وَقالوا لَو كُنّا نَسمَعُ أَو نَعقِلُ ما كُنّا في أَصحابِ السَّعيرِ

And they will say: ‘Had we listened or applied reason, we would not have been among inmates of the blaze.’

EXEGESIS

The Holy Quran has used listening (samʿ) in two meanings: the act of hearing (9:6, 12:31, 18:26), and hearing accompanied by understanding and/or acceptance (10:42, 10:67, 11:20). Both meanings have been used in the Quran, but the latter is more common (after all, the Quran is a book of guidance). Here, listening does not mean merely hearing the voice of the prophets – though some disbelievers refused to even hear the message of the prophets (41:26, 71:7). Instead, listening here means to accept and submit to the call of the prophets, because if a person hears the call but does not accept and follow, he would be among the group who rejected the prophets, and they are not delivered from the fire.

Also, ʿaql (reason) in the Quran is not limited to something purely theoretical or deductive. Rather, it has a general meaning that is closely tied to discernment, comprehension, and reflection, followed by practice and action.

EXPOSITION

This is one of the brilliant and key verses of the Quran which builds into our fundamental beliefs, our understanding of what is expected of us, and how we should view religion and revelation.

The fact that they say Had we listened or applied reason means that they had the faculties of hearing and reasoning and were capable of doing so. However, they did not use these faculties as they should have. In other words, they did not have a hearing that would pay heed to the word of guidance; neither did they have minds that would grasp the word of truth. It is such hearing and reasoning that are meant in this verse.^{‎[1]Razi, 30/588.} Indeed, it is such listening and reasoning that distinguish human beings from animals: Do you suppose that most of them listen or apply reason? They are just like cattle; rather, they are further astray from the way (25:44).

Apparently this verse is the continuation of the response that the inmates of hell provide to the guardian angels. The repetition of they will say at the beginning of this verse indicates that their conversation with the warners ended in the last verse.

This verse clearly establishes two ways for avoiding the punishment of hell: listening and applying reason. Following either way would suffice to be saved from the hellfire. Of course, one can also follow both of these ways.

It is interesting that the inmates of hell do not identify any external condition or force for their damnation. They do not accuse their family, environment, time or place of birth, financial conditions, or anything other than their own lack of submission and reasoning as the cause of their punishment.

Since this verse identifies reason as a sufficient means for one’s deliverance, it may be inferred that God would have had a complete proof and a conclusive argument against mankind even if He had not sent any messengers. Hence, the sending of prophets is only to reinforce God’s guidance and proof. It is only because of His limitless mercy that He did not confine to one means of guidance that is inside everyone, but accompanied that with an outward means of guidance. Thus, the disbelievers have no excuse or argument against God for their misguidance, because God has left no excuse for anyone: so that he who perishes might perish by a manifest proof, and he who lives may live on by a manifest proof (8:42).

However, this does not comply with the other verses of the Quran. The Quran does not see mankind independent of revelation and outward guidance, as mentioned under verse 8 (also see 4:165, 17:15, 20:134). In fact, the Quran mentions one of the roles of the Holy Prophet as, he teaches you what you were not to know (2:151). You were not to know means that given your capacities and conditions, you can never achieve the knowledge of certain things except by the means of prophets and revelation. If reason alone were sufficient in preventing one from being punished, the guardian angels should not ask about warners alone: Did there not come to you any warner? Instead, they should ask: ‘Was it that there neither came to you any warner nor did you apply reason?’

Looking again at the last two verses, a few points can be deduced: 1. If a group of people does not have any warner, it will not be thrown in hell. 2. Having a warner is not sufficient for being saved from hell, because the group that is mentioned in these verses had a warner, yet they ended up in hell. Thus, having a warner is necessary (according to point 1), but not sufficient (according to point 2). 3. The cause of their damnation and punishment is that they impugned and rejected their warners. Thus, for a group of people who have a warner, the only way to be saved from hell is to accept and follow that warner. Given this conclusion, it becomes clear that listening and applying reason can be means of deliverance only if they are associated with accepting and following a warner. The relationship between listening and applying reason on the one hand, and accepting a warner on the other, has been discussed in the Topical Article: Listening and Applying Reason. Here, we shall present only a summary of the possible cases:

1. Listening and applying reason are prior to accepting a warner, meaning that they are the means by which one comes to accept a warner. If listening and reasoning were two stages of the same process following one another, the verse should have used ‘and’ instead of ‘or’: Had we listened and applied reason. Thus, listening should involve no application of reason, and applying reason should involve no listening; otherwise the separation established in the verse would be violated. However, it is an evident ruling of both the reason and the Quran that one should not accept a caller except with proof and reasoning, and not merely due to listening.

