Al-A'raf: (42-43) And those who believed and did righteous deeds...

Know that after fully discussing the warnings (of punishment), the Almighty followed it up with the promise (of reward) in this verse.

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: The Interjection of "Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear"

Most scholars of meaning hold that the Almighty's saying, {لَا نُكَلِّفُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا} (Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear) is an interjection placed between the subject (Mubtada') and the predicate (Khabar).

The intended structure is: "And those who believed and did righteous deeds, they are the inhabitants of Paradise, therein abiding eternally" (cf. Al-Baqarah: 82).

This phrase is appropriately placed here because it relates to the preceding statement. Since the verse mentioned their righteous deeds, it clarified that these deeds are within their capacity and not beyond their ability. It also serves as a reminder to the disbelievers that Paradise, despite its great status, is attained through easy actions, without bearing hardship.

Another group suggested that this phrase is the predicate for the subject, with the returning pronoun omitted, as if saying: "We do not burden any soul from among them except within its capacity." The pronoun was omitted because it is understood.

Issue 2: The Meaning of Wus'a (Capacity)

Wus'a (capacity) means what a person can manage during ease and facility, not during distress and hardship.

The evidence for this is that Mu'adh ibn Jabal said regarding this verse: "Except what is easy for them, not what is difficult for them."

The utmost limit of ability is called Juhd (effort/utmost exertion), not Wus'a. It is a mistake for one to think that Wus'a means exerting the utmost effort.

Issue 3: Theological Implications regarding Free Will (Qadar)

Al-Jubba'i said that this verse proves the falsehood of the doctrine of the Mujbirah (Determinists) who claim that Allah burdens a servant with what he cannot bear. This is because Allah has refuted them in this matter.

If this principle is established (that Allah does not burden beyond capacity), then their assertion regarding the creation of actions is invalidated. If Allah is the creator of the servant's actions:

1. If He commands the action after creating it in the servant, it is commanding what is impossible to achieve, as it is commanding the realization of something already realized (a redundant command).
2. If He commands it before creating the action in the servant, it is also commanding what is impossible, because, under this view, the servant has no power to bring that action into existence.

They further argue: If this principle is established, it becomes clear that Istita'ah (ability/power) must precede the action. If ability were concurrent with the action, then a disbeliever would lack the power to believe, yet he is commanded to do so. This would be commanding what is impossible. Since this verse negates commanding the impossible, both of these foundational principles (of the Determinists) are proven false.

The Reply: We say that this objection is also applicable to you (the Mu'tazilites). Allah commands the servant to bring forth an action at a time when the incentives for action and inaction are equal, or when one incentive outweighs the other.

1. The first case (equal incentives) is false, because bringing the action into existence is a preference for the side of action, and achieving preference while incentives are equal is impossible.
2. The second case (one incentive outweighs the other) is also false, because when one incentive outweighs the other, the resulting action becomes obligatory. If the command relates to the preferred side, it is commanding the realization of something already necessitated (obligatory). If the command relates to the less preferred side, it is commanding the realization of the less preferred while it is still less preferred, which means commanding the combination of two contradictory states, which is impossible.

Therefore, whatever answer you provide for this question (regarding the creation of actions), we provide the same answer against your argument. And Allah knows best.

Regarding {وَنَزَعْنَا مَا فِي صُدُورِهِمْ مِنْ غِلٍّ} (And We will remove whatever is in their breasts of rancor)

Know that Naza'a (removing/pulling out) means extracting something from its place. Ghille (rancor/malice) refers to knots.

Linguists say it is what penetrates gently to the core of the heart (i.e., enters). From this comes Ghullul (concealment/theft), which is subtly acquiring sins. It is also said: Inghalla fi shay' (he entered deeply into something) or taghalghala (it permeated) if it enters gently, like love entering the core of the heart.

Once this is understood, we say this verse has two interpretations:

The First Opinion: It means We removed the grudges that some of them held against others in the worldly life. Removing Ghille means purifying dispositions, eliminating intrusive thoughts, and preventing them from reaching the hearts. Since the Devil will be in torment, he will not be preoccupied with casting whispers into the hearts. Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) alluded to this meaning when he said: "I hope that I, Uthman, Talhah, and Al-Zubayr are among those about whom Allah said, {And We will remove whatever is in their breasts of rancor}."

The Second Opinion: It means that the ranks of the inhabitants of Paradise vary according to perfection and deficiency. Allah removed envy from their hearts so that the one in the lower rank does not envy the one in the perfect rank.

