Miracle by the permission of Allah Swt

 Written by brother Aiman

The Theology of a Single Word: Qur’anic Eloquence and the Refutation of Deification

One of the most striking sites of eloquence in which it becomes clear that the Qur’an never changes a word except with wisdom, and never moves from one expression to another merely for stylistic variation, is the shift from the words placed on the tongue of Jesus, peace be upon him, in Āl ʿImrān: (وَأُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ) “and I give life to the dead by Allah’s permission”, to His statement, exalted is He, in al-Māʾidah: ****(وَإِذْ تُخْرِجُ الْمَوْتَىٰ بِإِذْنِي) “and when you bring forth the dead by My permission.” This departure is, in reality, a rhetorical key that opens before you one of the doors of the Qur’an’s miraculous arrangement, a door at which the contemplative reader never ceases to marvel.

The scholars of rhetoric state that departing from the expected wording to another wording only occurs for an added benefit; otherwise, repetition would have been more fitting. Had the purpose been merely to report the miracle, repeating the form “you give life” would have been the most immediate expression. Yet the Qur’an turns away from it to “you bring forth”, breaking the horizon of expectation and forcing the heart to pause. Here begins the rhetorical secret.

In Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, the context is one of argumentation against the Children of Israel and the presentation of the proofs of prophethood. The wording therefore comes in a way that corresponds to what the addressees perceive: they see a dead body, then they see it alive. So the act is outwardly ascribed to Jesus, peace be upon him, upon his own tongue, because this is the station of challenging them with the sign. But it is immediately restricted by the phrase “by Allah’s permission”, so that the mind does not become detached from the true Causer, Allah.

Here lies a subtle rhetorical point: the mention of the tremendous act, “I give life,” comes first, then it is followed by the restriction, “by Allah’s permission.” This creates a rhetorical movement within the soul: the listener is first struck by the magnitude of the act, then immediately returned to the reality of servitude. Thus, every inclination toward exaggeration is broken within him, and he knows that what appeared at the hand of the servant was not independently possessed by him, but was only a sign from his Lord.

Then the context shifts in Sūrat al-Māʾidah with astonishing force. Here, the station is no longer one of introducing prophethood; it is the station of putting a historical doctrinal deviation on trial. Here, the Children of Israel are not being addressed so that they may believe; rather, the discourse is carried in a way that implicitly demolishes the very foundation upon which the Christians built their exaggeration regarding the Messiah, peace be upon him.

So look at the astonishing precision of this shift in Sūrat al-Māʾidah. He did not say, “when you give life to the dead,” but rather: “and when you bring forth the dead by My permission.” Here the contemplative reader must pause for a long time, because this is not merely a difference in wording; it is a rhetorical transition from describing the result to defining the true nature of the role.

Giving life, in its original sense, points to the bringing of life itself into existence and the manifestation of its secret, and this is a description befitting the Lord, exalted is He. As for bringing forth, it is a movement from one state to another, or the making manifest of something that occurred through other than you. It is as though the verse is saying: You did not create life, nor did you possess the secret of the soul; rather, you were a means through which the effect of My power became visible. The verse thereby strips from the illusions of exaggeration their finest threads. For the Christians did not go astray from nothing; they went astray through a misreading of the miracle. They saw the act but did not see the true Actor; they stopped at the intermediary and became absent from the Causer.

Then consider the added force in His saying “by My permission” instead of “by Allah’s permission.” In Āl ʿImrān, Jesus, peace be upon him, was the speaker, so it was fitting that he say: “by Allah’s permission.” But in al-Māʾidah, the Speaker is Allah, majestic is His glory, so the attached pronoun, “by My permission,” comes with greater force in establishing the matter, stronger in cutting off the causes of delusion, and like a direct rhetorical strike at the roots of deification.

