Source: M. Abdullah Draz. The Qur’an: an Eternal Challenge (al-Naba’ al-‘Azim).
We have said that the Qur’an always invests the minimum possible wording to generate the
broadest possible meaning. This is a common feature which clearly noticeable throughout
the Qur’an, in places which people describe as either calling for brevity or those that merit
expansive elaboration. Hence, we describe the Qur’an a being concise throughout, because
in both situations it does not add anything beyond what is absolutely necessary. Nor is it
possible to express its meaning in either situation with a wording of shorter or equal length.
Every single word it uses provides a key to necessary and intrinsic meaning. Every letter
fulfils a purpose.
We should discard altogether any talk about words being ‘added unnecessarily’ or
particles being ‘superfluous’. We should also discard any overuse of the word ‘emphasis’
which means that whenever a word is thought to be ‘surplus’, it is said to be ‘added for
emphasis’. Some people do that without thinking whether the place where it occurs requires
or permits emphasis. To give such a verdict on the Qur’an, describing it as using ‘surplus’
words, is to betray ignorance of the fine and highly sensitive measures which constitutes an
essential element of the Quranic style.
When you have discarded all such claims, you should endeavor to fathom its literary merits in
the light of what we have said earlier. If you do not readily understand the purpose of using a
particular word or particle, do not jump to any conclusion.
Let us take the example of the Qur’anic statement describing God Himself in these words:
“Naught is as His likeness.” (42:11) [This is the nearest translation we can give to this
sentence in order to capture its nuances. Most translators of the Qur’an render it as: “There is
nothing like Him,” but this is far from adequate.]
Most scholars agree that the particle ‘as’ is ‘tautological’ or ‘redundant’ here.Indeed many
say that it is necessarily so. They feel that making it fully functional leads to a logical
impossibility, as it would then negate comparison with God likeness, not with God Himself.
Thus, it would lead to admitting that there is, or there may be a ‘peer’ or an ‘equal’ to God.
Logicians say that a negation affirms the opposite, while linguists say that negation may
apply to what is qualified and what qualifies it as well. If you say, for example, ‘`Ali has no son
to help him’, you may mean that he has no sons at all, or that he has a son but that son does
not help him. Similarly, a statement like, ‘Hasan is not a brother of `Ali’, may mean either that
Hasan has no brothers at all, or that he has a brother other than `Ali.
Some scholars say that ‘as’ may be considered as non-redundant if we say that it does not
lead to such an impossibility in any linguistic sense. They say that negation of the likeness of
a peer logically implies a negation of peers. They further say that if God has a peer, then that
peer has, by necessity, an equal who is the true God himself. Each one of any two peers is
equal to his peer. Thus, the negation of an equal to a peer is impossible unless we negate
parity in the first place. This is the intended meaning.
This interpretation, at best, provides a way out. It does nothing more than say that ‘as’ in the
Qur’anic statement, ‘Naught is as His likeness’, causes no harm or confusion. It makes no
attempt to show how it is useful and, indeed, necessary. When we consider this
interpretation carefully we find that the meaning of the statement is the same whether it is
used or not. Indeed, it only adds an element of pedantry and complication into the sentence.
It is akin to someone who says: “This is the son of Mr X’s maternal aunt’s sister”, instead of
saying: “This is Mr X”. In effect this interpretation makes ‘as’ redundant or superfluous,
although it claims that it has an emphasizing role. Indeed, there is no emphasis needed
here. Besides, to emphasise a negation with a particle indicating likeness is essentially
impossible.
Implicit Meanings in Abundance
If we reflect a little we find that this particle is highly significant, forming an essential part of
the intended meaning. To omit it is to remove an aspect of the meaning which cannot be
otherwise compensated for in the sentence. We will explain this in two ways, one more
subtle than the other, hoping to bring out the meaning of this unusual statement in full relief.
The first, which is the easier to understand, is that if the Qur’anic verse were to simply say:
“Nothing is like Him,” then that would be a negation of an equal likeness, or a being who is
exactly like Him. This is the meaning that comes to mind when we speak of likeness in
general. If the statement was limited to this, then doubts might be raised that there could be
a status which is not exactly the same as God’s, but a degree below it. It may also be said
that such a status belongs to angels and prophets, or to stars and natural forces, or to the
jinn, idols and clergy. This would give such beings a similarity to God in His ability or
knowledge, or share in His creation or rule. But the use of ‘as’ in the sentence puts doubts,
as it removes the whole universe from any possibility of being like God, and of being similar
to any shade of comparability with Him. It is as if the verse is saying: There is nothing which
has any quality that brings it in any similarity with God, let alone it being similar to Him in
reality. This is a case of highlighting what is inferior in order to stress what is superior. A
similar case is the Divine order to prohibiting the use of any words of offence when speaking
to one’s parents: “Should one or both of them attain old age in your care, never say, ‘Ugh’ to
them or chide them, but always speak gently and kindly to them.” (17:23). This is an express
order prohibiting the slightest offence, which means that a greater offence is even more
strictly prohibited.
