The Necessity of Divine Guidance Reaching Humanity

Since the true purpose of human beings is to attain nearness to the Absolute Perfection, which is God the Glorified, anything that serves this path and goal must originate from God. Only then does it possess the distinct attribute of guidance; otherwise, anything not from God is mere desire, not guidance. If intellectual reasoning does not speak of God or invite humanity towards Him, it is simply desire, not guidance. Similarly, if transmitted evidence does not come from the divine source or guide towards God, it remains desire, not guidance. This is why God states in the verse: “From Me is guidance… a guidance…”

The message of this verse is that any type of evidence, whether rational or transmitted, must originate from God. Its standard and criterion are clear: when its effect is realized, it reaches the human being. Simply establishing signs or presenting evidence without it reaching those responsible lacks the quality of being a divine proof. Such evidence, if unheeded or unacted upon, does not warrant Hell’s punishment. Divine guidance, whether in rational demonstration or reliable transmitted evidence, must not only reach the required level of scholarly maturity and authoritativeness but must also achieve practical maturity—meaning it must be conveyed to those responsible in human society. Only then can it be considered God’s complete proof in every respect. Otherwise, no negative consequence will arise from abandoning or opposing it due to ignorance, forgetfulness, or unawareness, as the phrase “reaches you” indicates.

It is not necessary for the divine messenger to reach each individual personally and convey God’s message as a private invitation. Rather, it is sufficient for the message to be presented within human society in a manner accessible to any attentive and ordinarily inquisitive person, who can attain it with moderate investigation and effort without undue hardship. The details of this process are extensively discussed in the science of uṣūl al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence).

It is also clear that divine guidance is broader than the guidance offered by the Prophet, the Imam, and their infallible conduct and way of life (a.s.). Similarly, it extends beyond rational and transmitted proofs. For those unique individuals who are truly guided and can discern the truth, heartfelt witnessing is also considered divine guidance once it is presented to the witnessing of the infallible guardian (a.s.).

In any case, all human beings, including prophets and nations, are encompassed by the address “there shall come to you” (yaʾtīyannakum). This inclusiveness applies whether the intended meaning of guidance is rational proof or inner vision, which evidently includes prophets. Similarly, if the guidance refers to the prophet and imam, they themselves are also included. This is because every infallible prophet and imam possesses two distinct personas: the true persona and the legal persona. The roles of prophethood and imamate are associated with their legal persona. Consequently, their true persona is addressed like other individuals, requiring them to be humble and obedient before their own legal persona.

Thus, the deduction of Fakhr al-Rāzī,(242) who stated that if the intended meaning of guidance is the prophets, it would necessitate specifying the address to the children of Adam, and this specification—similar to specifying guidance to the prophets without evidence—would not be incorrect. Since Iblīs and his offspring belong to the genus of jinn, and the jinn, like humans, act with thought and choice and are obligated with divine duties, they too are included in the address just like Adam, Eve, and their offspring. Therefore, there is no differentiation between the address “Go down” (ihbiṭū) and the address “there shall come to you” (yaʾtīyannakum). It is also possible that the prophet of the jinn may not be from their genus but rather from the genus of humans. This difference in genus does not pose any obstacle to sending [prophets], argumentation, and similar matters.

Firstly, it is not possible to consider the address “yatīnakum” as specific to Adam, Eve, and their offspring. Secondly, based on the unity of context, it is not feasible to consider the second command “ihbiṭū” as exclusive to them while excluding Iblīs from this command of descent. This is because establishing a weak foundation on an invisible basis, assuming that the address “yatīnakum” is specific to humans, is unjustifiable.

It cannot be said that if the intention of guidance is explanation and indication, then the address “go down” is general, and if the intention refers to the prophets and messengers, it is specific to Adam, Eve, and their offspring. This is because, in all cases, there would be no valid reason for the specificity of the address or the second command of descent being exclusive to Adam, Eve, and their offspring.

However, generalizing the address “there will come to you” concerning the offspring of Adam and Eve has a justification, and it can be considered similar to the verse: “Our Lord, make us Muslims [in submission] to You and from our descendants a Muslim nation [in submission] to You. And show us our rites” (2:128) in which the descendants are mentioned in plural form before their actual existence. This generalization can also be likened to the verse: “He said to it and to the earth, ‘Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion.’ They said, ‘We have come willingly’” (41:11).

This perspective was first addressed in the exegesis of al-Ṭabarī,(243) then presented in al-Tibyān(244) by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī (may his soul be sanctified), and later clearly elaborated in Majmaʿ al-Bayān(245) by al-Ṭabrisī (may his soul be sanctified).

Note: The apparent meaning of some verses suggests the coming of prophets, such as: “There will come to you messengers from among you….” (7:35). However, this does not specifically indicate a restriction of the general or an exception to the absolute. Both types of evidence aim to establish a single matter and are, technically speaking, affirmative. Therefore, this does not contradict the generality or absoluteness of the verse under discussion or similar verses.