The belief of badaʼ and the confusion of the Shia scholars
The Shia scholars will now have no choice except to acknowledge the superiority of the Sahabah or they will have to resort to the principle:
الضرورة تبيح المحظورات
Necessity permits the prohibited.
and thereafter return to their age-old tenet and say:
We accept that the Qur’an proves what the Ahlus Sunnah claims it does but what reliance can be placed on Allah? (Allah forbid!) Just as (according to our Shia belief, whether you believe it or not) Allah experienced badaʼ in many aspects of din, He experienced badaʼ regarding the status of the Sahabah, the Ahlus Sunnah, and even in protecting the Qur’an. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala first had the intention that is mentioned in the Qur’an but later changed his mind and this is the meaning of badaʼ.
Definitions of badaʼ
First definition
Nizam al din al Jilani, whom the present day Shia might perhaps call a munafiq, writes in his book ‘Ilm al Huda fi Tahqiq al Badaʼ:
يقال بدا له إذا ظهر له رأي مخالف للرأي الأول
One will say he experienced badaʼ when an opinion contrary to his former opinion becomes apparent to him.
Nizamu al din al Jilani writes in this same book that Abu Jafar al Tusi and Sheikh Abu al Fath al Karajaki had the same opinion regarding the meaning of badaʼ because this is what al Tusi has written in his book, ‘Uddah, and al Karajaki in Kanz al Fawa’id.
Second definition
However, what Sharif al Murtada has written in his book, al Dhari’ah, (and the words of al Tabarsi gives off the same stench) contradicts the meaning above because he writes:
معنى قولنا بدا له تعالى أنه ظهر له من الأمر ما لم يكن ظاهراً
The meaning of our statement that Allah experienced badaʼ is that something became apparent to Allah which was not apparent before.
Thereafter Nizam al din adds:
The gist of this is that Allah learns of new things after they occur.
After this, he presents his own findings, which supports the second meaning, that at times Allah may experience badaʼ when giving information of future events. In simple words, sometimes Allah may say what is going to transpire and it does not come to pass.
Third definition
The later Shia came to realise the mess this belief of badaʼ has caused and felt somewhat ashamed at the objections and criticisms raised by the Ahlus Sunnah. Thus, they changed its meaning and said that badaʼ only applies to that knowledge which Allah does not inform anyone of, whereas in that knowledge sent to the Prophets Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala does not lie. If the Shia adhere firmly to this view, then they will receive a warm welcome and applause from the Ahlus Sunnah. In that case, the words of Allah will be absolutely correct and on account of the Shia belief of badaʼ there will no longer be any need to prove our claim from another source besides the Qur’an.
However, Nizam al din al Jilani knew that to overcome the criticism of the Ahlus Sunnah and establish their view, he would have to adhere to the confusing and embarrassing view of badaʼ, and refute the few later Shia scholars by claiming that this only applies to a specific type of knowledge. He reported numerous narrations from Shia literature which utterly refutes the opinion of the later Shia scholars. And why will he not, when he is a research scholar himself? This is why he wrote a special treatise on this subject. He mentions that whatever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala stated was indeed the truth because it will only be considered a lie when it is intentional. So, when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was misinformed, Allah forbid, what fault of it is His that warrants the later Shia scholars to say that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala never lies to His close servants.
Three types of badaʼ
In short from all the narrations that Nizam al din al Jilani quoted to prove his claim, it is proven that there are three types of badaʼ.
Badaʼ fi l-’Ilm:– Allah had knowledge of something but only later the true reality became apparent.
Badaʼ fi l-Iradah:– Allah initially intended to do something but then later realised that this was not the correct course of action.
Badaʼ fi l-Amr:– Allah initially gave a command but then realised that this command was a mistake and then replaced it with a new one that does not have the same deficiency and is more suitable with the need of the hour.
The difference between badaʼ and naskh
One should not confuse badaʼ with naskh (abrogation) because naskh means that a specific ruling has come to an end and the time for another ruling has commenced. An example of this is the month of Ramadan, wherein fasting is compulsory but when the day of ‘Eid arrives then the ruling comes to an end and it is now time to stop fasting. It is not said that there was an error in the first ruling and therefore it was suspended, but rather the period of the ruling has come to an end and now the time for a new ruling has commenced. However, at times the time for the termination of the ruling may be given, such as in the example above, and at times it may not be given, but it will still terminate at its appointed time, for example the Shari’ah of Nabi Isa ’alayh al Salam was to last until the arrival of The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and this was only known to Allah. If any person was aware of this, then he still did not know what the period would be and when would the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam arrive. In essence badaʼ fi l-Amr, which is also called badaʼ fi al Taklif by the Shia, is something entirely different from naskh. In the case of badaʼ it would mean that first Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala ordered the fast of Ramadan and seeing that that there was no problem with it, maintained his instruction, but after sometime saw that it does not serve the need of the hour and therefore changed his order.
The three types of badaʼ each require the other
Once this is understood then listen further to this unworthy one; when badaʼ fi al Taklif occurs then badaʼ fi l-Iradah, also known as badaʼ fi al Takwin, will also necessarily occur. The reason for this is that badaʼ fi l-Iradah is that change in decree which occurs on the discovery of a new requirement. So, if the ruling was changed on account of a new benefit then the intention for the initial ruling has also changed. Similarly, badaʼ fi l-Iradah will necessitate the occurrence of badaʼ fi l-’Ilm, also known as badaʼ fi l-Akhbar. The reason for this is that if the intention changes when a new requirement is ‘learnt’, then it would mean that the knowledge acquired now was not known before and what was known before was ultimately incorrect, which in itself is known as badaʼ fi l-’Ilm.
Therefore, if any Shia believes in the occurrence of badaʼ fi l-Amr and badaʼ fi l-Iradah, but only to save face before the Ahlus Sunnah distances himself from the belief of badaʼ fi l-Akhbar, then too this scheme will not work.
In short, the concept of badaʼ is an accepted concept amongst the Shia and if anyone of them were to reply to this verse, in an effort to save themselves from the argument of the Ahlus Sunnah, by saying:
If you are able to prove your case from the Qur’an, then we accept that this is what the Book of Allah says but what reliance can be placed upon the Qur’an (Allah forbid)? Allah changes his opinion often and (Allah forbid) right, wrong, correct, incorrect, can all be found in His Book. Our Imams on the other hand have knowledge of what happened and what is still to happen, so if the piety and integrity of the Sahabah were to be proven from their word instead then we would definitely accept it.