Among the marvels of the Qur’anic arrangement is also that Sūrat al-Māʾidah presents all these blessings in a continuous sequence: “recall when I supported you with the Holy Spirit,” “recall when I taught you the Scripture and wisdom,” “recall when you formed from clay,” “recall when you brought forth the dead.” The repetition of “إِذْ” (recall when**)** is not empty repetition; it is a rhetorical rhythm, falling like successive blows upon the illusion of the one who deified the Messiah. It is as though the verse is saying: This I gave you, this I granted you, this I caused to occur at your hands, so where, in any of this, is there room for divinity? It is an ascending rhythmic accumulation that immerses the reader in a single truth: everything that amazed you in Jesus has one source, one owner, and one true Bestower.

What a magnificent arrangement: it demolishes shirk through eloquence before demolishing it through argument, and it causes the foundations of exaggeration to collapse from within the wording itself before bringing external proofs against it. Eloquence here is not an ornament added to the meaning; it is the very pickaxe by which illusion is uprooted from its foundations. Here the contemplative reader learns an enduring lesson: great deviation begins first with a shallow reading of actions. You see the outward event and forget the source; you see the intermediary and the reality disappears from you. In this same way, peoples did not deify their prophets except because they stopped at the spectacle of the miracle and did not pass through it to the Owner of the miracle.

So glory be to the One who made the shift between “I give life” and “you bring forth” an ocean of creed and a valley of eloquence; who placed, in the movement of a single word, the demolition of a false doctrine that endured for centuries, and an everlasting lesson in correcting the human gaze toward Allah, toward causes, and toward oneself.

Is the Qur’an Clear? A Response to a Missionary and Qur’an-Only Argument

 

 

ISLAMIC DISCOURSE

MAY 06, 2026

 

The claim that the Qurʾan contradicts itself by describing itself as mubīn, detailed, and a clarification of everything [16:89, 6:114, 12:1], while also containing ambiguous verses [3:7] and requiring the Sunnah [16:44, 16:64], rests on a misunderstanding of what Qurʾanic clarity actually means. It assumes that if a text is “clear,” then it must be exhaustive, self-contained, and require no explanation or interpretive framework. That assumption is neither stated by the Qurʾan nor supported by how language normally works, and it is not how classical scholars understood these verses.

When the Qur’an describes itself as mubīn, it is affirming that its message is clear in guidance, that it distinguishes truth from falsehood, and that it provides a coherent and accessible path for belief and practice. This is reinforced by the description of the Qurʾan as mufaṣṣal [6:114], which classical commentators explained as differentiation of meanings, clarification of truth from falsehood, guidance from misguidance, and lawful from unlawful. Al-‘Izz b. ʿAbd al-Salām, for example, explains that this “detailing” refers to distinguishing categories such as command and prohibition, lawful and unlawful,[1] not to listing every conceivable detail in isolation. The Qurʾan is detailed in what it sets out to do, which is guidance.

The same applies to the phrase tibyānan li-kulli shayʾ [16:89]. Al-Rāzī distinguishes between religious and non-religious knowledge, noting that the verse clearly concerns the former.[2] Al-Ṭabarī explains it as clarification of everything people need regarding the lawful and unlawful and the realities of reward and punishment.[3] Al-Wāḥidī states that it refers to all matters of religion, either explicitly in the text or by directing to sources that establish knowledge, such as the Prophet’s explanation or consensus.[4] Al-Zamakhsharī makes this even more explicit by saying that the Qurʾan clarifies religious matters partly by direct statement and partly by referring to the Sunnah, since it commands obedience to the Messenger.[5] Al-Nasafī synthesizes this by explaining that even rulings known through Sunnah, consensus, or reasoning ultimately return to the Qurʾan, since it establishes their authority.[6] In all of these interpretations, the Qurʾan’s completeness includes its establishment of a system of understanding, not merely a list of isolated instructions.

This is why the presence of ambiguous verses [3:7] is not a contradiction. The Qurʾan itself explains that some verses are foundational and clear, while others require interpretation. That is not a flaw in clarity but part of how clarity operates. A text can be clear in its overall guidance while containing layers that require reflection, context, and explanation. The Qurʾan openly acknowledges this instead of presenting an artificially simplistic model.