The author of Al-Kashshaf stated that this interpretation is preferable to the first. This is to contrast with what Allah mentioned regarding the inhabitants of Hell, where some disown others and curse one another. Thus, the state of the inhabitants of Paradise in this regard is distinct from the state of the inhabitants of Hell.

If they ask: How can a person witness great blessings and high ranks, see himself deprived of them and unable to attain them, yet his nature does not incline toward them, nor does he grieve over the deprivation? If this is conceivable, why is it not conceivable that Allah could restore them (to their previous state) without creating in them the desire for eating, drinking, and intercourse, and yet make them content without these things?

We reply: Everything is possible, and Allah is capable of it. However, Allah promised to remove rancor and envy from the hearts, but He did not promise to remove the desire for eating and drinking from the souls. Thus, the difference between the two matters is clear.

Then the Almighty said: {تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهِمُ الْأَنْهَارُ} (Rivers flow beneath them). This means that just as Allah purified them from the shackles of rancor, envy, and the eagerness for increase, He has bestowed upon them great intrinsic blessings. The rivers flowing beneath them are from Allah's mercy, grace, benevolence, and the types of spiritual unveilings and joys.

Then the Almighty recounts what the inhabitants of Paradise will say: {الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي هَدَانَا لِهَذَا} (Praise be to Allah, Who has guided us to this). Our scholars say the meaning of {هَدَانَا اللَّهُ} (Allah has guided us) is that He granted the ability (Qudrah) and coupled it with a decisive incentive (Da'iyah), making the combination of ability and that incentive necessitate the attainment of that virtue. If He had given the ability but not created the incentive, the effect would not have occurred. If Allah had created the incentive but also created opposing deterrents, the action would not have occurred either. But when He created the ability and created the decisive incentive, and the combination of ability with the specific incentive necessitated the action, the guidance was truly achieved by Allah's decree, creation, and formation.

The Mu'tazilites say that the praise is only for Allah granting intellect, setting forth proofs, and removing impediments. At this point, the discussion returns to the debates of compulsion and free will, in terms of completion and perfection.

Then the Almighty said: {وَمَا كُنَّا لِنَهْتَدِيَ لَوْلَا أَنْ هَدَانَا اللَّهُ} (And we would not have been guided unless Allah had guided us). This contains several issues:

Issue 1: The Reading of Mā Kunnā

Ibn 'Amir read {مَا كُنَّا} without the waw (conjunction), and this is the reading in the Mus'hafs of the people of Sham. The rest read it with the waw.

The justification for Ibn 'Amir's reading is that the phrase {مَا كُنَّا لِنَهْتَدِيَ لَوْلَا أَنْ هَدَانَا اللَّهُ} serves as an explanation (Tafsīr) for {هَدَانَا لِهَذَا} (He guided us to this). Since one is identical to the other, the conjunction must be omitted.

Issue 2: Proof of Divine Guidance

The saying {وَمَا كُنَّا لِنَهْتَدِيَ لَوْلَا أَنْ هَدَانَا اللَّهُ} is proof that the guided one is guided by Allah. If Allah had not guided him, he would not have been guided.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Mu'tazilites is that every type of guidance and direction Allah performs for the Prophets and the Saints, He also performs for all disbelievers and sinners. The distinction between the believer and the disbeliever, the truthful and the false, is achieved only through their own striving and choice. Therefore, they should praise themselves, as they are the ones who attained faith for themselves and brought themselves to the ranks of Paradise, saving themselves from the depths of the Fire. Since they do not praise themselves at all, but only praise Allah, we know that the only Guide is Allah, the Exalted.

Then the Almighty recounts that they said: {لَقَدْ جَاءَتْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْحَقِّ} (Indeed, the messengers of our Lord had come with the truth). This is what the inhabitants of Paradise say when they see with their own eyes what the Messengers promised them.

Then the Almighty said: {وَنُودُوا أَنْ تِلْكُمُ الْجَنَّةُ} (And a call will be made to them: 'This is Paradise'). This contains two issues:

Issue 1: The Caller

This call is either from Allah the Almighty, or from the Angels. The preferred view is that the caller is Allah, the Exalted.

Issue 2: The Particle An (أن)

Al-Zajjaj mentioned two views regarding the particle an here:

1. It is the softened form of the heavy inna. The meaning is: "Indeed, and the matter is such that..." The meaning is: They were called, "Indeed, this is Paradise," meaning they were called with this statement.
2. He said (and this is the sounder view in my opinion): The particle an is in the sense of explaining the call. The meaning is: They were called, meaning: "This is Paradise." It is as if they were told, "This is the Paradise you were promised."