The consequences of the belief of badaʼ
The forgiveness of the four infallibles becomes doubtful
In this case, it would become incumbent upon us to dispose of the proof of the Shia as well, as all fair-minded people would, because if this is the consequence of badaʼ then the first aspect that would come under question would be the forgiveness of the four ‘infallibles’, Allah forbid, so what guarantee do the Shia now have? Just as the forgiveness promised to the Sahabah has been discarded under the concept of badaʼ, if the same were to have occurred with the Imams then please do tell us what authority the Imams have over Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala? Especially since their taqiyyah and lack of courage (Allah forbid) has made a mockery of the entire din.
The extended absence of the final Imam is a sad plight indeed
In addition, the final Imam has opted to remain hidden, despite his absolute knowledge of his enemies and friends. He must definitely be aware that every year in Iran, thousands of Shia faithful come out in the streets wailing and pleading for his arrival, prepared to sacrifice their lives and wealth. In India, Shi’ism is spreading daily, and every Shia eagerly awaits the arrival of the Imam.
Yet even though his life is in his control and he knows that he will not die before his appointed time (which is also known to him), he chooses to remain hidden. It is uncertain what bravery and courage this is; such that even though his devotees increase by the day, he goes further and further into confinement, refusing to come forth. Even if there was something to fear, what of it; the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had a mere three hundred and thirteen men around him and he waged jihad and then too, according to the Shia, majority of them were munafiqin, and those who were not munafiqin, were not as sincere and devoted as the Imamiyyah are to their final Imam. Our astonishment will continue but still the occultation of the final Imam will not end, despite the peace, support, and power he has at his hands. This can only mean that the Imams having knowledge of the past, present and future is false, or the love which the Shia profess is false. We know for a fact that under the pretence of love, the Shia have ascribed numerous weaknesses to their Imams, a few of which will become apparent to the readers in this treatise.
Perhaps Allah experienced badaʼ when appointing the Imams
In essence, the final Imam refuses to come forth from his cave in Surra min Raʼa, despite the insistence and pleas of his supporters and he refuses to do anything about the deviation and plight of the ummah. What greater deviation can there be than the din of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam being replaced by the “din of Abu Bakr”, the Book of Allah being replaced by the “Pages of ‘Uthman”, and the twelve Imams being replaced by the likes of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi’i, etc. (as the Shia assert); that one should continue waiting. The other Imams were excused on account of them not having any supporters or assistance but what excuse does the twelfth Imam have? The only possible answer to all of this, if we were to accept the Shia concept of badaʼ; is that Allah made a mistake (Allah forbid) in appointing the Imams whereas he should have appointed Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum as the Imams, who would have lit the lamps of guidance and provided peace to all this chaos. Thus, the Imamiyyah have no other explanation for this delay but the above (that badaʼ has taken place). If on the other hand, they were to say that it is not incumbent upon Allah to do as is required by man then they could say:
لَا يَسْئَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْئَلُوْنَ
He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned. [1]
The twelfth Imam has been deposed by Allah because of badaʼ
Thus, it would not be strange that amongst the badaʼ that occurred, badaʼ also was experienced regarding the twelfth Imam and he has been deposed. This would explain why the absence of the Imam has passed the calculated date of his arrival. This would mean that the belief (of the Shia) that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, etc. will be resurrected in the last days of this world is not incorrect and since the twelfth Imam has been deposed, they will be resurrected to take his place. Thus, the Shia were mistaken in believing that they will be resurrected to be punished. Nevertheless, this discussion must have been displeasing to the Shia.
Refutation of badaʼ from the Qur’an
Therefore, for the sake of the Shia, I will refrain from this and reply that even if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala could err (as the Shia suggest), he did not err with the Prophets. We know that the Shia also do not believe that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala errs when relaying information of past events as this would be no less than a blatant lie. Once this is understood, I wish to add that in Surah Taha, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala relates the incidents of Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam, which occurred long before the era of The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and mentions the reply Nabi Musa ’alayh al Salam gave to Firoun:
لَا یَضِلُّ رَبِّیْ وَ لَا یَنْسَی
My Rabb does not err, nor does He forget.[2]
Ponder over this verse, what is Allah saying? We all know Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam, even the Shia will not say that he used to err. The Shia have reserved this fault solely for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala as then it would necessitate that an infallible may err. In this case, the very criticism they make against the Ahlus Sunnah, that the Khalifas and Imams (of the Ahlus Sunnah) were not ma’sum (infallible) whereas an imam or khalifah must be infallible so that it can be possible to differentiate between truth and falsehood, will in actual fact apply to them as well.
The Shia principle dictates that Allah may err but not the infallible Imams
The principles of the Shia inform us that it is possible for Allah to err but an infallible cannot. Thus, the statement of Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam, who was infallible according to consensus of both factions:
لَا یَضِلُّ رَبِّیْ وَ لَا یَنْسَي
My Rabb does not err, nor does He forget.
has no possibility of error. Furthermore, this incident is of the past and not anything still to transpire, which could fall in the category of badaʼ fi l-Akhbar. What then is the meaning of “My Rabb does not err nor does He forget”? (Allah forbid) Did some shortcoming befall the memory and senses of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in the era of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were most definitely awe-inspiring personalities, but to the extent that they could strike awe into Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala? We seek Allah’s refuge from such blasphemy, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is far greater and above such faults. In their attempts to mislead the Ahlus Sunnah they have also cast the honour of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala behind their backs. (The Shia continue to assert that) When Fadak was taken, it was Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu who took it, when the pen and paper was not brought, it was ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu who did not bring it; and they absolved themselves from them, so now did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, who was aware of all of this, fail to assist those who were oppressed, even though assisting the oppressed is the path of truth? May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala blacken the faces of these uncouth people. In essence, the Qur’an uproots any possibility of badaʼ ever occurring.