The same framework appears when we consider the Prophet’s role. The Qurʾan repeatedly says that the Messenger’s duty is to convey the message clearly [5:92, 24:54, 64:12]. But “clear delivery” is not mere recitation without explanation. The Qurʾan itself clarifies this by stating that the Prophet was sent “so that you may explain to people what has been revealed to them” [16:44] and “so that you may clarify for them that wherein they differ” [16:64]. The verb used, litubayyina, shares the same root as mubīn. The Qurʾan is clear, and the Prophet makes clear. These are not competing ideas but complementary functions within a single revelatory system.

The Qurʾan also describes multiple roles for the Prophet that cannot be reduced to simple delivery. He recites the revelation, purifies people, teaches them the Book, and teaches them wisdom [2:129, 2:151, 3:164, 62:2]. If his only role were to transmit words, these additional functions would be redundant. Teaching the Book is not the same as reciting it, and teaching wisdom is not reducible to repeating verses. The Qurʾan itself expands the concept of revelation beyond text to include explanation, application, and lived embodiment.

This becomes even clearer when we look at verses that establish the Prophet’s authority. He is described as making lawful what is good and unlawful what is impure [7:157], and believers are commanded to take whatever he gives and refrain from whatever he forbids [59:7]. His judgments must be accepted with full submission [4:65], and his authority is paired with that of God in binding decisions [33:36]. These verses cannot be reconciled with the idea that the Prophet’s role was merely to recite a text without interpretive or practical authority.

The claim of contradiction also collapses when we compare how similar reasoning would apply to other scriptures if read in the same uncharitable way. The Bible, for example, describes itself as a clear guide. In Psalm 119 it says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Yet 2 Peter admits that some parts of scripture are “hard to understand.” No serious reader sees this as a contradiction. The message is clear in guidance, but not every passage is equally simple.

Similarly, 2 Timothy says that scripture equips a person for “every good work,” yet Christianity has always relied on interpretation, theology, and tradition to understand and apply that scripture. No one concludes that the Bible is therefore inconsistent. Rather, they understand that sufficiency includes a framework for interpretation, not the absence of it.

The teachings of Jesus also show a similar pattern. In Luke it is said that nothing will remain hidden, yet in Matthew Jesus explicitly speaks in parables so that not everyone immediately understands. This is not viewed as contradiction but as layered communication, where understanding depends on receptivity and explanation.

Moreover, the New Testament does not present guidance as text alone. In John Jesus speaks of the Spirit teaching believers, and in Matthew he commands his followers to teach others to observe what he commanded. This results in a structure of scripture plus teacher plus transmitted understanding. Again, no contradiction is perceived. It is simply how revelation operates.

Even within the Biblical wisdom literature, we find statements similar to the Qurʾanic description of clarity. The Book of Proverbs states that its words are clear to the discerning and upright to those who find knowledge. Yet no one takes this to mean that every proverb is equally obvious to every reader regardless of context, wisdom, or explanation. The clarity is relational. It is clear to those prepared to understand it.

These parallels show that the alleged contradiction in the Qurʾan arises only when one imposes an artificial definition of “clear” as meaning “independent of all explanation.” Once that assumption is removed, the structure becomes coherent. The Qurʾan is clear in its guidance, detailed in its differentiation of truth and falsehood, comprehensive in establishing the sources of religious knowledge, and explicit in assigning the Prophet the role of explaining, teaching, and embodying that guidance.

A helpful way to conceptualize this is through a simple analogy. If a textbook says it is clear, detailed, and sufficient for success, and within that same textbook it instructs students to follow the teacher’s explanations, then referring to the teacher is not a contradiction of the book’s sufficiency. It is part of it. The book is clear precisely because it clearly directs the student to the proper means of understanding and application.

