Subtleties and Allusions

1. The Uncountability of God

The Qur’an does not count God among any beings, because He cannot be counted. He is the One who does not admit of two; He is the First who is the essence of the Last; He is the Manifest who is the essence of the Hidden; nothing sits alongside Him to be His second, and fundamentally the counter himself and other countable things are all under the encompassment of the Self-Subsistence (qayyūmiyya) of the Exalted Truth, and He encompasses all things: “Indeed, He encompasses all things”.(39) For this reason, in the verse of private conversation (najwā) He said: “There is no private conversation of three but He is the fourth of them, nor of five but He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more but He is with them wherever they are”.(40) The phrase “He is with them…” at the end of the verse is the proof of the claim at its beginning: because whoever is in whatever circumstances, God is with him, and God encompasses everything, consequently no other existence is placed opposite Him for God to be countable.

Regarding the number of the Companions of the Cave (aṣḥāb al-kahf), there is disagreement: “They will say, ‘Three, the fourth of them being their dog’; and they will say, ‘Five, the sixth of them being their dog’ - guessing at the unseen; and they will say, ‘Seven, and the eighth of them their dog.’ Say, ‘My Lord is most knowing of their number. None knows them except a few’”.(41) It has been said that the Companions of the Cave were three people and the fourth among them was their dog; or they were five people and the sixth among them was their dog. Indeed, there the dog is not counted among them because the dog and human are not of the same genus, species, and category; but from certain other aspects, animals share many commonalities with humans such that if one wanted to count them together, it would be possible. If there they wanted to count animals in general, both rational (nāṭiq) and non-rational (ghayr nāṭiq), or to enumerate bodies and corporeal things, or to take a census of “contingent” (mumkin) things, or…, then the dog and non-dog would be equal, and for this reason there it would have the capacity to be counted. But God does not come into numerical reckoning with any other being under any consideration. He has no generic, specific, material, formal, attributive, numerical, or existential partnership with anyone, because the existence of other-than-God is relational (rabṭ), deficient, and limited, while God has boundless existence. For this reason, nothing is comparable to Him: “There is nothing like unto Him”.(42) This indefinite noun (nakira) in the context of negation negates any kind of similarity whatsoever; consequently, He does not come into number so as to be placed under enumeration with other-than-Himself.

If two lights, strong and weak, such as the light of the sun and the light of the moon, are supposed, here one can say there are two lights; but if there is an infinite and unlimited light that is present in all lights but without mixture and blending, that light is in the light of the sun, moon, and celestial bodies without being limited. In this case, can one suppose another light in opposition to this light and say there are two lights: the first light and the second light? Or must one necessarily say that the first light “is the First and the Last”,(43) because wherever one looks, it is the same light? Based on this, God’s grace (fayḍ) is with humanity everywhere and in all circumstances: “He is with you wherever you are”,(44) and humanity is not outside of Him so as to point to another and say “this is the second one.” Consequently, He does not come under enumeration. Imam Sajjād (a.s.) said: “To You, O my God, belongs the unity of number (waḥdāniyyat al-ʿadad)!”(45) The unity of number belongs to You; that is, number is Your manifestation, just as unity (wāḥid) is Your manifestation, otherwise numericity (ʿadadiyya) is not compatible with divinity (ulūhiyya). The Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) expressed this same point much more clearly: “One without number (wāḥid lā bi-ʿadad), eternal without duration (dāʾim lā bi-amad), and subsistent without support (qāʾim lā bi-ʿamad)”.(46) God does not have numerical unity, because number is quantity (kamm) - an accident (ʿaraḍ) - and part of essential (māhawī) discussions, and He is above all of these. God is an eternal being, but His eternity is not temporal, because He is the Creator of time, not a temporally continuous being. God is subsistent but has no support (ʿamad), unlike other beings whose support is God. So if someone says “Indeed, God is the third of three” and their intention is statistical counting and numerical calculation, even if they do not believe in the divinity of other-than-God, they have still spoken incorrectly.

Note: Although according to the gradation (tashkīk) of the reality of existence, God possesses the highest level of being and contingent beings possess other levels, and on this basis, God is a being in opposition to other beings and the difference between the necessary (wājib) and the contingent (mumkin) is in intensity and weakness, necessity and contingency and the like; however, the final view of transcendent wisdom (ḥikmat al-mutaʿāliya) is that God is infinite being; then the flow of gradation becomes perfected and will be transformed into personal unity (waḥdat al-shakhṣiyya), and in this state, the principle of existence, meaning “being” (būd), is exclusive to God and all contingent beings that are His creation and signs (āya) are presented in the form of “manifestation” (numūd) not “being” (būd). The details of this matter are the responsibility of theoretical mysticism (ʿirfān-i naẓarī).