The supplication of Jafar al Sadiq against those who believe in badaʼ
If the Shia do not have the slightest reliance in Allah and insist, considering it possible that Allah may have erred in relaying the incidents of the past, that we will not refute the belief of badaʼ on the testimony of the Qur’an until and unless al Kulayni reports a narration in this regard. Therefore, we report the narrations of al Kulayni:
عى منصور بن حازم عن ابى عبد الله قال منصور سالته هل يكون شىء لم يكن فى علم الله قال لا من قال هذا فاخزاه الله قلت ارئيت ما كان و ما هو كائن الى يوم القيامة ليس فى علم الله قال بلى قبل ان يخلق الخلق
Mansur ibn Hazim narrates: “I asked Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah whether there is anything that is not in the knowledge of Allah?” He replied: “No! May Allah disgrace whoever says (and believes) that.” I then asked him: “Do you believe that everything that has happened and what is still to happen until the Day of Qiyamah is not in the knowledge of Allah?” He replied: “No! (He knew everything) Even before he created it.”
Two points are learnt from this narration:
Badaʼ is an incorrect belief, because it has become clear from the problems that arise from this belief explained previously that it is impossible for Allah to acquire new knowledge (which was previously unknown to Him).
Jafar Sadiq rahimahu Llah supplicated against those who adhere to the belief of badaʼ.
Thus, we too congratulate the Shia. All these problems arose on account of them not understanding the Book of Allah and what fault of theirs is it? They do not even understand their own reports. If they had any understanding at all then they would have understood their books first, after all the Qur’an is the Book of the Ahlus Sunnah.
After understanding the truth, it is compulsory to accept
It is now incumbent to explain the motive of this erroneous belief so that further contentment may be gained and the readers will not be left in doubt and say: “Why should we abandon the belief of badaʼ simply on what is written in this treatise, after all our Shia ‘Ulama’ must have believed in this for a reason. So, until we discuss this with them, we will not be content.” This excuse is an epitome of the saying:
The excuse for the sin is worse than the sin itself
When the truth has become clear then what need is there for him to wait on another. If one person watches the sun set with his naked eye and another sits in his home, staring at his watch waiting for the time of sunset; the one looking at the sun may be the most ignorant and the one sitting at home the greatest scholar, but the one gazing at the sun will not wait for confirmation from the one sitting at home.
Similarly, when it has become clear, in light of the Qur’an and Shia narration as well, that the belief of badaʼ is incorrect then why delay in accepting the truth. In this instance the most appropriate course of action would be that just as the one who gazes at the sun accepts that it has set without second thought, despite his ignorance, so too should those who have understood the error of badaʼ absolve themselves from it without second thought and say that those who believed in it, even though the most learned, were after all men and erred as all men do. They did not understand the verse of the Qur’an:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ کَانَ عَلِیْمًا حَکِیْمًا
Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.[3]
nor did they understand the verse:
لَا یَضِلُّ رَبِّیْ وَ لَا یَنْسَی
My Rabb does not err, nor does He forget.
And they paid no attention to the narration of al Kulayni. In fact, the most respectful thing to do would be to say that these people (who believed in badaʼ) did not memorise the Qur’an, since it is the duty of the Ahlus Sunnah to do so.
In essence, the excuse that the proofs of the Shia need to be known first (before accepting the truth), after having understood the words of the Qur’an, which have no alternate interpretation and the hadith mentioned above, is not worthy of ear to those of intellect.
The foundation of the whimsical belief of badaʼ
However, ‘Ammar ‘Ali audaciously claimed that the cause of this erroneous belief amongst the Shia is verses like:
الَّذِیْ خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَ الْحَیٰوةَ لِیَبْلُوَكُمْ اَیُّكُمْ اَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا
[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed.[4]
On account of this verse and others similar to it, the Shia ‘Ulama’ believed that a test takes place where the end result is not known. He then went further and said that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says in another verse:
یَمْحُوا اللّٰهُ مَا یَشَآءُ وَیُثْبِتُ
Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.[5]
When they studied this verse with the verse mentioned previously, the Shia ‘Ulama’ were convinced that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was unaware of the true reality of matters and instead wherever He has expressed an opinion at first and later discovered it to be different, He changed His opinion and this is the meaning of badaʼ. In short, this is the manner in which the belief of badaʼ found its way into Shia theology. The error which was first committed on account of lack of understanding was just reinforced further.
The harm of no teacher
Why should they not misunderstand such verses? Those without a teacher (and attempt to traverse the path of learning on their own) always falter. If they were to have approached the experts in the field of studying the Qur’an, then they would not have committed such an error. However, this sect is so unfortunate that they are the severe enemies of those who understand the Qur’an. The Sahabah, who were the students of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, were the ones who understood the Qur’an; so those who benefited from the Sahabah, will they understand the Qur’an or the Shia?
The objective of testing man is not to gain new knowledge
If one were to conclude from the verse above that Allah does not have knowledge of anything before creating it, which the Shia believe, then Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has said in numerous places in the Qur’an:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُوْنَ بَصِیْرٌ
Indeed, Allah sees whatever you are doing.[6]
Thus, even if we were to accept that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not have knowledge of one’s actions before creating him, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala makes it clear that he has complete knowledge of all that one does, so what further thought is required on this? Allah is not dependent upon the light of the sun, He does not require light to see, the front and back are both equal to Him because He states:
اَلَاۤ اِنَّه بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ مُّحِیْطٌ
Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.[7]
In essence, once things have come into existence then there is no doubt that Allah sees them and then there is no possibility of Allah ever forgetting as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has said in Surah Taha,
لَا یَضِلُّ رَبِّیْ وَ لَا یَنْسَی
My Rabb does not err nor does he forget.
So now what need is there to appoint the al Kiram al Katibin (angels who record the deeds of man), and that the reckoning on the Day of Qiyamah only take place after man reads their Book of Deeds? Whatever reply the Shia will give to this, will be our reply as well.
If their answer is that Allah knows every single thing; big or small, apparent or hidden, but Allah’s immense wisdom and grandeur dictates that system operate then we will accept it and this is our response as well. If the Shia reply that taking reckoning from the Book of Deeds and the testimony of man’s hands and feet is to grant realisation to man, then we also say that this test from Allah is to grant realisation to man.