The solution to this apparent paradox lies in the central concept of these verses: the act of warning by the warners, which is to be followed by being warned and awakened by their people. The inmates of hell are thrown therein because they rejected the warning of the warners instead of being awakened by it. Thus, what saves one from being thrown into hell is to pay heed and accept the warning of the warners. Then, this verse defines two ways for being awakened: either by an outer whip, or by inner realisation. So the verse says: had we listened and been awakened by the warners, or had we been awakened ourselves before the call of the warners, we would not have been among inmates of the blaze. Why? Because that state of wakefulness and alertness leads one to find and accept a God-sent prophet.

Therefore, what is common between the two independent ways of deliverance is the aspect of feeling an inner need and urge for guidance. It is this aspect of wakefulness that matters. What is important is that the person is awakened from his sleep and heedlessness of everyday life, worldly affairs, presumed beliefs, and prejudiced judgements. This awakening may come from either an outward call or an inward one; either way the person is saved. So what the verse is saying would be: had we either listened to the outer call or listened to the inner call, we would not have been among inmates of the blaze. Listening and applying reason are two parallel rivers that merge into the same ocean of following revelation.

2. Another possibility is that listening and applying reason are two ways of acquiring the truth: either getting it from an expert (whose expertise and reliability one has already established), or becoming an expert and finding the truth without any intermediate. The first way would be a way of following (taqlīd), and the second way would be a way of investigation and realisation (taḥqīq). One should ask himself two independent questions: 1. Is this a person whom I can trust? 2. Is this a message that I can accept? If a person is proven to be truthful and reliable, or if a message is proven to be true, either way the conclusion is that one should submit to that person or message. What is common between the two ways is that one should submit to the truth. In this case, the reason why listening has been mentioned before applying reason might be that the latter is more difficult and not feasible for most people. So listening is applicable to the general public, while applying reason is applicable to the elite.^{‎[2]Mizan, 19/353.}

Thus, there are two ways to arrive at the truth of a message: either to accept the claim of the prophets based on their miracles, or to apply reason to determine whether what they are saying is true or not. Both paths lead one into accepting and following the message, and they both require proof and contemplation: in the first case one should prove the truth and reliability of the person; and in the second case one should prove the truth or falsehood of the messages that he has brought. The important point is that one can neither accept nor reject anything unless he has a proof and justification for it: Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed the hearing, the eyesight, and the heart – all of these are accountable (17:36).

3. Listening and applying reason are subsequent to accepting a warner. In this case, listening and applying reason describe two ways of following a warner and pertain to the stage where the truth and prophethood of a person has already been established – either by a miracle or by judging the content of his message. A miracle is needed to prove that a person has indeed come from the truth and brought a message of truth. Once that is established, one can accept what the prophet offers in terms of beliefs and practical injunctions. The other way is to apply reason by reflecting upon the contents of a message and trying to prove them rationally.^{‎[3]Alusi, 15/13.} In this way, the person discovers the truth of the message directly and has an understanding of the proofs regardless of who has brought the message. In the first case, the person discovers that the message is true indirectly, and relies on the truthfulness of the prophet who has brought it.

For example, one of the arguments that the Quran provides for why we should accept God’s unity is that Allah bears witness that there is no god except Him – and [so do] the angels and those who possess knowledge (3:18). Accepting God’s unity based on the testimony of the possessors of knowledge is an example of accepting a belief based on the word of a reliable source.^{‎[4]Jawādī Āmulī, Tasnīm, 13/394-395.}

It is possible to combine between more than one of the above meanings. Thus, there is one stage of applying reason which precedes and causes listening, and one stage of applying reason that is a result of listening and submitting to revelation. This verse does not concern the stage of reasoning or research that takes precedence to listening; rather, it concerns a stage of reasoning that would be parallel to listening and a substitute for it.

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

1. Imam Ali (a) said: ‘May the ear that does not comprehend the [call of the] caller be deafened – and how can one pay heed to a feeble voice when he has become deaf by the loud cry [of misguidance; or when he did not pay heed to the loud cry of the Quran and the Prophet]? May a heart that has never been devoid of fear [of God] find peace.’^{‎[5]Nahj, sermon 4.}

Note: In this sermon, the Imam first refers to a group that does not pay heed to the word of truth, as mentioned in this verse, and then to a group that is constantly fearful of God, as mentioned in verse 12.

2. Imam Ali (a) said: ‘One who is an admonisher of himself, God shall be his protector.’^{‎[6]Nahj, saying 89.}

Note: These two narrations emphasise the need for inner awakening as a condition for paying heed to the outer callers. This inner awakening and admonishing is achieved by applying reason, as mentioned in this verse. Otherwise, if one does not feel the pain and the need, he will simply dismiss every word of wisdom and warning.

The doctor of love

Is like Jesus for sure,

But where is your pain?

