This means that the real attributes of God are not other than His Essence, so there is no partition at anytime between Gods‟s Essence and His attributes. All other beings, including the Prophets, Aa‟imma, angels and saints, their characteristics are in addition to their person. No one (other than God) is exception to this rule.
Some years ago, one of my articles titled “The categories of Tauhid” was published in a number of national papers. It was then distributed as a pamphlet, wherein different aspects of Tauhid were discussed in some detail, whose summary has been presented in the previous pages of this book. I stated in the article that God‟s virtues are personal, whereas our characteristics are additional to our being, in other words, there is a partition between our essence and our attributes. There was a time when we did not have these traits, and when God granted us tools, we acquired those qualities, as mentioned in the Qu‟ran,
“When you came out from your mothers wombs, you did not know a thing, We then gave you hearing, sight and heart, so that you might thank.”
Then after explaining few of God‟s attributes, I wrote on page eight, “Therefore, no one shares this type of Tauhid with God, as the characteristics of every creature are acquired traits, including that of Prophet Muhammad, just as it has been mentioned in the Qur‟an, “We taught you what you knew not about the faith and the book. We created a light and guided whom We wished, and We taught you the inspired knowledge.” Some of the scholars inadvertently accused me that I have included the Prophet in the same league as pointed out by the former Quranic verse, “When you came out from your mothers bellies, you did not know a thing, We then gave you hearing, sight and heart, so that you might thank.” and they quoted the previous verse (You knew not what is faith and what is the book …) to prove their case against me, and after showing my alleged mistake they tried to correct the situation in their own way by proposing that there is a difference between personal attributes and exclusively personal attributes, and then advocated that the Prophet‟s knowledge was his personal, in a manner an object possesses length, width and height or the emergence of light from the Sun, or
the capability of fire to burn is additional to their status but these traits cannot be separated from their essence, and then they continued to argue that while the attributes of the Aa‟imma are external to their essence but cannot be separated from their being, and then they quoted the above referenced Quranic verse You knew not what is faith and what is the book……….and then proposed that it is an undefined proposition (QUZIA SA’LEBA), which does not require to specify the subject of the proposition, and its applicability is true even if the issue (principal) of the proposition is absent or undecided. For example, the statement “David is not standing” is true whether David is present or absent. Therefore, in the light of the given example the meaning of the verse would be, “O, Prophet just as your body is our gift, similarly, faith and knowledge is our award to you, however, when you were not present you did not know the nature of faith or the book.” This argument is redundant due to certain reasons,
1. They were not honest in reproducing my quote. I have never written explicitly or implicitly that the Quranic verse, “When you came out from your mothers wombs, you did not know a thing, We then gave you hearing, sight and heart, so that you might thank), is meant for the Prophet. Such an act is a deliberate effort to mislead people against me. How such a person can be accused of this offence, who believes in the words of the Prophet when he says, “He was the Prophet when Adam was between water clay,” would say that the above quoted verse has included the Prophet among the ordinary. Anyone who casts an ordinary look at my work would immediately recognise that the first Quranic verse was for the ordinary people, whereas, the second verse, (We taught you the inspired knowledge ……..) was revealed to honour the Prophet,
2. Even if this difference is accepted, which exists between personal and exclusively personal attributes, the knowledge of the Prophets cannot be termed as the knowledge of their person or essence, and this is invalid on the following grounds, (a) an attribute, which is part of ones nature is not subject to variation. It is applicable to the acquired knowledge of the admired, as mentioned in the books of logic. According to Silmul Oloom, variation is neither a state nor an attachment, but it is when the people are wrapped in inconsistencies, however, the variation in the Prophet‟s knowledge is evident from the Qur‟an,
(O, God enhance my knowledge).
Books of Ahadith describe in detail the changes in knowledge that took place with various prophets over a long period. Similarly, it can be said about Moses,
“When Moses reached his youth and fashioned his physique, We granted him knowledge and wisdom.”
For further information, reference can be made to
Tafseer’e Saafi and Majmaul Bayan.
3. In Sura Yusuf, reference is made to the Prophet, “Whatever We have told you in this Qu‟ran so far, is the best narrative, although you were not aware of it before.”
There are several other verses in the Qur‟an, where the difference between the Prophet‟s person and his attributes is evident, and on the basis of these facts, how we can make Knowledge (Ilm) as the integral part of his essence?
4. This Ilm or knowledge is the consequence of Prophetic or Imamic spirit, which is called Roohul Quds, and this spirit is not among the personal attribute of the Prophets and Imams; it is granted to them after their creation, which is evident from multitude of Ahadith, then how its offshoot can be integrated with their
persona or essence? Again it is true that an undefined proposition (Quzia Saleba) is applicable when the anticipated (object) is subtracted or absent but it is also relevant when the subject is removed from the context. However, to decide where these two suggestions are valid is made by looking into the facets of the evidence provided. This problem therefore, is not an intellectual exercise but a practical proposition; therefore, reference has to be made to the true interpreters of Qur‟an to understand the nature of the problem at this point in time. By probing into the narrations of Imams, it appears that there was a time that the person of the Prophet was present but he was not aware of the knowledge of the book (See, Osool’e Kaafi, Tafseer’e Saafi and Burhan). It is related from Imam Jaffer‟e Sadiq, in the interpretation of the Quranic verse quoted above from Sura Yousuf, that there was a time when the Prophet did not have the knowledge of Illmul Kitab and faith, until God granted him the Spirit, which is mentioned in this verse. This clears the air that there was a time when the Prophet was present but he was not aware of the things mentioned above. It must be born in mind that this scenario is related to a time before the Prophet‟s apparent arrival in this world, therefore, the statement that this is an undefined proposition, minus the subject; is nothing but Tafseer Bir Rai or a personal interpretation. Allama Sarsavi, has written an authentic volume, titled Kashful Asrar, on the predicaments of the Book and its Recitation, in which a detailed analysis of this verse has been presented, and he has accepted that in between the spiritual creation of the Prophet and the bestowal of the Prophetic spirit, there was a period when he was not aware of the Book and wisdom. It is insignificant to indulge into the duration of this period, or if it was time or place bound. However, while staying within the precautionary limits, this is obvious from the Quranic verse that there was a time with the Prophet, when the sequence of Prophetic
revelations had not commenced with him. We now return to our original topic.
DISCUSSION ON THE UNITY OF ACTIONS OR DEEDS (TAUHID’E FA’ALI)