If anyone doubts that the hands and feet of man will testify against him or that reckoning will be taken and the Deeds will be weighed, then the following verses of the Noble Qur’an are present:
یَّوْمَ تَشْهَدُ عَلَیْهِمْ اَلْسِنَتُهُمْ وَ اَیْدِیْهِمْ وَ اَرْجُلُهُمْ بِمَا کَانُوْا یَعْمَلُوْنَ
On a Day when their tongues, their hands and their feet will bear witness against them as to what they used to do.[8]
The gist of which is that they will only be punished after their hands and feet testify against them. The following verse states the same:
وَقَالُوْا لِجُلُوْدِهِمْ لِمَ شَهِدْتُّمْ عَلَیْنَاۤ قَالُوْۤا اَنْطَقَنَا اللّٰهُ الَّذِیْۤ اَنْطَقَ كُلَّ شَیْءٍ
And they will say to their skins, “Why have you testified against us?” They will say, “We were made to speak by Allah, who has made everything speak”[9]
In addition, there are numerous other verses which prove that the deeds of man will be weighed on the Day of Qiyamah:
وَالْوَزْنُ یَوْمَئِذِ الْحَقُّ
And the weighing [of deeds] that Day will be the truth.[10]
وَ نَضَعُ الْمَوَازِیْنَ الْقِسْطَ لِیَوْمِ الْقِیٰمَةِ
And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection.[11]
فَاَمَّا مَنْ ثَقُلَتْ مَوَازِیْنُهۙ فَهُوَ فِیْ عِیْشَةٍ رَّاضِیَةٍ
Then as for one whose scales are heavy [with good deeds], He will be in a pleasant life.[12]
وَ اِنْ تُبْدُوْا مَا فِیْۤ اَنْفُسِكُمْ اَوْ تُخْفُوْهُ یُحَاسِبْكُمْ بِهِ اللّٰهُ
Whether you show what is within yourselves or conceal it, Allah will bring you to account for it.[13]
وَمَنْ یَّكْفُرْ بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰهِ فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ سَرِیْعُ الْحِسَابِ
And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allah, then indeed, Allah is swift in [taking] account.[14]
In short, these aspects cannot be denied. The Ithna ‘Ashariyyah and the Ahlus Sunnah are both in agreement on this.
Whatever the Shia will reply, we will not shy away from it. If they say that this will be done to merely complete the proof on man and if this were not the case, then there would be no need for it then we too agree with it.
An example from the Qur’an of completing proof against man
If one wishes to understand this by way of an example then understand this example, which even ‘Ammar ‘Ali accepts; the Shia must remember Surah al Baqarah? If they do not, then they must remember a portion of it at least. In the first chapter, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mentions the incident when He intended to appoint Nabi Adam ’alayh al Salam as his deputy on earth and the angels asked how could man be appointed as deputies when they will spread corruption and murder on earth, whilst they (the angels) are more deserving of such a position. They were the ones who glorified Allah, praised Allah but Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala replied to them:
Indeed, I know that which you do not know.
However, to complete His proof on the angels, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala taught Nabi Adam ’alayh al Salam the names of a few items and then asked the angels to inform Him thereof: “If you are truthful in your claim then answer my question.” Since the angels had no knowledge of this, they replied:
سُبْحٰنَكَ لَا عِلْمَ لَنَاۤ اِلَّا مَا عَلَّمْتَنَاؕ اِنّكَ اَنْتَ الْعَلِیْمُ الْحَکِیْمُ
Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise.[15]
When they could not answer, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala ordered Nabi Adam ’alayh al Salam to mention the name of those things and when he did, Allah said to the angels:
قَالَ اَلَمْ اَقُلْ لَّكُمْ اِنِّیْۤ اَعْلَمُ غَیْبَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالْاَرْضِۙ وَاَعْلَمُ مَا تُبْدُوْنَ وَمَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْتُمُوْنَ
“Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed.”?[16]
We ask the Shia scholars, in the name of Allah, please ponder over this incident. Did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala test the angels so that He could learn the reality or to provide clear proof to the angels? When Allah had already informed Nabi Adam ’alayh al Salam of the answer and not informed the angels then even the most dim-witted person will not doubt Allah having knowledge of who is more deserving of being His deputy. Thus, just as this test was only to complete the proof against the angels and do away with their objections, so too is the test which Allah takes from man so that they will have no proof or argument against Allah.
Nubuwwah and establishing the laws of Shari’ah is also to present a clear proof to man
This is also the reason for establishing the laws of Shari’ah and the wisdom behind sending the Prophets because when the angels do not disobey Allah and are always obedient, as indicated by the verse:
لَّا یَعْصُوْنَ اللّٰهَ مَاۤ اَمَرَهُمْ وَ یَفْعَلُوْنَ مَا یُؤْمَرُوْنَ
They do not disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded. [17]
It is only man who objects to the decrees of Allah as man is after all human and amidst mention of the faults of man, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said:
وَکَانَ الْاِنْسَانُ اَكْثَرَ شَیْءٍ جَدَلًا
But man has ever been, most of anything, [prone to] dispute.[18]
Thus, if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala were to enter the Prophets and the true believers into Jannat based upon His infinite knowledge, and Firoun, Abu Jahl and the disbelievers into Jahannam; would Firoun and Abu Jahl remain silent? No! They would raise objection after objection, continuously claiming that it is their right to enter Jannat. This is why the All-Mighty Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has mentioned repeatedly in the Qur’an the reason for this chain of guidance. We will mention one of these verses for the contentment of the readers:
وَ اتَّبِعُوْۤا اَحْسَنَ مَاۤ اُنْزِلَ اِلَیْكُمْ مِّنْ رَّبِّكُمْ مِّنْ قَبْلِ اَنْ یَّاْتِیَكُمُ الْعَذَابُ بَغْتَةً وَّ اَنْتُمْ لَا تَشْعُرُوْنَ اَنْ تَقُوْلَ نَفْسٌ یّٰحَسْرَتٰی علٰی مَا فَرَّطْتُّ فِیْ جَنْبِ اللّٰهِ وَ اِنْ كُنْتُ لَمِنَ السّٰخِرِیْنَ اَوْ تَقُوْلَ لَوْ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ هَدٰىنِیْ لَكُنْتُ مِنَ الْمُتَّقِيْنَ اَوْ تَقُوْلَ حِیْنَ تَرَی الْعَذَابَ لَوْ اَنَّ لِیْ کَرّةً فَاَكُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُحْسِنِیْنَ بَلٰی قَدْ جَآءَتْكَ اٰیٰتِیْ فَکَذَّبْتَ بِهَا وَ اسْتَكْبَرْتَ وَكُنْتَ مِنَ الْکٰفِرِیْنَ
And follow the best of what was revealed to you from your Lord [i.e., the Qur’an] before the punishment comes upon you suddenly while you do not perceive, lest a soul should say, “Oh, [how great is] my regret over what I neglected in regard to Allah and that I was among the mockers.” Or [lest] it say, “If only Allah had guided me, I would have been among the righteous.” Or [lest] it say when it sees the punishment, “If only I had another turn1 so I could be among the doers of good.” But yes, there had come to you My verses, but you denied them and were arrogant, and you were among the disbelievers. [19]
This was the translation of the verse. What was the reason for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala saying: “Follow the best, which your Rabb has revealed to you”? The only possible reason was that there was the possibility of a person saying that if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had guided him then he would most definitely have been from amongst the pious. Such a complaint would only be possible if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had decided (without testing) who is destined for Jannat and who is destined for Jahannam. In this instance, the one who is cast into Jahannam will claim that he has not gotten what he deserved and complain as to why he was not tested first, as perhaps he would have been amongst the pious and Allah-fearing. Yet Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has said:
وَكُنْتَ مِنَ الْکٰفِرِیْنَ
You were among the disbelievers.
And Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not say:
كَفَرْتَ
You disbelieved.
Those who understand the Arabic language and its usage, know full-well that if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had said: “You disbelieved” then it would mean that you disbelieved when our verses came to you and that is when you became a kafir and not before the verses were revealed. On the contrary, when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said: “You were among the disbelievers”, then it means from before time already you were a kafir and accordingly you still disbelieved when our signs came to you.
Similarly, in Surah al A’raf:
اَنْ تَقُوْلُوْا یَوْمَ الْقِیٰمَةِ اِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هٰذَا غٰفِلِیْنَ
Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed, we were of this unaware.”[20]
In other words, the pledge which was taken when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala asked:
اَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ
Am I not your Lord?
was so that at the time of punishment you should not give the excuse that you did not know. In reality, since man is as described previously (it is in his nature to argue), Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala instituted this test of a’amal (deeds) so that they will have no argument to present nor will they be able to accuse Allah of injustice. This is why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said:
لِیَبْلُوَكُمْ اَیُّكُمْ اَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا
To test you [as to] which of you is best in deed
وَ لَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتّٰی نَعْلَمَ الْمُجٰهِدِیْنَ مِنْكُمْ وَ الصّٰبِرِیْنَ وَ نَبْلُوَاْ اَخْبَارَكُمْ
And We will surely test you until We make evident those who strive among you [for the cause of Allah] and the patient, and We will test your affairs. [21]
The summary of all of this is that if you have any misconceptions against us and think that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala does not know who is good or who is bad, which is the reason why he tests man, then it would mean that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala thought someone to be bad and as a result sent him to Jahannam, which is unjust. On the other hand, Allah knew already who is good and who is not, and tested us to make known to us who is good and who is bad, who is steadfast and who strives in the path of Allah. In summary, the purpose of this test is to present a clear proof to man and not so that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala can gain knowledge.
The meaning of “Test your affairs”
In the second verse, “Test your affairs” is mentioned, which also calls out loudly that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was not unaware of the conditions of man and knew the conditions of the pious and evil from before time because in this case the meaning of this verse will be: the reality of your actions which is known to us and which you doubt, we will examine that as well. This makes it clear that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala already had knowledge of everything beforehand and it is not as the Imamiyyah claim that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala only learns of the nature of a thing after creating it, the reference of Nizam al din al Jilani has already been mentioned above, but rather this entire system has been put into place to present a clear proof to man, just as with the angels. The reality is that just as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew from before that Nabi Adam ’alayh al Salam is more worthy of caliphate and the angels do not possess the same qualities, so too was Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala aware from before time of who is deserving of Jannat and who is deserving of Jahannam. Just as we know that wood is meant for burning and bread is meant for eating, if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew who is meant for Jahannam and who is meant for Jannat, there is no injustice at all. However, man is not the same as the angels, their nature is more defiant; this is why this entire system and examination has been put into place.
By the grace of Allah, the misconception which the Shia scholars have fallen into, on account of the verse cited above, has been lifted and the correct meaning of the verse has become known. One should not be hasty and rush to the first interpretation that comes to mind when reciting a verse but it needs to be understood in light of other verses of the Qur’an. If this is the Shia way of interpretation, then it is quite possible that tomorrow they will say regarding the following verses:
ونَادى أَصْحَابَ الْجَنَّةِ
The residents of Jannat called out.
وَنَادى أَصْحَابَ الْأَعْرَافِ
Those residing on A’raf called out.
وَنَادى أَصْحَابَ النَّارِ
The dwellers of the fire called out.
And other verses of this nature, that they refer to incidents which have already transpired because putting aside the verses and ahadith which indicate that Qiyamah is still going to take place, this verse informs us that it has already taken place because the past tense verb has been used in it. Little do they know that when something is still going to happen but its occurrence is certain then in common language it is said that it had happened. When judgement is passed for execution then people say he is dead (even though he is still going to be executed).
Even if the meaning of these verses might not appear to be the same as the other verses, even the most novice Arabic student will conclude that the people of Jannat could not have called upon the people of Jahannam as no one has entered Jannat or Jahannam as yet. Instead, these events are still going to transpire on the Day of Qiyamah. The preceding and following verses also attest to the same and the Imamiyyah also say the same. Therefore, just as these words, due to other evidence, has an alternate meaning other than the apparent (i.e. it has not occurred and is still going to transpire) so too there is no harm in taking the verse: “We shall certainly test you”, which indicates the future tense, on account of those verses which prove the infinite knowledge of Allah of everything before its creation, to refer to the past.
If you seek to verify the alternate meaning, then listen well. Just as when something that is still going to transpire is certain and its occurrence incumbent, it may be referred to in the past tense, so too can something which has occurred, but its reality, occurrence and existence to an extent hidden, be referred to in the future tense on account of the reality of its occurrence and non-occurrence only becoming known later. If an example is required then listen closely, when a person is severely ill and then is suddenly cured, it is obvious that his strength will not return as soon as he is cured but he will gain his strength slowly. If some of his creditors were to now come and ask their right from him, then the patient, if he has no wealth, will say that he will pay the debt as soon as he is better, even though he has been informed that he is cured of his illness.