The second, which is more subtle, is that the immediate purpose of the verse, which is the
negation of any comparability with God, is not at all that the statement aims to convey. It
would have been sufficient to state that negation by saying, ‘Naught is like unto God,’ or
‘There is nothing like God’. But while the verse aims to emphasise this fact, it wants at the
same time to draw our attentions to the logical argument that proves it.
If we wish to describe a certain person as having a good character and say, ‘he is neither a
liar nor miserly’, we are simply making statements without adding anything to prove it. But if
we say, ‘such a person is neither a liar nor miserly’, we are not referring to a person similar
to him and free of such unbecoming behavior. Indeed, our statement in this case adds
qualities in his character. It denotes that a person with his fine qualities and benevolent
character cannot be either a liar or miserly. His good character will simply not admit such
defects.
It is in the same way the Qur’anic verse is phrased, so as to say that a being of such fine
qualities as those of God can have none similar to him. Indeed, the universe cannot have two
of His type. Hence, the statement employ two words, each denoting complete similarity, so
as to use one of them as an essential part of the claim, while the other serves as an
undeniable proof of the same claim. The negation of the similarity denoted by the particle,
‘as’, or ‘ka’ in the Arabic text, signifies the complete uniqueness of God, while use of the word
‘likeness’, or ‘mithl’ in Arabic, in reference to God himself, alerts us to the indicated proof.
This is, indeed, a special type of proof denoting the Oneness of the Creator in a way that no
scholar of Divinity has, to our knowledge, ever approached. All the proofs they provide of God’
s Oneness seek to disprove the possibility of being more than one deity by negating the
practical results that form the outcome of such multiplicity. This is pointed out by the verse
which says: “Had there been in heaven or on earth any deities other than God, both [these
realms] would surely have fallen into ruin.” (21:22)
The argument here, which is the basis of all the points advanced by scholars of Divinity, is
that multiplicity of deities, each of whom having the qualities of the Divine Being, leads either
to the non-existence of creatures, which means that they fall into ruin at the time of their
existence, or leads to conflict between them that results in their falling into ruin after they are
brought into existence. If we were to assume the presence of two gods and that both will for
something to be created, they would not be able to do so because a single effect cannot be
the result of two causes. To say that it is produced by the power of one of them while both
have the same powers and forming the same will is to give one of them precedence over the
other without any clear basis for it. On the other hand, if one of them wills to create something
and the other wills to create its opposite, neither can be created because that would mean
that two opposites exist concurrently at the same time and place. To allow one to be
produced without the other is to demonstrate that one of them has precedence over the other.
If one of these two gods wills to create some creatures different from those created by the
other, then each deity will control his own sector of creation. This would mean the existence
of two universes with a separate system for each. Inevitably, they will be in conflict until both
are destroyed. All these possibilities are clearly disproved by the fact that the universe
continues to exist following the same system. Every part of it functions harmoniously with the
rest, like the organs of a single body function to serve the same purpose. This unity of
operation is proof the Oneness of the Operator who orchestrates them all, [limitless is He in
His Glory].
All their arguments, then, are of the type pointed out by the verse quoted above,stating: “Had
there been in heaven and on earth any deities other than God, both [these realms] would
surely have fallen into ruin.”
The statement in Surah 42, “Naught is as His likeness”, looks at a meaning beyond this. It
negates the very possibility of there being more than one God, regardless of any effects that
such multiplicity produces. The verse is, thus, saying that the nature of Divinity is such that it
differs from anything that accepts multiplicity or similarity with others. To admit such
multiplicity or similarity is to make its perfection incomplete. But true divinity presupposes
absolute perfection negating the very concept of multiplicity or similarity.
The deeper you go in emphasizing Divinity, the greater the superiority you imply, which
means that the Divine Being is the origin of everything: “It is He who is the Originator of the
heavens and the earth.” (42:11). You also emphasise that He is in full control of everything:
“To Him belongs the keys of the heavens and the earth.” (42:12). If you were to assume that
these qualities apply to two beings, you contradict yourself most clearly. You simple make
each one of the two beings superior and inferior, originator and originated supreme and
follower at the same time. Alternatively, you restrict their absolute perfection by making each
one of them neither superior nor supreme in relation to the other. How, then, will either of
them be God when “to God belongs the essence of all that is most sublime in the heavens
and the earth”? (30:27)
We see now what a great contribution the particle ‘as’ adds to the meaning of the
statement, “Naught is as His likeness”. It is useful to remember this example in order to
appreciate the accuracy of the measure applied in the composition of the Qur’an.
A Difficult Approach Made Easy
But the secret of concise expression in the Qur’an is not limited to avoiding anything that is
not essential to the meaning, or selecting the most expressive vocabulary which fits the
purpose most clearly. The Qur’an employs an even harder and far more admirable method of
keeping its wording to the absolute minimum.