In the same way, the Qurʾan’s claim to clarity includes its clear instruction to follow the Messenger. The Sunnah is not an external patch added to fix an incomplete text. It is the divinely sanctioned means through which the Qurʾan’s guidance is explained, lived, and implemented. The supposed contradiction disappears once the Qurʾan is read on its own terms rather than through an imposed definition of what clarity must mean.

---

[1] He states:

‏{‏مُفَصَّلاً‏}‏ تفصيل آياته لتمتاز معانيه، أو تفصيل الصادق من الكاذب، أو تفصيل الحق من الباطل والهدى من الضلال، أو تفصيل الأمر من النهي، أو المستحب من المحظور والحلال من الحرام‏

[2] He states:

المسألة الثانية: من الناس من قال: القرآن تبيان لكل شيء وذلك لأن العلوم إما دينية أو غير دينية، أما العلوم التي ليست دينية فلا تعلق لها بهذه الآية، لأن من المعلوم بالضرورة أن الله تعالى إنما مدح القرآن بكونه مشتملا على علوم الدين فأما ما لا يكون من علوم الدين فلا التفات إليه، وأما علوم الدين فإما الأصول، وإما الفروع، أما علم الأصول فهو بتمامه موجود في القرآن وأما علم الفروع فالأصل براءة الذمة إلا ما ورد على سبيل التفصيل في هذا الكتاب، وذلك يدل على أنه لا تكليف من الله تعالى إلا ما ورد في هذا القرآن، وإذا كان كذلك كان القول بالقياس باطلا، وكان القرآن وافيا ببيان كل الأحكام، وأما الفقهاء فإنهم قالوا: القرآن إنما كان تبيانا لكل شيء، لأنه يدل على أن الإجماع وخبر الواحد والقياس حجة، فإذا ثبت حكم من الأحكام بأحد هذه الأوصل كان ذلك الحكم ثابتا بالقرآن، وهذه المسألة قد سبق ذكرها بالاستقصاء في سورة الأعراف، والله أعلم

[3] He says:

وقوله ( وَنـزلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ ) يقول: نـزل عليك يا محمد هذا القرآن بيانا لكلّ ما بالناس إليه الحاجة من معرفة الحلال والحرام والثواب والعقاب

[4] He states:

وقال أهل المعاني: يعني لكل شيء من أمور الدين بالنص عليه أو الإحالة على ما يوجب العلم به من بيان النبيّ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- أو إجماع، فهو الأصل والمفتاح لعلوم الدين

[5] He says:

فإن قلت: كيف كان القرآن تبياناً { لّكُلّ شَيْء}؟ قلت: المعنى أنه بين كل شيء من أمور الدين، حيث كان نصاً على بعضها وإحالة على السنة، حيث أمر فيه باتباع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وطاعته

[6] He says:

ويوم نبعث فى كل أمة شهيدا عليهم من انفسهم يعنى نبيهم لأنه كان يبعث أنبياء الأمم فيهم منهم وجئنا بك يا محمد شهيدا على هؤلاء على أمتك ونزلنا عليك الكتاب تبيانا بليغا لكل شيء من امور الدين أما في الأحكام المنصوصة فظاهر وكذا فيما ثبت بالسنة أو بالاجماع أو بقول الصحابة أو بالقياس لأن مرجع الكل إلى الكتاب حيث أمرنا فيه باتباع رسوله عليه السلام وطاعته بقوله أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وحثنا على الإجماع فيه بقوله ويتبع غير سبيل المؤمنين وقد رضى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لأمته باتباع أصحابه بقوله أصحابى كالنجوم بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم وقد اجتهدوا وقاسوا ووطئوا طرق الاجتهاد والقياس مع أنه أمرنا به بقوله فاعتبروا يا أولى الأبصار فكانت السنة والإجماع وقول الصحابى والقياس مستندة إلى تبيان الكتاب فنتبين أنه كان تبيانا لكل شيء وهدى ورحمة وبشرى للمسلمين ودلالة إلى الحق ورحمة لهم وبشارة لهم بالجنة