The First Article (the Element of Reality) — The Eighth Matter (the Literalists) — Rational Arguments

The Eighth Matter

One of the things that casts the literalists into the abyss of doubt and hesitation, perhaps the chief of them, is their confusing possibilities with actual occurrences. For instance, they say: “If it were such‑and-such, it would be possible for divine power, and to our way of thinking, would indicate divine power more compellingly. So it should occur.”

Alas, you wretches! When have your minds been shown to be sufficiently proficient to act as engineers for the cosmos? You can’t comprehend the universal good with your insignificant particular intellects. If there were a cubit‑long nose made of gold and all gazes were fixed on it alone, only then would someone appear who found it beautiful.

Furthermore, what bewilders literalists is their fancying that essential possibility is opposed to certain knowledge. They almost become Sophists (lâedrîler) since they are in doubt concerning sensory knowledge (ulûm‑u âdiye). They are unashamed even that their way demands that they doubt self‑evident things like Lake Van and Mount Subhan due to the possibility that Lake Van may turn into grape molasses and Mount Subhan into sugar-encrusted honey. Or because they do not accept that the earth is round like some of our friends, the possibility that dragging their feet they will tumble into the oceans of non-existence. So one shouldn’t affirm that Lake Van and Mount Subhan remain permanently in their original states.

So now you know, O wretches! Where are you? Look! It is accepted in logic that conjectures about concrete perceptible things are held to be self‑evident. If you deny such self-evident matters, I’ll send you my condolences rather than giving you advice. Because you look on knowledge obtained through the external senses (ulûm-u âdiye) as dead and sophistries as living.

The Fourth Calamity that confuses the literalists is their mixing up conjectural or delusive possibilities (imkân‑ı vehmî) with reasonable ones. But because conjectural possibilities have given birth to sophistry out of the rootless race of blind imitation, without offering proof (delîl) they have each opened the way in self‑evident matters to a “perhaps,” a “possibly,” and to doubts.

This arises mostly from the failure to reason, a weakness of the heart or nervous disorder of the brain, and the failure to conceive of the subject and attribute of propositions.

Whereas, to doubt a reasonable possibility means being hesitant about a matter that is not necessary and about which there is no certain proof of its existence or non‑existence. If such doubt has arisen from proof (delîl) it is acceptable; otherwise it is not creditable.

However, concerning conjectural possibilities, some people given to delusions say: “They may not be as the proofs (bürhan) show, because reason cannot comprehend everything. Our reasons tell us that this may be the case.” Yes, no, what affords such a possibility is your delusive imagination. For the mark of the reason is to operate through proofs (bürhan). For sure it cannot weigh up everything, but it can judge such material matters and any matter that cannot escape the clutches of sight, its smallest servant. If it can’t do this, then like a child, we should not be held accountable.

Reminder My literalist and superficial‑viewing addressee of the mind, whom I have scolded and rebuked and exposed: it is usually the enemies of religion who going to one extreme and looking on Islam from afar are unable to see its beauty. But sometimes its ignorant friends who go to the other extreme cause harm, thinking they are doing good.

The Fifth Calamity: One of things that taking the hands of those unfortunates who go to one extreme or the other and cast them into darkness, is their seeking literal truth in every part of figurative speech. For sure a seed of truth has to be found in all figurative speech from which the figures may sprout and grow. Alternatively, truth is a light‑giving wick, while figurative speech is the lamp’s glass, increasing the light. Yes, love is in the heart, and the intellect in the brain; it’s futile to search for them in the hand or foot.

Sixth Calamity: What screens the sight and conceals eloquence is restricting the view to literal meanings. This means that however much the truth is perceived by the intellect, so figures cannot be aggressed against. If they are, the meanings are hidden. It is due to this that the beauty and eloquence of the Qur’an’s verses and of Hadiths cannot be shown through exegesis or translations. It is as though the literalists consider the associated meaning of the figure to be opposed to what is reasonably true. But such meanings may be either mental, or emotional, or customary, or contextual, or any of a lot of other things. If you wish, enter the two hundred and twenty‑first door of Dalā’il al‑I‘jāz, a garden of Paradise, and you’ll see how the mighty ‘Abd al‑Qāhir angrily drew such unfortunates to him and rebuked and scolded them.