Or assume that the sick person was not made aware that he has been cured; many a time a doctor can tell by the signs that he has been cured, yet he will tell the patient that he may pay him after he is cured. Thus, because the signs of the patient being cured have still not become apparent, i.e. he has not gained his strength, both the patient and the doctor use the future tense when referring to the cure of the illness; as if he has not been cured.
In the same way, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in His eternal knowledge knew full-well that the Sahabah were mujahidin and would be patient in adversity and the enemies of the Sahabah would be evil doers. The Sahabah on account of the fortune destined for them from before and their noble demeanour were worthy of being entrusted with a noble work and bestowed with qualities of perfection. The enemies of the Sahabah on the other hand because of the misfortune destined for them from before and their depraved character, were capable of only carrying out shameful deeds, on account of which their hearts will be blackened. However, this could not become evident, despite Allah’s knowledge of it, until the laws of Shari’ah were established and the deeds they were meant to perform were not carried out by their own hands yet you will find many unfortunate individuals still doubting this knowledge of Allah, just as the ill doubt the word of the doctor (that he has been cured) because of his usage of the future tense.
A common example of eternal fortune and eternal misfortune
As for the fortune and misfortune of man being decreed from eternity and being an inherent quality and not something that is attained or temporary, this is an intricate matter but to those of understanding this difference is the same as the difference between the intelligent and the foolish, the compassionate and the harsh, the generous and the miserly, the brave and the cowardly, the knowledgeable and the ignorant. Just as a wise king will take scholarly duties from the knowledgeable and not from the ignorant, so too does Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala take from man according to his capability.
All times (i.e. past, present and future) exist collectively
The reality is that time, from eternity until the infinite, exists as one; the past has not gone and the future is not absent. The reason for this is that if a person says: “Zaid is standing” then by listening to this statement everyone understands that Zaid exists and that this is his condition (i.e. he is standing). It is obvious that anything can only be in a particular state if it first exists. Once this has been understood then I wish to add that all those occurrences meant to happen on the Day of Qiyamah, regarding which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says, and all know that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is Truthful:
اِنَّ السَّاعَةَ اٰتِیَةٌ
Indeed, the Hour is coming.[22]
Or as is said in another verse:
اِنَّ زَلْزَلَةَ السَّاعَةِ شَیْءٌ عَظِیْمٌ
Indeed, the convulsion of the [final] Hour is a terrible thing.[23]
In accordance with the rule mentioned above, we also understand that Qiyamah exists and its condition is such that it is coming towards us and it is a grave matter. We believe in it without need for repetition nor do we make excuses or arguments (against it). If some mullah were to argue that there are many things whose qualities are mentioned but do not exist, for example: if a person were to say that a certain person has died or a certain thing does not exist (then even though the quality has been mentioned, they still do not exist), then, firstly, such an objection does not warrant a reply. However, if we were to reply then it should be understood that this statement is not describing a quality but rather stating the lack of any quality. On the contrary, when a person states that a certain person is standing or a certain thing is coming; it leaves no doubt as to its existence and establishes that it is going to occur. Therefore, when these qualities prove the existence of a thing, why are we second guessing the existence of Qiyamah? Once this has been established, I wish to add further that just as Qiyamah has been proven to be coming and on account of this quality, its existence also established; matters of the past are still passing. In addition, when Qiyamah, etc. has been described to be already in motion then it means then one day it will reach us and then pass. Thus, saying that a certain person has left, which establishes his existence, is no different from saying that a certain person is coming. In this manner both angles, the future and the past, are the same and exist together.
All tenses are the same to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala
As a result of the statement of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:
اَلَاۤ اِنَّه بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ مُّحِیْطٌ
Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.[24]
every tense (past, present and future) is encompassed by Allah. Thus, whichever meaning one might take for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala encompassing everything, at the least this much is incumbent; that the knowledge of Allah encompasses everything. The following verse testifies to this precise meaning:
اَنَّ اللّٰهَ قَدْ اَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ عِلْمًا
Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge.[25]
In this case, all the things that exist in the past and in future are the same to Allah, despite the difference that might exist between them. The future exists but when the future passes then it becomes of the past.
Understand Allah’s knowledge of the future and past from the following example: A person stands in the middle of a river, whatever is in the water on all four sides is in his view and seen as one, even though some of it is still coming towards him and some has already flowed past.
The past and future is all the present to Allah
In essence, all aspects of time and whatever happens, all of it is within the sight of Allah and seen by Him as one and when this is the case then all time becomes the present. However, in relation to each other they precede and follow, and the difference between past, present and future is between each other. Just as a person who stands in one place, in relation to him what lies before him will be called the front and what lies behind him will be called the back, whatever occurs in a specific time, it will be called the past when compared to the following hour, the future when compared to the hour before it and the present when the precise hour it occurred in is considered. Thus, all of these times are the same before Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in existence, but in relation to each other they are divided into past, present and future.
The usage of past, present and future tenses in the Qur’an
At times Allah speaks in accordance to how matters appear to Him (without any difference in time) and at times He speaks taking into account the relation it has with time. In the first instance (when Allah speaks in accordance to how matters appear to him), He will always use the past or the present tense, whereas in the second case if the matter happened in the past, He uses the past tense, if it is the present, He uses the present tense and if it still to happen then the future tense is used.
The reason Allah also uses the past tense and not only the present tense, even though all tenses are the same to Him, is because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala wishes to either inform one of the occurrence of a matter or the continuation of it. Thus, the matter which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala informs one of; if it is to inform of its continuation, then on account of it continuing and the manner in which Allah sees things, it will always be the present. Whereas if it is to inform one of the occurrence of a matter then the time when it is given will not remain the present but become the past (so the past tense is used), since occurrences are momentary not perpetual. Accordingly, if one is being informed of something that is still going to happen, it should be in the future tense. Thus, information of an occurrence cannot be in the present tense, it will either be in the past tense or the future tense. If anyone is informed of the occurrence of a matter before it occurs then he will inform others of it in the future tense and after it occurs and he witnesses it, he will inform others in the past tense. He will only be able to use the present tense if the occurrence continues. However, everything in the knowledge of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is the present, so wherever he informs others of something that is still going to occur in the past tense, such as:
The residents of Jannat called out.
He does so because everything is the present to Him (and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has already seen what is going to happen) and wherever He makes mention of matters which already occurred in the future tense, such as:
Until We ascertain those of you who strive.
He does so because that event in relation to what is before it, is the future (and is not in accordance with how it appears to Him).