At times we find the Qur’an, having omitted unnecessarily additions and words that are not
essential to the meaning, also leaves out some of the essential words without which the
meaning is not normally properly conveyed. The deletion may affect many words and
sentences that should either follow one another or come separately in the same passage. It
then invests the vocabulary that remains in conveying the whole meaning clearly, accurately
and in fine style. In fact, in appears that the wording makes such a full expression of the
meaning that we may think that the wording is more than adequate for the meaning intended.
If you look for the secret in all this, you will find that it places the meaning of the deleted words
and sentences in a word here and a particle there. It then fashions its style with dexterity so
as to make the outcome most fitting for the purpose. Furthermore, it brings out its finer
elements in sharp relief so as to make the style most coherent and expressive. It breathes
life into it making it smooth, easy, bright and enlightening. As we read, we do not feel what
deletions and omissions have taken place, nor do we appreciate how the meaning is
adequately and fully expressed unless we examine it very carefully.
There is no doubt that the Arabs used to resort to some omission in their speech,
considering it to be a literary virtue, provided that there was sufficient indication pointing to
what was deleted, even though it may have been essential to the sentence. When an Arab is
asked, ‘Where is your brother?’ he may say, ‘At home’. And if he is asked, ‘Who is at home’,
he would say, ‘My brother’. If he were to answer either question by saying, ‘My brother is at
home’, his answer would be felt to be unnecessarily verbose. In this aspect, like in all
aspects of literary expression, the Qur’an attains a height too sublime for human talent,
unattainable even in our wildest dreams.
Let us take this example: “If God were to hasten for human beings the ill in the same manner
as they would hasten the good, their end would indeed come forthwith! But we leave those
who do not believe that they are destined to meet Us in their overweighing arrogance, blindly
stumbling to and fro.” (10:11). [This rendering leaves out all that translators of the Qur’an add
in parentheses to capture the meaning]
This verse speaks of those who reject the concept of resurrection and whom the prophet
informed of his message telling them that he was a warner to them against an impending
and painful suffering. They ridiculed him and said: “God, if this is indeed the truth from You,
them rain down upon us stones from the skies, or inflict [some other] grievous suffering on
us.” (8:32). God, however, has not done what they suggested, but instead has delayed their
punishment to the time He has appointed. They felt secure in the life of peace they were
enjoying and forgot that time brings all sorts of misfortune. They overlooked the fact that God
may inflict His punishment on them at any time. Essentially, this led them to hasten such evil,
just like people are eager to receive what is of benefit to them immediately. They started to
say: When will it be? What stops it from coming if it is true?
The Qur’an wants us to reply to this by saying that if it was God’s law to respond to people
when they hasten what is evil in the same way as He responds to them when they hasten to
do good, He would have hastened it to them. But it is His unchangeable law that He gives
respite to the transgressors and defers reckoning their actions, good or bad, to the time He
has appointed. The law will operate in the case of those people so as to give them respite
until their appointed time. This is the nature of the reply as it may be expressed in human
language. Now let us look at what happens to it when it is stated in the Qur’an.
1. Taken in its ordinary form, the argument has three elements: two serve as
introductory and the third as a conclusion. The Qur’an states the first and the third, while the
second is left out. Thus, it is only implied.
2. The first introduction in its idle state has four ingredients: God’s hastening good and evil,
and people’s request for both to be hastened. But in the verse we see only one hastening
from God and one demand for haste from people.
3. The apparent contrast is in the similarity of one type of haste and another or one type of
request for haste and another. The verse is phrased rather strangely so as to draw the
similarity between one element from the first set [i.e. haste] and an element from the second
set [i.e. hastening request].
But after all this deletion and modification do we find the text to be incomplete or twisted or
not readily understood? Or do we find the whole import of the verse to be clear to all and
sundry, like a full moon on a clear night? It is useful to dig into the secrets of fine style and
ask how the meaning is so clear despite all this economy of expression.
In comment on all three points outlined above we say firstly that the verse has only deleted
the implied introductory element after it has raised two banners on its two sides to indicate
its presence and transmit it to us clearly. To its right, it has placed the negative conditional, ‘if
God were…’ at the beginning of the first introduction. This implies that God does not hasten
such matters. To its left, it has placed the Arabic particle, fa, which is rendered in the
translation as ‘but’. This implies a detail indicating a normal state of affairs. The meaning
implied here is that ‘it is His practice that He leaves the people to whom the verse refers until
their appointed time arrives.’
But the Arabic particle, ‘fa’ on its own does not specifically denote what is intended, because
it if frequently used as a conjunction. Thus, a reader may read it as though it serves as a
conjunction here before he realizes that it is not so. To avoid this, the Qur’an does not rely on
this particle alone, but adds two supporting forces in the form of changing tense from past to
present, and changing the referent from the third person to the first. This causes a verbal
break between it and the preceding sentence. This break echoes a similar break in meaning,
inviting a complete pause before it. This ensures that no confusion or ambiguity is felt by the
reader or the listener. Moreover, this change of tense and person alerts the listener and
makes the warning much more effective, coming as it does from God, the Almighty Himself.