2. The Absolute Unity of God

The more a human being becomes familiar with sensible things and the natural world and is content with natural and sensory sciences, the more his knowledge remains within that scope and he does not digest supra-natural knowledge (maʿārif-i farāṭabīʿī). In contrast, a human being who is intimate with divine knowledge (maʿārif-i ilāhī) and that which is beyond nature attains knowledge that transcends the bounds of nature and matter.

This difference in inclination has manifested in the quality of perception and knowledge of the issue of divine unity (tawḥīd) and the oneness of God, because in this issue the difference in the manner of perception and understanding of God’s existence is evident. Belief in the principle of God’s existence is innate (fiṭrī) to humans; however, some people, in response to the need of their innate nature (fiṭrat), carve idols from stone and wood and make them partners of God and worship them and ask for their needs from them. Consequently, even if they are not content with their idols, they place God in the ranks of other idols and believe in an existence for Him similar to the existence of their gods, so they attribute numerical unity (existence) to God that they have accepted for their idols and gods. They consider Him one of those gods and find the restriction of divinity (ulūhiyya) to Him strange: “Has he made the gods one god? Indeed, this is a curious thing”.(47)

Based on this way of thinking, they considered the Qur’an’s call to divine unity (tawḥīd): “And your god is one God; there is no god except Him”,(48) “He is the Living One; there is no god except Him, so call upon Him, being sincere to Him in religion”,(49) “And your god is one God”(50) to be a call to numerical unity; the same unity that is opposed to multiplicity. In their opinion, the Qur’an’s intention in calling for the abandonment of all gods and the worship of one God was to accept a god whose unity is like that of other gods, while the Qur’an negates numerical unity from God, because its necessary consequence is His limitation and subjugation, and according to the lofty teaching of the Qur’an, God is not only transcendent from limitation and subjugation, but is a subjugator (qāhir) who is never subjugated: “He is the One, the Subjugator”;(51) “To whom belongs sovereignty this Day? To God, the One, the Subjugator”;(52) “And there is no god except God, the One, the Subjugator”:(53) The context of these verses considers the sacred realm of God to be transcendent from all forms of contingent unity such as individual, specific and generic unity, because all these forms of unity share in subjugation and the necessity of having a limit that separates and distinguishes the individual from other individuals of the species, or the species from other species of the genus. Therefore, since the unity of God is not contingent unity, nothing can subjugate and overcome Him in essence, attributes and actions, or limit Him within any of the limits.

The word “subjugator” (qahhār) appears six times in the Qur’an and in none of them does it come with the attribute “powerful” (qadīr) or “capable” (qādir). If subjugation (qahr) meant coercion, tyranny, bullying and capability, the attribute of “power” (iqtidār) should have been mentioned alongside it, while everywhere the attribute “One” (wāḥid) is mentioned alongside it: “Say: God is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Subjugator”;(54) “And there is no god except God, the One, the Subjugator”;(55) “To whom belongs sovereignty this Day? To God, the One, the Subjugator”;(56) “And they will appear before God, the One, the Subjugator”;(57) “Glory be to Him! He is God, the One, the Subjugator”;(58) “Are separate lords better or God, the One, the Subjugator?”(59) And from this it becomes clear that His unity is subjugating and leaves no place for other than Him.

If someone perceives the subjugating unity (waḥdat qāhira) of God, they understand that polytheism (shirk) has essential impossibility, not contingent impossibility; that is, two gods do not merely create problems in the world, but are essentially impossible: because the unity of God is infinite unity (waḥdat bīkarān), unlimited existence leaves no place for other than itself, so the assumption of a second god becomes an impossible assumption, because this very assumption is a limitation of existence that the existence of that One Subjugator keeps the principle of assumption, the one who assumes, and what is assumed under its totality.