So who shall he cure?^{‎[7]Ḥāfiẓ, ghazal 187.}

First things first:

Seek less water and, but more of thirst;

Then from every side water will burst.^{‎[8]Rūmī, Mathnawī, vol. 3, line 3214.}

3. Imam Ali (a) said: ‘The intellect is the messenger of the truth.’^{‎[9]Ghurar, h. 296.}

Note: Apparently, the truth (al-ḥaqq) in this narration refers to God. Based on this narration, God’s message is not only sent outwardly through human messengers, but also inwardly through one’s intellect. Not applying reason, then, means to imprison this messenger of God, or even kill it: Those who defy Allah’s signs and kill the prophets unjustly, and kill those who call for justice from among the people, inform them of a painful punishment (3:21).

4. The Prophet said: ‘Indeed a person may be a man of holy combat (jihād), prayer, and fasting, and may command what is good and forbid what is evil. Yet, on the Day of Judgement he will be rewarded only to the extent of his intellect.’^{‎[10]Nur, 5/381-382, h. 20.}
5. It has been narrated that some people praised and admired someone in front of the Messenger of God. He asked them: ‘How is his intellect?’ They replied: ‘O Messenger of God, we are telling you about his diligence in acts of worship and various types of good deed, then you ask us about his intellect?’ He said: ‘Truly what a fool commits due to his foolishness is greater than the sins of a [common] sinner. Indeed, tomorrow [i.e. on the Day of Judgement], the stations of the servants and their proximity to their Lord will be in accordance with their intellects.’^{‎[11]Tuhaf, p. 54.}
6. In a lengthy narration, Imam al-Kāẓim (a) described the merits of reason and the qualities of the possessors of intellects to one of his close companions, Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam. The Imam draws on the verses of the Quran extensively, thereby interpreting the verses and linking them together. Parts of this narration are: ‘O Hishām! Truly God, bounteous and exalted is He, completed His proofs for the people by giving them intellects … O Hishām! Truly God has two proofs and arguments against the people: an outer proof and an inner proof. The outer one is the messengers, prophets, and leaders, peace be upon them, and the inner one is the intellects … O Hishām! Indeed one who does not apply reason concerning God would not fear God. The heart of one who does not apply reason concerning God does not settle on a solid knowledge that he would be able to perceive and find its truth in his heart … O Hishām! Imam Ali (a) used to say: “God has not been worshipped by anything better than the intellect.”’^{‎[12]Kafi, 1/13-20, h. 12.}
7. Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) said: ‘The Prophet [Muhammad (s), or prophets in general] is the proof and argument that God has against His servants, and the proof that the servants have between them and God is the intellect.’^{‎[13]Kafi, 1/25, h. 22.}

Note: This narration has been expressed in a delicate way. By contrast, it should have identified the intellect as the proof that the servants have against God, but God is never overcome in an argument, That is because Allah is the truth (22:62) and The truth is from your Lord (2:147). Yet, the Imam says that the servants would be excused and exempted from God’s punishment and reprimand if they follow their intellects. This complies with verse 4:165, which establishes some right and proof for the people, bestowed and accepted by God.

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

Qummī has interpreted the verse as follows: indeed they listened and understood, but they did not obey or follow; and the next verse bears witness to this meaning: Thus they will admit their sin. So away with the inmates of the blaze!^{‎[14]Qummi, 2/378-379.} Apparently what Qummī means by the listening and understanding that he establishes for them is that they had the ability and the faculties of listening and understanding. His reference to the next verse is also in accordance with this sense of listening and understanding, for sinning does not occur unless one has the ability to accept but refuses to do so. However, that is different from listening and applying reason (or understanding) as meant in the verse, for the verse denies their listening and understanding – because of law (Had we …), which is a conditional clause used for negation.

Ālūsī says: ‘The outmost limit of the intellect is to guide one to proper beliefs – which ensure one’s deliverance from the fire – but not that the intellect is the ruler as the Mutazilites have said.’^{‎[15]Alusi, 15/13.} This is a noble observation that should be slightly modified: the intellect cannot find the detailed rulings of the divine law (shariah) in full. However, there are certain independent rulings that the intellect makes as to what is good and what is evil. These rulings of the intellect are no limit on God’s power or will, because they are themselves obtained from God’s creation.

[1] Razi, 30/588.
[2] Mizan, 19/353.
[3] Alusi, 15/13.
[4] Jawādī Āmulī, Tasnīm, 13/394-395.
[5] Nahj, sermon 4.
[6] Nahj, saying 89.
[7] Ḥāfiẓ, ghazal 187.
[8] Rūmī, Mathnawī, vol. 3, line 3214.
[9] Ghurar, h. 296.
[10] Nur, 5/381-382, h. 20.
[11] Tuhaf, p. 54.
[12] Kafi, 1/13-20, h. 12.
[13] Kafi, 1/25, h. 22.
[14] Qummi, 2/378-379.
[15] Alusi, 15/13.