As for the second point we note that when the omission applied to two of the four ingredients,
it is made to apply to both aspects, taking out one ingredient from each and leaving the other.
The parallel in this process indicates the presence of what has been deleted.
The third point identifies a fine aspect of the meaning indicating the reason for giving respite
and why God does not hasten punishment. The verse portrays this hastening as though the
person requesting it is so keen to have what he requests to be hastened to be hastened
because it will satisfy a burning desire, particularly if he is seeking what is certain to benefit
him. Thus, the verse implies if God were to hasten what they are demanding, He would be in
the same position as those precipitating matters, as He would be provoked into it. Far be it
from God, to be so.
Yet there are more artistic touches in the text of the verse. One of these is that usually the
particular conditional conjunction used here is peculiar to Arabic and should normally be
followed by a verb in the past tense. But the purpose here is not to negate a past occurrence.
It is to explain that what the unbelievers hasten in contrast to the laws of nature God has set
in operation in human life. Such laws are valid for all time, without change. To put this
meaning in normal style, longer language would have been needed, such as: ‘Had it been
the normal law God has set for human life that He should hasten, etc’. But all this is summed
up in one word through the use of the present tense, which implies repetition and continuity.
The conditional conjunction is used to indicate that what follows it refers to a past event.
Thus, the time of the occurrence and its continuous nature are gently pushed to the force.
The second touch is seen in the phraseology of the conditional sentence. Normally, the
second part of a conditional should tie up with its first part. This would have meant that the
sentence should be phrased like this: “If God were to hasten for human beings the ill…He
would have hastened it, etc,” But this is discarded in preference for something far more
telling and effective. The verse explains that had God wanted to hasten an evil outcome to
people, He would have hastened for that particular community a special type of hard suffering
which would make their end occur forthwith.
Yet we see another touch in the way the verse is ended. The logical conclusion of the verse
should probably have been something like, ‘But We leave them’, or ‘But We leave these
people’. The verse, however, runs as follows: “If God were to hasten for human beings the ill
in the same manner as they would hasten the good, their end would indeed come forthwith!
But we leave those who do not believe that they are destined to meet Us in their overweighing
arrogance, blindly stumbling to and fro.” In this way, it accomplishes an important dual
purpose. First, it makes clear that their hastening of evil is due to the fact that they do not
believe in resurrection. It also shows that granting respite is the general rule which applies to
them and others like them.
The verse has other touches, but we will leave these for now. We only say that we may find
one type of these dexterous manipulations in the style of literary figure, but what human being
displays in his or her style all these aspects, or a similar set in a passage of the same
length, or even in one twice as long?
Let us take another example tackling the same thought: “Say: Have you ever considered if His
punishment were to befall you by night or by day? What could there be in such prospect that
people lost in sin should wish to hasten? It is, then, that you will believe in it [only] after it has
come to pass? Is it now [you believe in it], after having called for it speedy advent?” (10:50-51)
If we were to paraphrase these verses, we may say that what God is saying goes as follows:
“Tell me what will your situation be, should God’s punishment befall you suddenly, at night or
during the day. What will you do then? You have one of two choices: either you persist with
what you are doing now, continuing to deny God’s message and hasten the result that may
take place, or you accept the faith. Which of these would you choose? Will you still ask for the
punishment to be hastened then as you hasten it now? Certainly not, because you are
sinners, and a sinner will never look forward to the punishment that is bound to overwhelm
him once it is decided. Besides, what type of punishment are you trying to speed up? You
should know that it differs in type and severity. Or is it that you deny it today, then when it
comes about in due course you will believe in it? Let me tell you that such belief will not be of
any benefit to you, since you have delayed and procrastinated so long that the time for it has
gone. You will be reproached and told: is it now that you want to believe while you were
always denying that punishment and challenging us to hasten it.”
This is the meaning conveyed in these two verses. We only need to look at them
carefully to see how many sentences have been left as implied at the beginning, middle and
end. But for everything that is deleted, the verses include a clue to point to it or a mark
showing it. In the first verse, we have two interrogative sentences indicating that a
comprehensive question is made up of the two, asking: What will you do, and which course
will you follow? The interrogative about the type of punishment being hastened indicates an
earlier and preliminary question about the very idea of hastening it. The reference to those
‘lost in sin’ implies that it is impossible for what this part of the verse refers to, i.e. the
hastening of punishment, to take place, because they will be its recipients. There are many
other words or phrases deleted from the text, but clearly understood. This could only happen
in the Qur’an with its unique style. Indeed, no one has ever attempted to combine such brevity
of style and word economy with such clarity of meaning without soon finding himself in deep
water, unable to proceed after the first hurdle. Indeed, to achieve such an aim requires far
more effort than anyone could put in.
