can, proving impossibility.

• Refutation:
  1. Linguists like Al-Wāḥidī deny that lan inherently means eternity; no reliable source supports this claim. Furthermore, the Qur'an states the Jews "will never wish for death" (wa lan yatamannawuhu abadan), yet they will wish for death on the Day of Judgment.
  2. If lan meant eternity, an exception (Istithnā') would be meaningless.
  3. The phrase lan af'ala (I will not do) only emphasizes the negation of the specific act requested. Moses asked to see God now (in that moment), so God negated that specific request. It does not imply eternal negation.

Argument 2: Moses Collapsed. If vision were permissible, why did Moses collapse upon asking for it?

Argument 3: Moses' Glorification (Subḥānaka). Upon recovering, Moses said, "Glory be to You (Subḥānaka)." This word implies purification (Tanzīh). They argue he was purifying God from the previously mentioned act: asking to see Him. Therefore, seeing God must be a defect or flaw, which is impossible for God.

• Refutation (by Ahl al-Sunnah): Vision was permissible. Moses asked without permission. The good deeds of the righteous can be considered shortcomings for the highly favored (Muqarrabīn). His repentance (Tawbah) was for asking without authorization, not for asking about something inherently impossible.

Argument 4: Moses' Repentance (Tūbtu ilayk). Moses said, "I have repented to You." They argue that asking for vision must have been a sin, otherwise, he would not have repented, nor would he have affirmed, "And I am the first of the believers."

• Refutation (by Ahl al-Sunnah): As stated above, the repentance was for asking without divine permission, not for the act of vision itself.

According to Ibn 'Abbās, Moses came with the seventy, ascended the mountain, and while the seventy remained below, God spoke to Moses and wrote the tablets. Hearing the scratching of the pen, Moses' longing increased, leading him to say: "My Lord, show me that I may look at You."

Question 1: The Meaning of "Look" (Anẓur). Is "looking" the vision itself, or the preliminary act of turning the eye toward the object?

• If it means vision ("Show me so that I may see You"), it is flawed.
• If it means the preliminary act ("Show me so that I may turn my eye toward You"), it is flawed because it implies God has a direction (Jiha), and it treats the preliminary act as the result of the vision.

Answer: "Show me" (Arinī) means: "Enable me to see You so that I may look at You and see You."

Question 2: Why did God reply, "You will not see Me," instead of "You will not look at Me," to match Moses' request?

Answer: Since looking (Nuẓūr) is merely a prelude to seeing (Ru'yah), the ultimate goal was the vision itself, not the mere act of looking without achieving sight.

Question 3: Connection of the Exception Clause. How is the subsequent statement, "But look at the mountain," connected to what preceded it?

Answer: It serves to magnify the gravity of vision. No one can see God unless God empowers them. The mountain's disintegration upon the manifestation proves the immense power required for vision.

Regarding the Phrase: "So when his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain, He made it dust (Dakkā)."

• Al-Zajjāj: Tajallā means "appeared and became clear."
• Dakkā: Can be read with or without tanwīn. It means "crushed flat against the earth." Dakk is the verbal noun (Maṣdar). Dakāwāt are small mounds on the ground.
• Al-Akhfash: Read Dakkā as an emphatic verbal noun (Maṣdar Mu'akkid).
• Reading Dakkā'an (extended): Means "He made it a flat earth," consistent with Ibn 'Abbās' report that it meant "dust" or "soil."

Regarding the Phrase: "And Moses fell down in a swoon (Ṣa'iqan)."

• Al-Layth: Ṣa'q is like fainting (Ghashy).
• Alternative meaning: Ṣa'q can mean death, as in the verse about the Day of Judgment: "The Day they are struck by the Thunderclap (Yuṣ'aqūn)" (Qur'an 39:68), which is interpreted as death.
• Al-Kashshāf: Ṣa'q originates from the lightning strike (Ṣā'iqah).

Interpretation of Moses' State: Ibn 'Abbās interpreted it as fainting (Ghashy), while Qatādah interpreted it as death. The fainting interpretation is stronger because God says, "Then We revived you after your death" (Qur'an 2:56) for those who died, whereas for the swooning person, it is said, "Then he awoke (Afāq)."

Regarding the Phrase: "He said, 'Glory be to You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.'"

• Subḥānaka: Meaning, "Glory be to You that someone other than You should ask You for anything without Your permission."
• Tūbtu ilayk (I repented to You):
  1. Repentance for asking to see Him in this world.
  2. Repentance for asking without His permission.
• Wa anā awwal al-mu'minīn (And I am the first of the believers): Believing that He cannot be seen in this world, or believing that one must not ask Him except with His permission.

Verse 144

This verse confirms God's selection of Moses through His revelations and direct speech, commanding him to accept what he received and be thankful.