The Qur’an introduces God as “the One, the Subjugator” (wāḥid qahhār) and He appears with this same name on the Day of Resurrection as well, and certainly this name has already appeared in this world for those who depart through voluntary death (mawt irādī); but for others it will appear on the Day of Resurrection: “To whom belongs sovereignty this Day? To God, the One, the Subjugator”.(60) Of course, even now the sovereignty (mulk) of the heavens and earth is in God’s hand: “Blessed is He to whom belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and earth”(61) “So glory be to Him in whose hand is the dominion of all things, and to Him you will be returned”(62) but many people do not perceive it, because they consider themselves owners: “He thinks that his wealth will make him immortal”(63) but on the Day of Resurrection when the veil is lifted, they will understand that all things and persons belong to God: “To God, the One, the Subjugator”.(64)

3. God as One (Wāḥid) and Unique (Aḥad)

The Qur’an sometimes introduces God with the title “One” (wāḥid): “And our God and your God is one”(65) and sometimes, in addition to this, it identifies Him as being unique (aḥad): “Say: He is God, the Unique”.(66) If it had said “Say: He is God, One” (qul huwa Allāh wāḥid), perhaps the illusion might arise that having a partner is possible, but has no external occurrence, and this illusion would need to be removed with an expression like “there is no god except one God” (mā min ilāh illā ilāh wāḥid), which would establish His unity by negating other than God and establish monotheism (tawḥīd) by negating partners. However, “Say: He is God, the Unique” does not create such an illusion, because it considers all divinity (ulūhiyya) to belong to Him. For this reason, partnership in divinity and having a partner has no essential possibility. The explanation is that the word “unique” (aḥad) is not in opposition to second and third, because the title “unique” (aḥad) has no opposite, and if it is said “No one came to me” (mā jāʾanī aḥad), it means neither one person came, nor two people, nor three people, nor more, nor anyone. Unlike “one” (wāḥid) which does not negate second and third; such as: “Do not enter from one gate, but enter from separate gates”,(67) “Do not enter today into one destruction, but call upon many destructions”.(68)

“Unique” (aḥad) in the verse “Say: He is God, the Unique” restricts divinity to God, therefore it has one affirmative aspect and one negative aspect; that is, in addition to establishing divinity for God, it negates it from other than Him, because if there were another god other than Him, then He would not be all divinity. So “Say: He is God, the Unique” means all divinity belongs to God; then in describing the attributes of that Unique One, He said that He is Self-Sufficient (ṣamad): “God, the Self-Sufficient”(69) meaning He is the object of need; or He is full and He lacks nothing and there is no void in Him. Such a thing is called ṣamad; necessarily He is neither begetter nor begotten, consequently He will have no equal.

Based on this, sometimes to convey the meaning that God is one (wāḥid) and has no partner, the expression “unique” (aḥad) is used, and sometimes the expression “There is nothing like unto Him”(70) and “He has no partner”(71) and sometimes “One, the Dominant” (wāḥid qahhār): “He is God, the One, the Dominant”.(72) The two words “One, the Dominant” (wāḥid qahhār) together convey the same message as “unique” (aḥad) (the station of uniqueness or the maqām aḥadiyya), just as the word “unique” (aḥad) alone conveys the content of “One, the Dominant” (wāḥid qahhār).

The One who dominates (wāḥid qāhir) is one who places others under His dominance, so if there were a one (wāḥid) with a second also alongside it, that would not be the One who dominates (wāḥid qāhir) because that second, like this one, is one (wāḥid) and has not come under its cover; but if there is a one (wāḥid) such that no other stands against it and finds no place, it becomes the One, the Dominant (wāḥid qahhār) whose dominance covers all: “He dominates every existent other than Him”.(73) Such a one (wāḥid) will have no equal, so it has no partner; then such a one (wāḥid) is with three people but becomes the fourth of three (rābiʿ thalātha); it is also with four people but becomes the fifth of four (khāmis arbaʿa); it is with five people but becomes the sixth of five (sādis khamsa); and nowhere does it take on the color of numerical unity (waḥda ʿadadiyya); that is, if five people sit somewhere, the One, Dominant God (wāḥid qahhār) is with them and those five people with the presence of the One, Dominant God are equal to five people, not six people, because that One (wāḥid) is the One who dominates (wāḥid qāhir), not a numerical one (wāḥid ʿadadī) that would be placed alongside them so that five plus one would become six. The meaning mentioned for uniqueness (aḥadiyya) can clarify how being “the third of three” (thālith thalātha) is disbelief (kufr); but being “the fourth of three” (rābiʿ thalātha) is monotheism (tawḥīd) and consequently can reconcile the verse “There is no secret conversation among three but He is their fourth, nor among five but He is their sixth, nor less than that nor more but He is with them wherever they are”(74) with the verse under discussion.

Note: The final part of the narrative discussion can serve as an explanation for this last point.