This should tell us much about the real challenge of the Qur’an.
We have said that the Qur’an always invests the minimum possible wording to generate the
broadest possible meaning. This is a common feature which clearly noticeable throughout
the Qur’an, in places which people describe as either calling for brevity or those that merit
expansive elaboration. Hence, we describe the Qur’an a being concise throughout, because
in both situations it does not add anything beyond what is absolutely necessary. Nor is it
possible to express its meaning in either situation with a wording of shorter or equal length.
Every single word it uses provides a key to necessary and intrinsic meaning. Every letter
fulfils a purpose.
We should discard altogether any talk about words being ‘added unnecessarily’ or
particles being ‘superfluous’. We should also discard any overuse of the word ‘emphasis’
which means that whenever a word is thought to be ‘surplus’, it is said to be ‘added for
emphasis’. Some people do that without thinking whether the place where it occurs requires
or permits emphasis. To give such a verdict on the Qur’an, describing it as using ‘surplus’
words, is to betray ignorance of the fine and highly sensitive measures which constitutes an
essential element of the Quranic style.
When you have discarded all such claims, you should endeavor to fathom its literary merits in
the light of what we have said earlier. If you do not readily understand the purpose of using a
particular word or particle, do not jump to any conclusion.
Let us take the example of the Qur’anic statement describing God Himself in these words:
“Naught is as His likeness.” (42:11) [This is the nearest translation we can give to this
sentence in order to capture its nuances. Most translators of the Qur’an render it as: “There is
nothing like Him,” but this is far from adequate.]
Most scholars agree that the particle ‘as’ is ‘tautological’ or ‘redundant’ here.Indeed many
say that it is necessarily so. They feel that making it fully functional leads to a logical
impossibility, as it would then negate comparison with God likeness, not with God Himself.
Thus, it would lead to admitting that there is, or there may be a ‘peer’ or an ‘equal’ to God.
Logicians say that a negation affirms the opposite, while linguists say that negation may
apply to what is qualified and what qualifies it as well. If you say, for example, ‘`Ali has no son
to help him’, you may mean that he has no sons at all, or that he has a son but that son does
not help him. Similarly, a statement like, ‘Hasan is not a brother of `Ali’, may mean either that
Hasan has no brothers at all, or that he has a brother other than `Ali.
Some scholars say that ‘as’ may be considered as non-redundant if we say that it does not
lead to such an impossibility in any linguistic sense. They say that negation of the likeness of
a peer logically implies a negation of peers. They further say that if God has a peer, then that
peer has, by necessity, an equal who is the true God himself. Each one of any two peers is
equal to his peer. Thus, the negation of an equal to a peer is impossible unless we negate
parity in the first place. This is the intended meaning.
This interpretation, at best, provides a way out. It does nothing more than say that ‘as’ in the
Qur’anic statement, ‘Naught is as His likeness’, causes no harm or confusion. It makes no
attempt to show how it is useful and, indeed, necessary. When we consider this
interpretation carefully we find that the meaning of the statement is the same whether it is
used or not. Indeed, it only adds an element of pedantry and complication into the sentence.
It is akin to someone who says: “This is the son of Mr X’s maternal aunt’s sister”, instead of
saying: “This is Mr X”. In effect this interpretation makes ‘as’ redundant or superfluous,
although it claims that it has an emphasizing role. Indeed, there is no emphasis needed
here. Besides, to emphasise a negation with a particle indicating likeness is essentially
impossible.
Implicit Meanings in Abundance
If we reflect a little we find that this particle is highly significant, forming an essential part of
the intended meaning. To omit it is to remove an aspect of the meaning which cannot be
otherwise compensated for in the sentence. We will explain this in two ways, one more
subtle than the other, hoping to bring out the meaning of this unusual statement in full relief.
The first, which is the easier to understand, is that if the Qur’anic verse were to simply say:
“Nothing is like Him,” then that would be a negation of an equal likeness, or a being who is
exactly like Him. This is the meaning that comes to mind when we speak of likeness in
general. If the statement was limited to this, then doubts might be raised that there could be
a status which is not exactly the same as God’s, but a degree below it. It may also be said
that such a status belongs to angels and prophets, or to stars and natural forces, or to the
jinn, idols and clergy. This would give such beings a similarity to God in His ability or
knowledge, or share in His creation or rule. But the use of ‘as’ in the sentence puts doubts,
as it removes the whole universe from any possibility of being like God, and of being similar
to any shade of comparability with Him. It is as if the verse is saying: There is nothing which
has any quality that brings it in any similarity with God, let alone it being similar to Him in
reality. This is a case of highlighting what is inferior in order to stress what is superior. A
similar case is the Divine order to prohibiting the use of any words of offence when speaking
to one’s parents: “Should one or both of them attain old age in your care, never say, ‘Ugh’ to
them or chide them, but always speak gently and kindly to them.” (17:23). This is an express
order prohibiting the slightest offence, which means that a greater offence is even more
strictly prohibited.
