The Lack of Doubt and Hesitation in the Conditional Statement

The natural and worldly life on earth for human beings—who are rational and possess free will—is inherently incomplete without divine guidance. Human society, therefore, is never detached from this essential guidance, as highlighted by the verse: “Those who disbelieved among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not to be parted [from misbelief] until there came to them clear evidence—A Messenger from God, reciting purified scriptures” (98:1-2). This verse underscores the necessity of revelation and prophethood.

Moreover, this guidance is a special grace that God, the Glorified, has decreed upon Himself as an act of mercy: “Your Lord has decreed upon Himself mercy” (6:54). The Qur’an further argues for the necessity of this mercy: “[We sent] messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against God after the messengers. And ever is God Exalted in Might and Wise” (4:165). Without the messengers, humanity could have argued against God on the Day of Resurrection, claiming they were not guided. This reasoning emphasizes that while rational proof is honored and considered essential, it is not sufficient on its own to ensure human happiness. Thus, revelation and prophethood are indispensable, and the detailed analysis of these concepts will be addressed in their relevant discussions.

The discussion revolves around why the processes of legislation, revelation, and prophethood are expressed in a conditional sentence that appears to imply doubt. To address the apparent uncertainty of the principle of sending prophets, several aspects have been considered, some of which are briefly outlined here:

1. Belief in the existence and oneness of God is not contingent upon the sending of messengers or the revelation of scriptures, as rational proof alone suffices to establish this necessity. Thus, even in the absence of divine books or prophets, belief in the existence of God and His oneness remains obligatory.

The aspect provided by al-Zamakhsharī(239) is flawed in several respects. Firstly, the guidance mentioned in the verse extends beyond rational and transmitted proofs. Secondly, following divine guidance is not limited to the basic tenets of faith, such as belief in God’s existence and oneness, but encompasses all stages of religion, making such guidance essential. Al-Zamakhsharī, along with other Muʿtazilite thinkers, acknowledges the necessity of this guidance, although their argument requires refinement. They must differentiate between what is obligatory from God (wājib ʿan Allāh) and what is considered obligatory upon God (wājib ʿalā Allāh), highlighting that divine guidance stems from His grace and not an external compulsion.

2. Since sending messengers and revealing scriptures is not obligatory upon God, it is presented in the form of doubt. This argument, rooted in the Ashʿarite denial of rational good and evil, has been echoed by some later Ashʿarite scholars. They assert that the verse implies the absence of any obligation on God to send messengers,(240) as discussed by al-Bayḍāwī. However, critiquing the Ashʿarite view and distinguishing between what is obligatory from God (wājib ʿan Allāh) versus what is obligatory upon God (wājib ʿalā Allāh) extends beyond the present discussion. Nonetheless, the verse’s intent is certainly not to suggest that sending messengers is unnecessary for God, the Glorious.

3. The differentiation between essential causes, which inherently necessitate their effects, and accidental causes, where the effect can be separated, is critical. The occurrence of prophethood and similar phenomena are not essential to human nature, and thus they are expressed conditionally, where doubt is a marker of possibility, not necessity, in the real world. This nuanced aspect aligns with the philosophical terminology and framework of Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn, who delves into the complexities of cause and effect, particularly within the domain of metaphysics and theology.

Since the core focus of the verse under discussion, as well as verse 123 of Sūrah Ṭāhā, is the descent of guidance originating from God Almighty rather than its attainment by humans, it highlights the active origin (mabdaʾ fāʿilī) of revelation rather than its receptive origin (mabdaʾ qābilī). This is evident in both verses where it states: “But if there comes to you guidance from Me.” Here, the emphasis is on God, the Agent, who considers the act of sending the Messenger to be a definitive action attributed to Himself. Therefore, considering all the explicit and implicit aspects of the discussion, the perspective of Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn, may God have mercy on him, appears incomplete.(241)

To address the central issue and resolve the raised problem, it should be noted that a conditional sentence, concerning actual existence, does not negate the necessity or impossibility of the antecedent and consequent, nor does it imply their mere possibility. Similarly, in terms of mental existence, it neither negates certainty about the realization or non-realization of the antecedent and consequent nor necessitates doubt about their occurrence.

The ruling on conditional propositions that are conjunctive and necessary is based on the correlation between the antecedent and the consequent. In contrast, the ruling on disjunctive contradictory propositions is grounded in the inherent contradiction between the elements. In a conjunctive proposition, the primary assertion is the relationship of correlation, whereas in a disjunctive proposition, the assertion is centered on contradiction. There is no inherent doubt, uncertainty, or possibility within the framework of a conditional proposition.

In terms of actual existence, the antecedent and consequent can be necessarily existent, impossible, or contingent. Likewise, in terms of mental existence, they may be known to exist, known not to exist, or be uncertain. This analysis clarifies that extensive efforts made by some exegetes to resolve perceived doubts or uncertainties surrounding conditional propositions have been unnecessary.

This reflection reveals that a necessary matter can sometimes be articulated in the form of a categorical proposition and, at other times, as a conditional proposition. Since the process of legislation and the sending of a messenger was new for the generation that descended from Adam and Eve (a.s.), and no prior information was available about it, the ruling or guidance that was initially violated in Paradise was now framed with a specific restriction and threat. Thus, the conditional form emphasizes that if God’s command is breached again due to Iblīs’s whispering and deceit, disobedience will lead to severe punishment.

This approach also serves to underline the seriousness of adherence to divine guidance, warning against disobedience through the conditional framing. However, care must be taken not to misinterpret this as creating grounds for doubt regarding the necessity of sending a messenger, which would deviate from the intended message of the discussion.