Seventh Calamity: One of the things that makes the [grammatical] definite indefinite is the literalists restricting such inessentials as vowel points to what is essential (zâtiye). This necessitates denying a usual quality (vasf‑i cârî) which is other than the subject (gayr‑i men hüve leh), so diverting the sun of truth from its course. Such people have evidently never studied the Arabs’ literary styles, for the Arabs say: “The mountains came to us then departed, then the peak of another appeared, then disappeared and parted from us,” and so on. As explained in the Miftāḥ of al‑Sakkaki, imaginary inversion (kalb‑i hayali), a literary device of the science of figurative speech (beyan), is used in many places to elucidate its mysteries. It is a subtle art which is based on fallacious imaginings. I’m now going to cite two important examples by way of explanation, to pursue the discussion: And He sends down from the sky mountain masses [of cloud] wherein is hail. The sun runs its course to its point of rest.

These two verses are truly striking. To ascribe them a rigid apparent meaning is to deny rhetoric its right. For the fine metaphor of the first is so warm it melts frozen, solid things such as ice, and like lightning rends the veil of the apparent, such as cloud. While the eloquence of the second is so firm and brilliant that it halts the sun’s travel.

Similar to this is the verse, Crystal‑clear, made of silver, which comprises a fine metaphor, as follows:

the food dishes of Paradise are neither crystal nor silver. The difference between the two constitutes the indicator (karine) of the metaphor. That is to say, with its transparency the crystal and with its shining whiteness, the silver are two samples to depict the paradisaical goblets which the Beneficent Maker has sent to this world to excite with His wares the appetites of customers desirous of Paradise, and to stimulate demand.

Similarly, a fine metaphor may be distilled from mountain masses [of clouds] wherein is hail which is based on imagining a beauty contest between the earth and the sky and a competition between them. Its field is this: it’s as though just as the earth is adorned with its mountains clothed in white garments of snow and ice and with its colourful gardens; so too as though competing with it, the sky appears veiled, attired in the broken clouds like towering mountains and hills and valleys, and tinted with various colours like the earth’s gardens. Were those towering, billowing clouds to be likened to mountains, ships, gardens, valleys, and caravans of camels, there would be no error in the simile. The thunder acts as shepherd to those itinerent bodies of the atmosphere, whisking the lightning around their heads like a whip. The floating clouds travelling through the oceans of the skies recall mountains crumbling on doomsday. As though the sky summons to arms with the thunder the molecules of water vapour, which, having later received the order to retire, return to their places and are hidden.

Indeed, very often the clouds wear the dress of the mountains, assume their forms, together with the whiteness of snow and ice and their moisture and coldness. The two are thus friends and neighbours and are compelled to exchange what they have. This brotherhood and mutual exchange of forms and dress is found in many places in the Qur’an. The Revelation testifies to their shaking hands as they converse and embrace each other on many lines of the page of the earth in the book of the world. For we see the clouds resting on the mountain making the mountain like a dock or anchorage for the ships of the clouds.

The Second Verse: The sun runs its course to its point of rest. Here, just as runs its course (tajrī) indicates a style, so to its point of rest (li‑mustaqarrin) hints at a truth.

That is to say, it is permissible that with the former it indicates that, like a gilded ironclad ship with a golden anchor, the sun voyages through the oceans of the sky, which are known as “waves held back.” The molten golden sun is at anchor in its point of rest, yet is in motion. But its motion is accidental and secondary, and is presented visually as a concession and to facilitate understanding. In reality it has two motions, but even if this were not the case, it would not be important, for the purpose is to demonstrate the order. Whether the motion is secondary or actual as in the styles of Arabic, from the point of view of the order it is the same.

Secondly: Since the sun is in motion in its resting point in its orbit, its parts of molten gold are in motion too. Its true motion is the seed of its metaphorical movement, mentioned above; indeed, it is its spring.

Thirdly: The sun’s travelling through the deserts of the world in its litter or couch, known as its resting place, and with its planets, appears to be required by wisdom, for divine power made everything living and in motion and condemned nothing to absolute motionlessness. His mercy left nothing in absolute idleness, the brother of death and cousin of non‑existence, that it should be recorded as such. Hence, the sun is free on condition it complies with the divine law. It can roam, but on condition it does not transgress the freedom of others. Yes, the sun is a desert chieftain who complies with the divine command and in each of its motions carries out the divine will. Yes, just as its motion is actual and essential, so it may be accidental and perceived. Just as it is real, so it may be metaphorical. Runs its course (tajrī) illuminates the metaphor. To its point of rest (li‑mustaqarrin) alludes to the style’s vitalising signification.