The second, which is more subtle, is that the immediate purpose of the verse, which is the
negation of any comparability with God, is not at all that the statement aims to convey. It
would have been sufficient to state that negation by saying, ‘Naught is like unto God,’ or
‘There is nothing like God’. But while the verse aims to emphasise this fact, it wants at the
same time to draw our attentions to the logical argument that proves it.
If we wish to describe a certain person as having a good character and say, ‘he is neither a
liar nor miserly’, we are simply making statements without adding anything to prove it. But if
we say, ‘such a person is neither a liar nor miserly’, we are not referring to a person similar
to him and free of such unbecoming behavior. Indeed, our statement in this case adds
qualities in his character. It denotes that a person with his fine qualities and benevolent
character cannot be either a liar or miserly. His good character will simply not admit such
defects.
It is in the same way the Qur’anic verse is phrased, so as to say that a being of such fine
qualities as those of God can have none similar to him. Indeed, the universe cannot have two
of His type. Hence, the statement employ two words, each denoting complete similarity, so
as to use one of them as an essential part of the claim, while the other serves as an
undeniable proof of the same claim. The negation of the similarity denoted by the particle,
‘as’, or ‘ka’ in the Arabic text, signifies the complete uniqueness of God, while use of the word
‘likeness’, or ‘mithl’ in Arabic, in reference to God himself, alerts us to the indicated proof.
This is, indeed, a special type of proof denoting the Oneness of the Creator in a way that no
scholar of Divinity has, to our knowledge, ever approached. All the proofs they provide of God’
s Oneness seek to disprove the possibility of being more than one deity by negating the
practical results that form the outcome of such multiplicity. This is pointed out by the verse
which says: “Had there been in heaven or on earth any deities other than God, both [these
realms] would surely have fallen into ruin.” (21:22)
The argument here, which is the basis of all the points advanced by scholars of Divinity, is
that multiplicity of deities, each of whom having the qualities of the Divine Being, leads either
to the non-existence of creatures, which means that they fall into ruin at the time of their
existence, or leads to conflict between them that results in their falling into ruin after they are
brought into existence. If we were to assume the presence of two gods and that both will for
something to be created, they would not be able to do so because a single effect cannot be
the result of two causes. To say that it is produced by the power of one of them while both
have the same powers and forming the same will is to give one of them precedence over the
other without any clear basis for it. On the other hand, if one of them wills to create something
and the other wills to create its opposite, neither can be created because that would mean
that two opposites exist concurrently at the same time and place. To allow one to be
produced without the other is to demonstrate that one of them has precedence over the other.
If one of these two gods wills to create some creatures different from those created by the
other, then each deity will control his own sector of creation. This would mean the existence
of two universes with a separate system for each. Inevitably, they will be in conflict until both
are destroyed. All these possibilities are clearly disproved by the fact that the universe
continues to exist following the same system. Every part of it functions harmoniously with the
rest, like the organs of a single body function to serve the same purpose. This unity of
operation is proof the Oneness of the Operator who orchestrates them all, [limitless is He in
His Glory].
All their arguments, then, are of the type pointed out by the verse quoted above,stating: “Had
there been in heaven and on earth any deities other than God, both [these realms] would
surely have fallen into ruin.”
The statement in Surah 42, “Naught is as His likeness”, looks at a meaning beyond this. It
negates the very possibility of there being more than one God, regardless of any effects that
such multiplicity produces. The verse is, thus, saying that the nature of Divinity is such that it
differs from anything that accepts multiplicity or similarity with others. To admit such
multiplicity or similarity is to make its perfection incomplete. But true divinity presupposes
absolute perfection negating the very concept of multiplicity or similarity.
The deeper you go in emphasizing Divinity, the greater the superiority you imply, which
means that the Divine Being is the origin of everything: “It is He who is the Originator of the
heavens and the earth.” (42:11). You also emphasise that He is in full control of everything:
“To Him belongs the keys of the heavens and the earth.” (42:12). If you were to assume that
these qualities apply to two beings, you contradict yourself most clearly. You simple make
each one of the two beings superior and inferior, originator and originated supreme and
follower at the same time. Alternatively, you restrict their absolute perfection by making each
one of them neither superior nor supreme in relation to the other. How, then, will either of
them be God when “to God belongs the essence of all that is most sublime in the heavens
and the earth”? (30:27)
We see now what a great contribution the particle ‘as’ adds to the meaning of the
statement, “Naught is as His likeness”. It is useful to remember this example in order to
appreciate the accuracy of the measure applied in the composition of the Qur’an.
A Difficult Approach Made Easy
But the secret of concise expression in the Qur’an is not limited to avoiding anything that is
not essential to the meaning, or selecting the most expressive vocabulary which fits the
purpose most clearly. The Qur’an employs an even harder and far more admirable method of
keeping its wording to the absolute minimum.
