The Extensive Guidance of God

The intended meaning of guidance in the verse is not confined to the Prophet and the heavenly Book. The term “guidance” mentioned in the verse is absolute and includes all forms of complete rational proofs and authentic transmitted evidence, without any restricting factor. Some scholars have argued that the contrast between the verse under discussion and the verse stating, “And those who disbelieve and deny Our signs, they are the companions of the Fire; they will abide in it eternally,” serves as evidence to restrict the absoluteness of guidance to the Prophet and the heavenly Book.(236) They claim that by indicating contrast, the intended meaning of guidance is specifically the Prophet and the heavenly Book.

However, this implication of contrast does not sufficiently restrict the absoluteness of guidance. Just as authentic transmitted proof is a sign of God, definitive rational demonstration, which serves as the basis of monotheism and the foundation of reasoning for religion and its fundamental principles, is also an authoritative sign of God. Disbelief in and denial of rational proofs are condemned, just as denial of transmitted signs leads to the same consequences of entering Hell. The Noble Qur’an itself engages in rational argumentation in some verses and criticizes those who reject sound reasoning.(237)

Therefore, if it is not feasible to deduce the generality or absoluteness of the signs from the generality or absoluteness of guidance through the indication of contrast, and to extend it to encompass rational signs alongside transmitted signs, then it cannot be definitively established that the title of signs is exclusive to transmitted signs. The implication of specificity cannot be regarded as firmly established. Consequently, the indication of contrast cannot be employed as a basis for particularizing or restricting the generality or absoluteness of guidance, nor for following the uneven interpretive path suggested in al-Kashshāf.(238)

The contextual evidence of contrast can assist in deriving some points, but when the specific nature of each of the contrasting elements is considered, the ruling of one cannot necessarily be applied to the other. In the topic under discussion, the promise made to true followers of divine guidance contrasts with the threat directed at those who deny divine signs. The promise to those who follow guidance represents goodness and perfection, inherently decreed and pleasing to God, while the threat to the rebellious embodies evil and affliction, decreed and pleasing only in a relative sense. This is because human essence is aligned with divine vicegerency and the attainment of God’s special mercy. Straying from this path—abandoning the vicegerency, rejecting the guardianship, dismissing the heavenly book, and consequently falling from the palace of God’s love into the prison of His wrath—is fundamentally opposed to this essence. Therefore, in certain stages and stations, the affinity between contrasting elements may not hold, and the context of contrast will not be applicable.

The reason for the distinction between the aspect of warning and the aspect of promise may lie in the nature of the guided individuals, as some scholars have noted, and is supported by transmitted evidence. In the context of warning, Hell and eternal punishment are mentioned, whereas in the promise, only the negation of fear and grief is highlighted without reference to Paradise or eternity.

This could be due to the varying motivations of those who follow divine guidance. The guided are categorized into two groups: the high group and the highest group. The high group follows guidance out of fear of Hell, fear of missing Paradise, or longing for it. The highest group, however, follows guidance out of fear of separation from God, dread of missing the divine encounter, or longing to meet Him. For this highest group, their focus transcends the known Paradise; they do not long for Paradise, but Paradise longs for them. Paradise fears losing their presence, not the other way around.

Since the reward of negating fear and removing grief encompasses both the high and the highest groups, some Qur’anic verses mention the entry into Paradise along with the negation of fear and grief, and others combine the station of wilāya with the negation of fear and grief, as seen in the verses: “Enter Paradise, there is no fear for you, nor will you grieve” (7:49) and “Indeed, the awliyāʾ of God—there is no fear for them, nor will they grieve” (10:42).

The station of wilāya has various levels, the highest of which involves complete detachment from anything other than God. For such a walī (friend) of God, fear or grief is only conceivable within the context of the divine encounter. If any fear or grief is attributed to them, it pertains not to their personal concerns but to the state of Paradise, which worries about the absence of such distinguished guests. In essence, just as Paradise longs for these special awliyāʾ, it also fears their potential absence, reflecting the deep bond between the divine friends and the eternal abode.