The use of {تِلْكُمُ} (that [plural/feminine plural]) is because they were promised it in the world.

Regarding {أُورِثْتُمُوهَا} (you inherited it), there are two opinions:

The First Opinion: This is the view of the scholars of meaning. It means it has come to you as inheritance comes to its people. The word Irth (inheritance) is used in the language even when the ownership does not pass from the deceased to the living. For example, "This action bequeaths you honor" or "bequeaths you shame," meaning it leads you to it. Some say they were given these stations without effort in that moment, making it similar to inheritance.

The Second Opinion: The inhabitants of Paradise inherit the stations of the inhabitants of Hell. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "There is no disbeliever or believer except that he has a station in Paradise and a station in Hell. When the people of Paradise enter Paradise and the people of Hell enter Hell, Paradise is raised up for the people of Hell, so they look at their stations therein and are told: 'These were your stations had you obeyed Allah.' Then it is said: 'O people of Paradise, inherit them by what you used to do.' So the stations are divided among the people of Paradise."

Regarding {بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ} (by what you used to do), there are several issues:

Issue 1: Action as the Cause of Reward

Those who hold that action necessitates this reward rely on this verse. The Bā' (preposition) in {بِمَا} indicates causality, which suggests that the action necessitates this reward.

Our Reply: It is a cause for the reward, but only because the Lawgiver (Shari'ah) made it a cause, not because it inherently necessitates that reward. The evidence is that Allah's favors upon the servant are endless. When the servant performs any act of obedience, these acts stand in contrast to those preceding favors, making it impossible for them to necessitate the subsequent reward.

Issue 2: Contradiction with Prophetic Hadith

Some object, saying this verse indicates that the servant enters Paradise by his deeds, while the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "No one will enter Paradise by his deeds, but only by the Mercy of Allah." They claim a contradiction.

Our Reply: What we mentioned refutes this: Action does not necessitate entry into Paradise inherently. It is made a sign and a means for it by Allah's grace. Furthermore, since Allah is the one who enables the performance of righteous deeds, entry into Paradise is, in reality, only by the grace of Allah.

Issue 3: The Status of the Sinner

Al-Qadi said that the Almighty's statement {وَنُودُوا أَنْ تِلْكُمُ الْجَنَّةُ أُورِثْتُمُوهَا بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ} is a general address to all believers. This indicates that everyone who enters Paradise enters it by their deeds. If this is the case, it invalidates the view that sinners enter Paradise out of Allah's favor alone.

If this is established, then the sinner must not exit the Fire. If he were to exit, he would either enter Paradise or not enter it. The latter is false by consensus. The former (entering Paradise) must be either by favor or by desert. The first (favor) is false, as we have shown this verse indicates no one enters Paradise by favor. The second (desert) is also false, because having entered the Fire, it must be said that he deserved punishment. If he then entered Paradise by desert, it would necessitate that he deserved reward. This leads to the combination of deserving reward and deserving punishment, which is impossible, as reward is permanent, pure benefit, and punishment is permanent, pure harm. Combining them is impossible, and thus combining the deserving of both is impossible.

The Reply: This argument is based on the premise that deserving reward and deserving punishment cannot coexist. We have elaborated extensively on refuting this claim in Surat Al-Baqarah. And Allah knows best.

{وَنَادَى أَصْحَابُ الْجَنَّةِ أَصْحَابَ النَّارِ أَنْ قَدْ وَجَدْنَا مَا وَعَدَنَا رَبُّنَا حَقًّا فَهَلْ وَجَدْتُمْ مَا وَعَدَ رَبُّكُمْ حَقًّا قَالُوا نَعَمْ فَأَذَّنَ مُؤَذِّنٌ بَيْنَهُمْ أَنْ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ * الَّذِينَ يَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَيَبْغُونَهَا عِوَجًا وَهُمْ بِالْآخِرَةِ كَافِرُونَ}

(And the inhabitants of Paradise will call out to the inhabitants of the Fire, "We have indeed found what our Lord promised us to be true; have you also found what your Lord promised to be true?" They will say, "Yes." And a caller will announce between them, "The curse of Allah be upon the wrongdoers * Who deterred [people] from the way of Allah and sought to make it crooked, and who, concerning the Hereafter, were disbelievers.")