At times we find the Qur’an, having omitted unnecessarily additions and words that are not
essential to the meaning, also leaves out some of the essential words without which the
meaning is not normally properly conveyed. The deletion may affect many words and
sentences that should either follow one another or come separately in the same passage. It
then invests the vocabulary that remains in conveying the whole meaning clearly, accurately
and in fine style. In fact, in appears that the wording makes such a full expression of the
meaning that we may think that the wording is more than adequate for the meaning intended.
If you look for the secret in all this, you will find that it places the meaning of the deleted words
and sentences in a word here and a particle there. It then fashions its style with dexterity so
as to make the outcome most fitting for the purpose. Furthermore, it brings out its finer
elements in sharp relief so as to make the style most coherent and expressive. It breathes
life into it making it smooth, easy, bright and enlightening. As we read, we do not feel what
deletions and omissions have taken place, nor do we appreciate how the meaning is
adequately and fully expressed unless we examine it very carefully.
There is no doubt that the Arabs used to resort to some omission in their speech,
considering it to be a literary virtue, provided that there was sufficient indication pointing to
what was deleted, even though it may have been essential to the sentence. When an Arab is
asked, ‘Where is your brother?’ he may say, ‘At home’. And if he is asked, ‘Who is at home’,
he would say, ‘My brother’. If he were to answer either question by saying, ‘My brother is at
home’, his answer would be felt to be unnecessarily verbose. In this aspect, like in all
aspects of literary expression, the Qur’an attains a height too sublime for human talent,
unattainable even in our wildest dreams.
Let us take this example: “If God were to hasten for human beings the ill in the same manner
as they would hasten the good, their end would indeed come forthwith! But we leave those
who do not believe that they are destined to meet Us in their overweighing arrogance, blindly
stumbling to and fro.” (10:11). [This rendering leaves out all that translators of the Qur’an add
in parentheses to capture the meaning]
This verse speaks of those who reject the concept of resurrection and whom the prophet
informed of his message telling them that he was a warner to them against an impending
and painful suffering. They ridiculed him and said: “God, if this is indeed the truth from You,
them rain down upon us stones from the skies, or inflict [some other] grievous suffering on
us.” (8:32). God, however, has not done what they suggested, but instead has delayed their
punishment to the time He has appointed. They felt secure in the life of peace they were
enjoying and forgot that time brings all sorts of misfortune. They overlooked the fact that God
may inflict His punishment on them at any time. Essentially, this led them to hasten such evil,
just like people are eager to receive what is of benefit to them immediately. They started to
say: When will it be? What stops it from coming if it is true?
The Qur’an wants us to reply to this by saying that if it was God’s law to respond to people
when they hasten what is evil in the same way as He responds to them when they hasten to
do good, He would have hastened it to them. But it is His unchangeable law that He gives
respite to the transgressors and defers reckoning their actions, good or bad, to the time He
has appointed. The law will operate in the case of those people so as to give them respite
until their appointed time. This is the nature of the reply as it may be expressed in human
language. Now let us look at what happens to it when it is stated in the Qur’an.
1. Taken in its ordinary form, the argument has three elements: two serve as
introductory and the third as a conclusion. The Qur’an states the first and the third, while the
second is left out. Thus, it is only implied.
2. The first introduction in its idle state has four ingredients: God’s hastening good and evil,
and people’s request for both to be hastened. But in the verse we see only one hastening
from God and one demand for haste from people.
3. The apparent contrast is in the similarity of one type of haste and another or one type of
request for haste and another. The verse is phrased rather strangely so as to draw the
similarity between one element from the first set [i.e. haste] and an element from the second
set [i.e. hastening request].
But after all this deletion and modification do we find the text to be incomplete or twisted or
not readily understood? Or do we find the whole import of the verse to be clear to all and
sundry, like a full moon on a clear night? It is useful to dig into the secrets of fine style and
ask how the meaning is so clear despite all this economy of expression.
In comment on all three points outlined above we say firstly that the verse has only deleted
the implied introductory element after it has raised two banners on its two sides to indicate
its presence and transmit it to us clearly. To its right, it has placed the negative conditional, ‘if
God were…’ at the beginning of the first introduction. This implies that God does not hasten
such matters. To its left, it has placed the Arabic particle, fa, which is rendered in the
translation as ‘but’. This implies a detail indicating a normal state of affairs. The meaning
implied here is that ‘it is His practice that He leaves the people to whom the verse refers until
their appointed time arrives.’
But the Arabic particle, ‘fa’ on its own does not specifically denote what is intended, because
it if frequently used as a conjunction. Thus, a reader may read it as though it serves as a
conjunction here before he realizes that it is not so. To avoid this, the Qur’an does not rely on
this particle alone, but adds two supporting forces in the form of changing tense from past to
present, and changing the referent from the third person to the first. This causes a verbal
break between it and the preceding sentence. This break echoes a similar break in meaning,
inviting a complete pause before it. This ensures that no confusion or ambiguity is felt by the
reader or the listener. Moreover, this change of tense and person alerts the listener and
makes the warning much more effective, coming as it does from God, the Almighty Himself.
