Critique of Ālūsī’s Statement

In the exegesis Rūḥ al-Maʿānī it states:

Without doubt, the verse of mutual imprecation (mubāhala) indicates the prophethood of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) and the virtue of the People of the House (a.s.). However, the Shi’i attempt to prove the succession (khilāfa) of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (a.s.) from it is incorrect, because the meaning of “ourselves” is not ʿAlī (a.s.), such that it could be said he is at the level of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.) self and more deserving of succession. Rather, the meaning of “ourselves” is the person of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) himself, meaning that we should call ourselves. And since in common usage a son-in-law is called a son, “our sons” includes ʿAlī (a.s.) as well. Therefore, if applying the term “son” to a daughter’s son is literal truth, then “our sons” would be a general metaphor including both the literal individuals, namely Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (a.s.), and the metaphorical individual, namely ʿAlī (a.s.). And if applying “son” to a daughter’s son is metaphorical, there is no need for a general metaphor, since all three individuals are metaphorical. As for the claim that a person does not call himself, this is incorrect, since in common discourse we say “I convinced myself” or “my soul called me to something,” and the Qur’an also states: “So his soul prompted him to kill his brother…”(719) Thus it is possible for a person to call himself, and what Ṭabrisī and other Shi’i scholars have said - that the meaning is not calling oneself - is nothing but nonsense and prejudice.(720)

In response to Ālūsī, it must be said that the default in usage is literal usage, and using a word in a metaphorical sense requires contextual evidence. Therefore, if we do not know whether the speaker intended the literal or metaphorical meaning from his speech, we must interpret the word according to its literal meaning. Yes, if we know a word has been used in a certain meaning, we cannot say that meaning is literal, since usage is more general than literal truth, and these two principles have been discussed in the principles of jurisprudence (uṣūl al-fiqh).

Using the term “son” (ibn) for a son-in-law and calling oneself based on customary meaning is metaphorical, and one cannot interpret the word as such without contextual evidence. Here, not only is there no such evidence, but there is also proof for intending the literal meaning, because “ourselves” (anfusanā) appears in contrast to “our sons” (abnāʾanā) and “our women” (nisāʾanā), so the intended meaning must be someone who is at the level of one’s own soul and even higher than sons and daughters.

Ālūsī also says:

If the Shi’i intention is that at the time of the Qur’an’s revelation, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (a.s.) was the caliph, this is incorrect, because the revelation of the verse of mutual imprecation occurred in the ninth year after migration, and he was not caliph until that time. And if they mean that he would become caliph in the future, no one disagrees with this statement. The disagreement is about whether his caliphate was immediate, which must be proven through other means.(721)

In response to Ālūsī, it must be said that the term “ourselves” (anfusanā) does not directly indicate the caliphate of the Commander of the Faithful, such that one could say he was not caliph at that time. Rather, it indicates that he is superior to all people, since he is at the level of the soul of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.), and after the passing of the Prophet (s.a.w.), if the matter is between him and others, he who is at the level of the Prophet’s soul takes precedence over outsiders for the matter of succession.