The universe is not eternal because it does not continue
May the level-headed gauge this discussion fairly and then admit that this unworthy one, even though insignificant, speaks the truth. Let it not be that on account of your misunderstanding, you accuse the author of believing the universe to be eternal. It is for this reason that I wish to state beforehand that for anything to be eternal, it is necessary that it must exist continuously, i.e. it must exist long before time and long after time. It must not be proven to exist in a fixed period as then it will be temporary and not eternal.
Two ways of attaining knowledge: Through means and without means
If someone finds this discussion to be too confusing and finds it difficult to understand its meaning then there is a second method by which we are able to conclude that Allah’s knowledge is eternal and encompasses everything, which will also explain the meaning of the verses quoted in the preceding pages.
When we explore the knowledge we have, we learn that knowledge of things is acquired in two ways:
Without means
With means, which can be either lazim (incumbent) or malzum (necessitated).
A person can learn whether the sun has risen or if there is sunshine without means, by seeing it with his own eyes, or learn of it with means, that is when seeing the sunshine, he learns that the sun has risen or when he sees the sun, he knows there is sunshine. For example, if a person is sitting in his home where he cannot see the sun but sees the sunshine then by means of the sunshine, he learns that the sun has risen. This knowledge of the sun rising he has gained with means which is lazim (incumbent). However, if he sees the sun directly while sitting in the courtyard of his home and determines that there is sunshine then this knowledge (of the sunshine) he has gained with means that is malzum (necessitated). In a similar manner, consider fire and smoke. At times knowledge of this is learnt without means, when looking at the fire or smoke with the naked eye, and at times with means, when he sees smoke from behind the wall and knows that there is a fire or sees the fire of a lamp from afar and knows that there must be smoke.
Generally, knowledge is learnt with means and without means
Generally, when something is learnt without means it necessitates learning it with means as well, which occurs simultaneously with no precedence given to either. For example, a person sees a fire up close and obviously sees its smoke as well, so in this case knowledge of the fire has been learnt from two ways; without means — because he saw it with his naked eye, and with means — because seeing the smoke informs him there is a fire. Therefore, even though a person sees the fire, he still determines from the smoke that it is a fire. What shortcoming has befallen the smoke on account of him seeing the fire that it will no longer indicate that a fire is burning?
Sometimes knowledge acquired with means is concealed because of the knowledge acquired without means
If one were to ponder deeply then he would conclude that the knowledge acquired with means is sometimes concealed by the knowledge acquired without means to such an extent that he does not even perceive it. When he saw the fire and saw the smoke, the knowledge of the fire which he learnt by seeing it directly conceals the knowledge of the fire he gained by seeing the smoke. This is an example of how in the day the stars still shine but they are eclipsed by the radiant rays of the sun, such that their presence is not even perceived.
Sometimes knowledge of two things is acquired without means or one with means and the other without means
Once this has been thoroughly understood that one thing may be learnt without means and with means at the same time, then also keep in mind that two things can also be learnt without means. For example, one sees the fire and the smoke at the same time. In a similar manner, when it is clear that a thing might be known directly or by means of something and sometimes it is known by both means, we also need to know that two things can become known simultaneously without means, for example; one sees fire and smoke at the same time. In a similar fashion, one can be learnt without means and the other with means, both at the same time, for example learning of the fire without means (by seeing it) and of the smoke with means (of the fire) or learning of the smoke without means (by seeing it) and of the fire with means (of the smoke). Knowledge of the fire is gained instantaneously such that it is never said that I learnt of this at this time and of the other at another time.
There is no precedence in the Knowledge which Allah gains without means and with means
Rationally one might understand there to be a sequence of one occurring before the other, knowledge acquired without means occurring before that with means. In other words, a person will regard the knowledge of the latter to be dependent upon the knowledge of the first. Such as when a person shakes something in his hand, even though they move simultaneously, he will say that the hand moves first then what is in his hand. Therefore, in this instance, even though the knowledge of both occurs simultaneously, the knowledge attained without means is said to precede that which occurs with means and just as a person can say that he shook his hand in order to shake what was in his hand, so too it can be said that he looked at the sunshine to gain knowledge of the sun.
The knowledge of Allah gained without means is mentioned in the past and present tense in the Qur’an and that gained with means is mentioned in the future tense
After having understood this introductory lesson, I wish to state that mentioning:
وَ لَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتّٰی نَعْلَمَ الْمُجٰهِدِیْنَ مِنْكُمْ وَ الصّٰبِرِیْنَ وَ نَبْلُوَاْ اَخْبَارَكُمْ
And We will surely test you until We make evident those who strive among you [for the cause of Allah] and the patient, and We will test your affairs. [26]
in the future tense will not affect the claim that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala’s knowledge is eternal in the least because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has knowledge of everything from two means, without means and with means simultaneously. The reason being that everything has a sign and just as the lazim (incumbent) and malzum (necessitated) can be learnt without means, so too can they be learnt by means of each other. In addition, both of these have existed with each other since eternity, even though that learnt with means becomes concealed by that learnt without means. In this manner as well, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has knowledge of everything with means at the same time that he has knowledge of it without means from eternity, but since that which is learnt without means is given precedence over that which is learnt with means (knowledge acquired without means regarded to have come first and knowledge with means second), wherever the knowledge of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is mentioned in the future tense, it refers to the knowledge He has with means, as there is no difference in time to Him, and wherever He has used the past or present tense it refers to the knowledge He has without means.
Since the knowledge of man is all with means, they were addressed in the future tense
Since Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was addressing man in the Qur’an, and man — in fact all creatures of intellect — attain their knowledge with means and not without, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala addressed them in the future tense. The salient qualities of the soul or of man such as generosity, bravery, compassion, etc. if they exist, they exist within in the heart and are not perceived by the eye or any of the five senses. If the existence of these qualities is learnt, then it is learnt by its effects. Generosity is learnt by giving, which is the action of the hand, bravery is learnt by his courage in battle, which is the action of the hands and legs, compassion is learnt from the kind words one speaks, which is the action of the tongue, and in a similar manner the presence of the soul is determined by movement, which are all actions of the body.