As for the second point we note that when the omission applied to two of the four ingredients,
it is made to apply to both aspects, taking out one ingredient from each and leaving the other.
The parallel in this process indicates the presence of what has been deleted.
The third point identifies a fine aspect of the meaning indicating the reason for giving respite
and why God does not hasten punishment. The verse portrays this hastening as though the
person requesting it is so keen to have what he requests to be hastened to be hastened
because it will satisfy a burning desire, particularly if he is seeking what is certain to benefit
him. Thus, the verse implies if God were to hasten what they are demanding, He would be in
the same position as those precipitating matters, as He would be provoked into it. Far be it
from God, to be so.
Yet there are more artistic touches in the text of the verse. One of these is that usually the
particular conditional conjunction used here is peculiar to Arabic and should normally be
followed by a verb in the past tense. But the purpose here is not to negate a past occurrence.
It is to explain that what the unbelievers hasten in contrast to the laws of nature God has set
in operation in human life. Such laws are valid for all time, without change. To put this
meaning in normal style, longer language would have been needed, such as: ‘Had it been
the normal law God has set for human life that He should hasten, etc’. But all this is summed
up in one word through the use of the present tense, which implies repetition and continuity.
The conditional conjunction is used to indicate that what follows it refers to a past event.
Thus, the time of the occurrence and its continuous nature are gently pushed to the force.
The second touch is seen in the phraseology of the conditional sentence. Normally, the
second part of a conditional should tie up with its first part. This would have meant that the
sentence should be phrased like this: “If God were to hasten for human beings the ill…He
would have hastened it, etc,” But this is discarded in preference for something far more
telling and effective. The verse explains that had God wanted to hasten an evil outcome to
people, He would have hastened for that particular community a special type of hard suffering
which would make their end occur forthwith.
Yet we see another touch in the way the verse is ended. The logical conclusion of the verse
should probably have been something like, ‘But We leave them’, or ‘But We leave these
people’. The verse, however, runs as follows: “If God were to hasten for human beings the ill
in the same manner as they would hasten the good, their end would indeed come forthwith!
But we leave those who do not believe that they are destined to meet Us in their overweighing
arrogance, blindly stumbling to and fro.” In this way, it accomplishes an important dual
purpose. First, it makes clear that their hastening of evil is due to the fact that they do not
believe in resurrection. It also shows that granting respite is the general rule which applies to
them and others like them.
The verse has other touches, but we will leave these for now. We only say that we may find
one type of these dexterous manipulations in the style of literary figure, but what human being
displays in his or her style all these aspects, or a similar set in a passage of the same
length, or even in one twice as long?
Let us take another example tackling the same thought: “Say: Have you ever considered if His
punishment were to befall you by night or by day? What could there be in such prospect that
people lost in sin should wish to hasten? It is, then, that you will believe in it [only] after it has
come to pass? Is it now [you believe in it], after having called for it speedy advent?” (10:50-51)
If we were to paraphrase these verses, we may say that what God is saying goes as follows:
“Tell me what will your situation be, should God’s punishment befall you suddenly, at night or
during the day. What will you do then? You have one of two choices: either you persist with
what you are doing now, continuing to deny God’s message and hasten the result that may
take place, or you accept the faith. Which of these would you choose? Will you still ask for the
punishment to be hastened then as you hasten it now? Certainly not, because you are
sinners, and a sinner will never look forward to the punishment that is bound to overwhelm
him once it is decided. Besides, what type of punishment are you trying to speed up? You
should know that it differs in type and severity. Or is it that you deny it today, then when it
comes about in due course you will believe in it? Let me tell you that such belief will not be of
any benefit to you, since you have delayed and procrastinated so long that the time for it has
gone. You will be reproached and told: is it now that you want to believe while you were
always denying that punishment and challenging us to hasten it.”
This is the meaning conveyed in these two verses. We only need to look at them
carefully to see how many sentences have been left as implied at the beginning, middle and
end. But for everything that is deleted, the verses include a clue to point to it or a mark
showing it. In the first verse, we have two interrogative sentences indicating that a
comprehensive question is made up of the two, asking: What will you do, and which course
will you follow? The interrogative about the type of punishment being hastened indicates an
earlier and preliminary question about the very idea of hastening it. The reference to those
‘lost in sin’ implies that it is impossible for what this part of the verse refers to, i.e. the
hastening of punishment, to take place, because they will be its recipients. There are many
other words or phrases deleted from the text, but clearly understood. This could only happen
in the Qur’an with its unique style. Indeed, no one has ever attempted to combine such brevity
of style and word economy with such clarity of meaning without soon finding himself in deep
water, unable to proceed after the first hurdle. Indeed, to achieve such an aim requires far
more effort than anyone could put in.
This should tell us much about the real challenge of the Qur’an.
| Concise & Minimum Wording |
