Verse 148 of Surah Al-Imran, like a brilliant jewel in the Divine Word, displays two sublime attributes of God: boundless mercy and punitive justice. This verse, within the context of a divine discourse with humanity, especially the polytheists, speaks of mercy which, like an endless ocean, encompasses all existence, while simultaneously unveiling a justice that leaves wrongdoing and sin without impunity. This treatise, through reflection on this verse and analysis of the lecture content, explores profound concepts of mercy, justice, sin, and human free will. The aim is to present a comprehensive perspective on these concepts, consistent with Islamic theological traditions, thereby opening a deeper understanding of the relationship between humanity and God.
فَقَالَ رَبُّكُمْ ذُو رَحْمَةٍ وَاسِعَةٍ ۖ وَلَا يَرُدُّ بَأْسَهُ عَنِ الْقَوْمِ الْمُجْرِمِينَ
Your Lord said, "He is Possessor of vast mercy; yet His punishment will not be repelled from the guilty people."
This verse, like a mirror reflecting two contradictory yet complementary faces, speaks of Gods infinite mercy which, like a pure stream, quenches all existence, and simultaneously refers to a justice that strikes the oppressors like a thunderbolt. Unlike humans, who sometimes excess in wrath and at other times drown in clemency, God unites these two attributes in an unparalleled equilibrium. Divine mercy opens the doors of forgiveness and repentance to all, yet His justice leaves injustice and oppression unanswered.
In Islamic theological philosophy, mercy and justice constitute two fundamental attributes of God that jointly govern the cosmos. Divine mercy, like the sun that shines equally upon the good and the bad, is accessible to all. This mercy manifests in acceptance of repentance and the forgiveness of interpersonal sins. Conversely, divine justice, like a precise scale, upholds the rights of creation and punishes the oppressors according to their deeds. This balance is clearly and explicitly delineated in the verse under discussion.
One of the core themes of this exegesis is the differentiation between sins committed against fellow humans (interpersonal sins) and sins against God (divine sins). Interpersonal sins, such as murder, theft, and oppression of others, due to their direct infringement upon the rights of creation, bear greater severity. In contrast, divine sins, such as neglecting prayer or fasting, although sinful, can be forgiven through repentance and seeking forgiveness. This distinction, like a clear boundary between two domains of human responsibility, emphasises the importance of preserving others' rights.
Divine sins, such as abandoning acts of worship, do not harm God's essence since God is self-sufficient and independent of all worlds. Although these sins contaminate the human soul and may lead to graver sins, they are forgivable through sincere repentance. For instance, an individual who has neglected fasting for years can, through repentance and seeking forgiveness, be encompassed by divine mercy without requiring onerous expiations. This mercy, akin to an open door for sinners, signifies Gods grandeur and richness.
Conversely, interpersonal sins, such as depriving others of their property or life, are non-negotiable from the divine viewpoint due to their direct effect on creation. One who commits murder or oppression cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance. These sins, like wounds on the body of society, require restitution or punishment. For example, if one steals anothers bread or sheds their blood, such acts are unforgivable even under claims of unawareness unless the lost rights are compensated.
A central critique in this exegesis concerns the distortion of priorities in some religious communities, wherein divine sins are exaggerated and interpersonal sins minimised. This distortion, like a dust cloud obscuring the truth, redirects attention from social justice to mere religious formalities. For example, excessive emphasis on minor external issues, such as a thread of unlawful fabric in clothing or a visible strand of hair, while overlooking major injustices, exemplifies this distortion.
History abounds with examples where major interpersonal sins, such as the Crusades or monarchs atrocities, were justified under the guise of religious appearances or political power. The Crusades, waged in the name of religion for over two centuries, resulting in slaughter and devastation, represent a clear instance of this deviation. Such crimes, as a shameful stain on historys fabric, demonstrate negligence of divine justice and exaggeration of religious externals.
The unwarranted respect shown by certain societies towards oppressive figures, such as the Crusader knights or some monarchs, is a consequence of their power and wealth rather than the justice of their deeds. This respect, like an idol worshipped instead of God, subverts divine values. The Holy Quran states in verse 113 of Surah Hud: And incline not toward those who do wrong, prohibiting association with oppressors.
The concept of disposition (iqtida) or divine constitution is a pivotal theme in this exegesis. God endows each individual, according to their existential capacity, with abilities and choices. The manifestation of good or evil from this disposition depends on human volition. The Holy Quran states in verse 84 of Surah Al-Isra: Each one acts according to his own disposition. This verse, like a guiding light, underscores human responsibility for their choices.
The polytheists, in the verse under discussion, attribute their polytheism to God's will by arguing If God had willed, we would not have committed polytheism. This reasoning, like a veil concealing the truth, shirks human accountability. In response, God declares that He provides the disposition but the actualisation of sin is contingent on human choice. This view distances itself from fatalism and total delegation of free will, establishing a balance between disposition and choice.
To elucidate the concept of disposition and choice, a beautiful parable is presented: two children of the same father, each endowed with equal capital (ten tomans), embark on different paths. One converts the capital into profit through effort, the other wastes it through indulgence. This parable, like a mirror reflecting the truth of free will, demonstrates that God grants the disposition, but the outcome depends on human choice. This concept aligns with verse 2 of Surah Al-Mulk: He who created death and life to test which of you is best in deed.
Sometimes, individuals sins result from environmental, educational, or hereditary factors (nutritional and seminal). Nevertheless, direct responsibility for sin rests with the individual. For example, a sin committed today may be rooted in conditions established a century ago. These factors, like tree roots hidden in the soil, affect human behaviour but ultimate judgement occurs on the Day of Resurrection.
The world is like a workshop where an advance payment is granted to humans, while Resurrection is the day of reckoning where deeds are precisely evaluated. The Holy Quran states in verse 6 of Surah Az-Zalzalah: That Day, the people will depart separated [into categories] to be shown their deeds. This simile highlights divine justice in accounting for all factors, including dispositions and conditions.
Seeking forgiveness acts as a key to unlock the chains of sins and can alleviate the burden of sins, especially if performed on behalf of predecessors and influential factors such as parents. This concept is consistent with a prophetic tradition stating: When a person dies, their deeds cease except for three: ongoing charity, beneficial knowledge, or a righteous child who prays for them.
Certain deviations in religious knowledge, such as exaggeration of externals and neglect of social justice, have weakened divine values. These deviations, like clouds obscuring the sun of truth, neglect interpersonal sins and emphasise superficial matters. Reforming these deviations requires revisiting religious priorities and focusing on justice and social ethics.
Social responsibility, as a divine duty, obliges each individual not to remain silent against oppression and to defend the rights of the oppressed. This responsibility aligns with verse 104 of Surah Al-Imran: And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.
The exegesis of verse 148 of Surah Al-Imran, akin to a journey into the depths of the Divine Word, elucidates Gods boundless mercy and punitive justice. This verse, by delineating a unique balance between these two attributes, invites humans to reflect on their responsibility regarding sins. Interpersonal sins, due to their direct impact on the rights of creation, bear greater severity and cannot be forgiven without restitution or punishment, whereas divine sins are pardonable through repentance. Critique of deviations in religious knowledge, which sometimes prioritise externals over justice, emphasises the necessity of reevaluating religious priorities. The concept of disposition and free will serves as a key to understanding human responsibility, distancing from fatalism and total delegation of choice, and proposing a middle way. Ultimately, seeking forgiveness and divine reckoning on the Resurrection provide hope for correction and compensation of sins.
Supervised by Sadegh Khademi