If Allah were to have spoken through His knowledge without means, then it would not serve as proof against them
Wherever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has used the future tense then it is in matters which cannot be learnt by man without means (thus the future tense was used to indicate that they will learn of this in the future). If Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala were to have spoken to man in relation to His knowledge without means, then it would not serve as proof against man. This is why wherever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala referred to a matter that would serve as a proof against man, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala used the future tense in relation to the knowledge they would learn with means. Wherever this was not the purpose, Allah spoke in relation to His knowledge without means, using the present or past tense. However, since man cannot gain knowledge of these matters without means and before it occurs, it is impossible for them to know of it, they gauged the knowledge of Allah in relation to their own and understood Allah’s usage of the future tense to mean that this knowledge is still to be gained (by Allah). Thus, they are left confused, since Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
اَنَّ اللّٰهَ قَدْ اَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ عِلْمًا
Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge.[27]
which indicates that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has complete knowledge of everything since eternity, while other verses indicate that knowledge of certain things are gained later such as:
وَ لَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتّٰی نَعْلَمَ الْمُجٰهِدِیْنَ مِنْكُمْ وَ الصّٰبِرِیْنَ وَ نَبْلُوَاْ اَخْبَارَكُمْ
And We will surely test you until We make evident those who strive among you [for the cause of Allah] and the patient, and We will test your affairs.[28]
However, those of understanding and those acquainted with the point mentioned above know that the knowledge referred to in both instances is the same to Allah.
The concepts of mahw (erasing) and ithbat (confirmation) in the two Divine records
It would only be appropriate at this juncture, to mention the explanation of the verse:
یَمْحُوا اللّٰهُ مَا یَشَآءُ وَیُثْبِتُ
Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms.[29]
A discussion for which objective Shia scholars might have been waiting in anticipation. Let us first view the verse in its entirety, thereafter my own thoughts will also be set forth. The entire verse runs as follows:
وَمَا کَانَ لِرَسُوْلٍ اَنْ یَّاْتِیَ بِاٰیَةٍ اِلَّا بِاِذْنِ اللّٰهِؕ لِكُلِّ اَجَلٍ کِتَابٌ یَمْحُوا اللّٰهُ مَا یَشَآءُ وَیُثْبِتُۖ وَعِنْدَهۤ اُمُّ الْکِتٰبِ
And it was not for a messenger to come with a sign except by permission of Allah. For every term is a decree. Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.[30]
The essence of this verse is that no Messenger can produce a miracle as a sign of his nubuwwah except with divine sanction. For every period there are separate written commands of which He erases whatever He wishes, and retains what He wants. While with Him there exists another greater set of written commands which is the source of all.
That much is the purport of the verse. After duly noting that there is reference to two separate written commands; one for every period and a source in Allah’s possession, and that erasing and confirmation are mentioned in relation to the first only, men of understanding would realize:
There are two distinct Divine records- the greater record, referred to as Umm al Kitab and the lesser record to which the phrase: “Every period has written commands” refers to.
The acts of erasing and confirmation apply exclusively to the lesser record and not to the greater one.
This is precisely the position of the Ahlus Sunnah. They too believe that there can be no addition to or deduction from the greater record, which is either in accordance with Allah’s Knowledge, or is itself His Knowledge.
Badaʼ is justifiable from the Qur’an only in the same manner that the prohibition of salah may be proven from the verse: “Do not approach salah…”
On which fine aspect do the Shia then raise the claim that badaʼ is justified in the Qur’an? If it is from this verse that they substantiate their claim, then it would be no different from the fool who claimed that he does not pray salah because Allah forbids salah in the Qur’an. Someone asked him: “Sir, show us this too. We have never heard this. If this is indeed the case, then there would be great ease.” The fool replied: “Is it not mentioned in Surah al Nisaʼ: “Do not come close to prayer.” He was then told: “But the verse goes on to say: “…when you are intoxicated.” The verse must be practiced in its entirety.” The fool in turn replied: “Hey! who has ever practiced on the whole text? It is already a lot just to practice just this much!” … So perhaps the scholars of the Shia invoke a similar rule here.
On a lighter note, there may be a different excuse for the Shia. It might just be that they only knew the verse up to the point where it says: “For every term is a decree. Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms.” It was then by their total submission and complete adherence that they were led to this belief. As such, it would actually be praiseworthy. But if they knew the part of the verse which says: “And with Him is the Mother of all Books”, and still they held a belief different from that of the Ahlus Sunnah, it would be worthy of condemnation.
Allah is indeed Pure! All these claims of competing with the Ahlus Sunnah in understanding the Qur’an and on the Qur’an being preserved but:
موشي بخواب اندر بيرون زشهر شود
In a dream it seems wonderful but the reality is quite different
Most arguments of the Shia belong to the same genre as that of the fool. The manner in which they recall verses from the Qur’an is no different from that depicted in a couplet wherein the poet Mirza Nosha describes the effect of sectarian affiliation:
لا تقربوا الصلاة زنهيم بخاطر است وز امر ياد ماند كلوا واشربوا مرا
The order, do not approach salah appeals to the heart
And the order to eat and drink is all that is acted upon
Divine knowledge is pre-eternal, immutable and all encompassing
The truth is that divine knowledge does not undergo any change. How could there be when the very thought is dispelled by Allah every step of the way in words such as:
وَکَانَ اللّٰهُ عَلِیْمًا حَکِیْمًا
Allah is All Knowing, All Wise.[31]
وَ کَانَ اللّٰهُ بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ عَلِیْمًا
Allah has knowledge of all things.[32]
وَكُنَّا بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ عٰلِمِیْنَ
We have knowledge of all things.[33]
وَّ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ قَدْ اَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ عِلْمًا
Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.[34]
وَکَانَ اللّٰهُ بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ مُّحِیْطًا
And ever is Allah, of all things, encompassing. [35]
The Knowledge of Allah encompasses all things pre-eternally. The only way in which a mistake could be perceived to occur is for something to come between Allah and what He knows. Were such an idea even to arise, it would be refuted by several verses of the Qur’an, where Allah describes Himself as “اقرب” (closest).
Should the Shia suggest that (Allah forbid) there could be interruption of Allah’s capabilities then such brazenness could only ever be mustered by the Shia. That aside, it is a verse of the Qur’an and not the mutterings of some priest; Allah says:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ لَا یَخْفٰی عَلَیْهِ شَیْءٌ فِی الْاَرْضِ وَلَا فِی السَّمَآءِ
Indeed, from Allah nothing is hidden in the earth nor in the heaven.[36]
Bad