In Short: The divine aim here is to point out the order and regularity. The order shines like the sun. In accordance with the rule: Eat the honey and don’t ask questions (kuli l‑‘asal wa lā tasal), whether it is the sun’s motion or the earth’s rotation that results in the order, we are not obliged to search out the fundamental cause since it does not spoil the true aim. For example, a lightness is obtained with the alif of qāla (he said). Whatever the original vowel, even if it were kāf (k) instead of wāw (w) it would make no difference. It’s still alif and light.

Indication Basing it on the external sense of sight and the above depictions, I say this: to display a bigoted, literalist, lifeless frigidity is opposed to the warmth and subtlety of eloquence; similarly, it wounds and opposes the intellectual appreciation which testifies to the divine wisdom underlying the world’s order, which is proof of the Maker.

For example, if you turn yourself towards Mount Subhan from a great distance and you want it to be opposite you on every side; or you’ve seen it opposite you on every side; and you give up the short way of taking a few steps in order to bring about the change and imagine or propose taking the enormously long way of traversing a vast circle around the huge mountain, it would be an extraordinary example of waste and futility and in my view a crime against the world’s order.

Now look fairly with the eye of truth at this cold bigotry: just as it opposes a self‑evident fact that is established through the testimony of inductive reasoning – the facts that there is no waste or futility in creation, and pre-eternal wisdom never leaves the short and direct way or chooses long and injurious ways; so too, could anything be conceived that prevents inductive reasoning being the indicator of a figure of speech? Why shouldn’t it be permissible?

Reminder If you wish, return to the Premises and make the First, the lesser and the Third the greater. They will lead you to the conclusion that what confuses the minds of the literalists is the attractions of Greek philosophy.

They even look on it as an incontestable principle in understanding verses of the Qur’an. An example that would make even an elderly widow who has lost her only son roar with laughter is this: some of them who were unable to distinguish the trifles of philosophy from the jewels of truth in the words of an elevated, discerning person who was far superior to themselves, said in Kurdish: The elements are fourfold; the angels were created from them.

But these words are taken from the school of philosophy which states that the angels are luminous bodies created from the elements, and this explicitly refutes the fact that the angels are free of corporeality.

They understood that the elements are fourfold and from Islam. But their being four and elements and simple are philosophers’ terms and among the basic principles of the false natural sciences. They have no connection with any principle of Islam. It is rather a matter based on superficial observation.

Yes, everything that touches on religion does not have to have originated from religion. And to believe that every matter that has combined with Islam is derived from its elements infers that one does not know the character of Islam’s elements. For the Book, Sunna, consensus, and analogy, the four elements of Islam, would not give rise to or comprise such matters.

In Short: The idea that the elements are elementary and fourfold originated from the swamp of philosophy, not from the pure mine of the Shari‘a. But since philosophy’s error entered our forefathers’ language, it found a sound bearer. For when they said “they are fourfold,” they meant they were apparently four. Or oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon, which in truth form the members of bodies, are also four in number.

If you are openminded, consider these evils of philosophy, see how they have captivated minds and cast them into poverty. Bravo to the efforts of freedom‑loving modern science, which has overturned tyrannous Greek philosophy with all its four walls.

This means that it is certain that the key to the evidences of the Qur’an’s verses’ miraculousness and the discloser of the secrets of eloquence are to be taken only from the mine of Arabic rhetoric, not from the workbench of Greek philosophy.

Brother!

The desire to uncover the mysteries has brought us this far, and we have drawn you along with us. We have annoyed you. And we know that you’re very weary. Yet I want to take you on a tour of the Element of Rhetoric and Eloquence and the contents of the Second Article, which is the key to the Qur’an’s miraculous inimitability (i‘jāz). But beware, don’t let the obscure style and wretchedness of the matters’ dress put you off. For what makes it complicated is the fineness and value of the meanings. And what makes it wretched and disdainful of outward adornment, is the meanings’ essential beauty.