Al-A'raf: (59-62) We sent Noah...

Know that after Allah the Exalted established proofs, clear signs, and brilliant arguments regarding the Origin (Mabda') and the Return (Ma'ad), He followed this by mentioning the stories of the Prophets, peace be upon them. This serves several benefits:

1. Consolation for the Prophet (PBUH): It indicates that the people's aversion to accepting these proofs and signs was not unique to the community of Muhammad (PBUH). This blameworthy habit existed in all previous nations. When a calamity is shared, it is lessened in severity. Recounting their stories and their persistence in ignorance and obstinacy provides solace and lightens the burden on the Messenger's heart.
2. Consequence of Actions: Allah recounts that the outcome for those deniers was disbelief, cursing in this world, and loss in the Hereafter. Conversely, the outcome for the truthful was worldly dominion and ultimate happiness in the Hereafter. This strengthens the hearts of the truthful and breaks the hearts of the falsehood-pursuers.
3. Divine Delay is Not Neglect: It serves as a warning that although Allah grants respite to these falsehood-pursuers, He does not neglect them; rather, He takes vengeance upon them in the most complete manner.
4. Proof of Prophethood: These stories demonstrate the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH). Since he was illiterate (Ummi) and had neither studied a book nor taken a teacher, his accurate narration of these stories without distortion or error proves that he learned them only through divine revelation from Allah, which validates his prophethood.

One might object: Narrating past unseen events does not necessarily constitute a miracle, as it is possible that Iblis witnessed these events and relayed them to him. However, narrating future unseen events is miraculous, as knowledge of the unseen belongs only to Allah, the Sublime.

Know that Allah mentioned the story of Adam (PBUH) earlier in this Surah.

The second story is that of Noah (PBUH), mentioned in this verse. His lineage is Noah, son of Lamek, son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, and Enoch is the name of the Prophet Idris, peace be upon him. This verse contains several issues:

The author of Al-Kashshaf states that the phrase {Laqad arsalnā} ("We have certainly sent") is the answer to an omitted oath.

If one asks why the particle Lām (of emphasis) is almost never used here without Qad (certainly), and its use without Qad is rare (like the poetry cited), the answer is: The oath clause is only used to confirm the main clause (the answer). Thus, when the listener hears the word of the oath, the clause is already anticipated to carry the meaning of expectation, which is the meaning of Qad.

Al-Kisā'ī read {Ghayruhu} (other than Him) with a kasra on the rā' (Ghayrihi), treating it as an adjective for Ilāh based on pronunciation. The rest read it with a raf' (Ghayruhu), treating it as an attribute based on the grammatical position (meaning: "There is no god other than Him," where Ilāh is the subject of the negated sentence).

Abu Ali explained the raf' reading by citing the verse: {Wa mā min ilāhin illā Allāh} (There is no god but Allah) [Aal 'Imran: 62]. Just as {illā Allāh} is a substitute for {mā min ilāh}, {Ghayruhu} can be a substitute for {min ilāh}, making Ghayr in the nominative case due to exception.

The author of Al-Kashshaf mentioned three readings for {Ghayr}: raf' (as explained), jarr (genitive, if treated as an adjective following the preceding word), and nasb (accusative, as an exception meaning "There is no god except Him," similar to saying, "There is no one in the house except Zayd and other than Zayd").

Al-Wāḥidī noted that there is an omission in the sentence. If {Ghayruhu} is treated as an adjective for {Ilāh}, the negated noun ({Ilāh}) lacks a predicate. A sentence cannot stand with only a subject and an adjective. The implied meaning is: "There is no god other than Him in existence."

I say: Grammarians agree that in the statement "Lā ilāha illā Allāh" (There is no god but Allah), an implication is necessary, such as "There is no god in existence," or "There is no god for us except Allah." They offer no proof for this necessity. We argue: Why can't the negative particle be directed toward the essence (māhiyyah) itself? If we interpret it this way, the meaning is that the reality of divinity has no actualization except in Allah, and we become independent of the omission that grammarians assert.

If they argue: Negating an essence is impossible; one cannot say "No blackness" to mean the non-existence of that essence; rather, one can only say that the essence of blackness is not present or actualized, thus requiring an omitted predicate.

We reply: This argument rests on the premise that essences cannot be negated or removed. This is clearly false. If it were true, the existence (wujūd) itself—which is an essence—could not be negated, yet we negate the existence of things.

If they argue: When we say "No man," and mean the negation of his existence, this negation is not directed at the essence of existence, but at the essence of "man" being described by existence.

We reply: This description (mawṣūfiyyah) cannot be something separate from the essence and existence. If the description were a separate essence, and existence were another essence, then that description would also require existence, leading to an infinite regress, meaning a single existing thing would be an infinite number of existences, which is impossible. Furthermore, the description of the essence by existence either involves something distinct from the essence and existence, or it does not. If it is not distinct, then that distinct thing must have an essence and existence, and its essence cannot be negated, bringing back the original problem.

Therefore, we have established that if an essence cannot be negated or removed, the negative particle cannot be directed toward any concept. If the essence can be negated and removed, then the word {Lā} in {Lā ilāha illā Allāh} can be directed toward this reality, and we would not need to assume the omission and implication that grammarians mention. This is a purely rational argument concerning the issue grammarians discuss.

Regarding {Laqad arsalnā} ("We have certainly sent"), there are two views:

1. Ibn Abbas said it means "We commissioned/appointed" (ba'athnā).
2. Others say the meaning of sending (irsal) is that Allah entrusted him with a message to deliver. In this case, the message implies the appointment, making the appointment secondary, not primary.

This discussion hinges on an Usūl (principles of jurisprudence) question: Is it a condition for sending a Messenger to a people that he must teach them rulings unattainable by their own intellects, or is the purpose merely to confirm what is already known by reason? This latter debate is more suited to the branches of the Mu'tazila and less relevant to our own school's principles.

The verse contains several benefits:

Benefit 1: Allah recounts three things Noah (PBUH) commanded his people:

1. To worship Allah.
2. To affirm that there is no god but Allah. (The first establishes obligation/duty; the second establishes the affirmation of Monotheism).

Then, immediately following this, he said: {Innī akhāfu 'alaykum 'adhāba yawmin 'aẓīm} ("Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a great Day"). This punishment refers either to the Day of Resurrection (the third claim) or the Day of the Flood (in which case he is claiming divine revelation and prophethood).

The summary is that Allah recounts him making these three claims, yet no proof or evidence for any of them is mentioned. If he was commanded to warn them based on mere imitation (taqlīd), this is false, as the Quran is full of condemnation of imitation. If he was commanded to affirm them with proof, that proof is not mentioned here.

Know that Allah mentioned the proofs for Monotheism, Prophethood, and the Resurrection at the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah. This serves as a signal that no Prophet calls anyone to these fundamentals without mentioning evidence and proof. The most that can be said here is that Allah did not recount Noah's proofs in this context because those proofs were already known, making their mention unnecessary here.

Benefit 2: Noah (PBUH) first mentioned {U'budū Allāh} (Worship Allah) and then {Mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh} (You have no god other than Him). The second statement is the cause for the first. If there is no god but Him, then every source of benefit, kindness, grace, and favor they experience comes from Allah. The ultimate bestowal necessitates ultimate reverence. Thus, the worship of Allah is necessitated by the knowledge that there is no god but Him.

A related issue arises: Before knowing whether there is one god or multiple, how can we know which entity is the bestower of the blessings we receive? If we are ignorant of that, we are ignorant of the one who conferred grace upon us, and thus, worshipping Him would not be appropriate. According to this view, knowledge of Monotheism is a prerequisite for knowing the propriety of worship.

Benefit 3: This verse suggests that the Ilāh (God) is the one deserving of worship. His statement, {U'budū Allāh mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh} (Worship Allah; you have no god other than Him), involves affirmation and negation. They must relate to a single concept for the speech to be sound. Thus, the meaning is: "Worship Allah; you have no object of worship other than Him," so that the negation and affirmation align. Then, proof is established that the Ilāh is not merely the Ma'būd (object of worship), otherwise, idols would be gods, and the Ilāh would not be Ilāh eternally, since He was not worshipped eternally. Therefore, the term Ilāh must be understood as the one deserving of worship.

Know that scholars differed on the meaning of {Innī akhāfu 'alaykum} ("I fear for you"): Is it certainty, or fear meaning conjecture/doubt?

1. Certainty: Some said it means firm conviction, as he was certain that punishment would descend upon them, either in this world or the next, if they did not accept the religion.
2. Doubt/Conjecture: Others argued for doubt, supported by several points:
   • He said, "I fear," because he allowed for the possibility that they might believe, just as he allowed for them to persist in disbelief. Given this possibility, he could not be absolutely certain of the punishment descending, necessitating the use of the word "fear."
   • The certainty of punishment for disbelief is known only through revelation. Perhaps Allah did not reveal the precise nature of this matter to him, leaving him suspended, conjecturing whether Allah would punish them for that disbelief or not.
   • Fear might mean caution, as in the angels "fearing their Lord" (Al-Nahl: 50), meaning they guard against sins out of fear of punishment.
   • Even if he was certain of the occurrence of punishment, he might not have known its degree—whether it would be extremely great or moderate. This doubt would relate to the description of the punishment (being "great" or not), not the certainty of its occurrence itself.

Then Allah recounts the response of his people: {Qāla al-mala'u min qawmihi innā lanarāka fī ḍalālin mubīn} ("The chiefs of his people said, 'Indeed, we see you in manifest error.'")

The commentators explain that {Al-Mala'} refers to the elders and leaders who positioned themselves as adversaries to the Prophets. The proof is that {min qawmihi} implies that this group is a part of his people, and that part must possess a quality that warrants this description—namely, that they fill the assembly halls, their awe fills hearts, their sight fills eyes, and attention in gatherings turns toward them. These qualities belong only to leaders, indicating that Al-Mala' means the chiefs and the great ones.

The phrase {innā lanarāka} ("Indeed, we see you") must mean belief or conjecture, not physical sight. {fī ḍalālin mubīn} means in clear error and manifest misguidance. Their intent must be to attribute error to Noah concerning the four issues we established he mentioned: obligation, Monotheism, Prophethood, and the Hereafter.

When they said this, Noah (PBUH) replied: {Qāla yā qawmi laysa bī ḍalālatun} ("He said, 'O my people, there is no error in me.'")

If one asks: Since they said, "Indeed, we see you in manifest error," why did he not reply, "There is no error in me," but instead said, "There is no dalālah in me"?

I reply: Because {laysa bī ḍalālatun} means "There is no type of error in me whatsoever." This phrasing achieves a more comprehensive negation.

After negating the defect they ascribed to him, he described himself with the noblest attributes: being a Messenger to creation from the Lord of the Worlds. He then stated the purpose of the message, which involves two matters:

1. Delivering the message.
2. Offering sincere advice.

He said: {Ublighukum risālāti rabbī wa anṣaḥu lakum} ("I convey to you the messages of my Lord and advise you sincerely.")

Abu 'Amr read {Ublighukum} with a light bā' (Ublighukum), from the verb Ablagha (to cause to reach). The rest read it with a heavy bā' (Uballighukum), from Ballagha (to convey). Al-Wāḥidī noted that both forms appear in the Quran: the light form in {Fa-in tawallaw faqad ablaghtukum} (If you turn away, then I have delivered to you) [Hud: 57], and the heavy form in {Fa-mā ballaghta risālatahu} (Then you have not delivered His message) [Al-Ma'idah: 67].

The difference between conveying the message (tablīgh) and sincere advice (naṣīḥah) is that conveying the message means making them aware of the types of God's obligations, commands, and prohibitions. Sincere advice means encouraging them toward obedience and warning them against disobedience, striving to establish this encouragement and warning in the most eloquent manner.

His statement {risālāti rabbī} ("the messages of my Lord") indicates that Allah entrusted him with many types of messages: the categories of obligations (commands and prohibitions), explanations of the rewards and punishments in the Hereafter, and the limits and deterrents in this world.

Regarding {wa anṣaḥu lakum} ("and I advise you sincerely"): Al-Farrā' said that Arabs rarely say naṣaḥtuka (I advised you); they usually say naṣaḥtu laka, though naṣaḥtuka is also permissible (as cited in the poetry of Al-Nabigha). The essence of sincere advice is directing toward what is beneficial with a pure intention, free from any taint of dislike. The meaning is: I convey Allah's obligations to you, then I guide you toward what is most correct and beneficial, and I invite you to what invited me, loving for you what I love for myself.

Then he said: {Wa a'lamu min Allāhi mā lā ta'lamūn} ("And I know from Allah what you do not know.") This has several interpretations:

1. Know that if you disobey His command, He will punish you with the Flood.
2. Know that He will punish you in the Hereafter with a severe punishment beyond what your minds can conceive.
3. It is possible that the meaning is: "And know from the Monotheism of Allah and the attributes of His Majesty what you do not know." The purpose here would be to prompt them to refer back to him to seek that knowledge.

{Or have you wondered that a reminder has come to you from your Lord through a man from among yourselves, to warn you, so that you may become righteous and perhaps receive mercy?}

{But they denied him, so We saved him and those who were with him in the Ark, and We drowned those who denied Our signs. Indeed, they were a blind people.}