Ar Razi’s Argument

Ar Razi brings this verse as his 7th proof for the necessity of ta’wil:

“Who is it that will lend to Allah a good loan?” (al Baqara: 245)

He says that there is no doubt this must be interpreted, because a loan in its usual sense is taken by one who is in need, while Allah is free of need. So the wording, according to him, cannot remain upon what he takes to be its apparent sense. On that basis, he uses the verse as proof that there are texts whose outward wording cannot be affirmed as it stands, and therefore must be turned away to another meaning.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Refutation

Ibn Taymiyyah says that Ar Razi merely made an assertion and did not prove it. The whole argument rests on one claim, namely that the word qard, when used on its own, necessarily means that the borrower is in need.

Ibn Taymiyyah rejects this and asks where, in the Arabic language, the word itself carries that condition by itself. So the first refutation is that Ar Razi began from an unproven language claim.

He then says that even among people, borrowing does not always happen because of the borrower’s need. A person may borrow because of the need of the lender, or because that is the safer and more reliable way to preserve the lender’s property. He brings the example of az Zubayr ibn al Awwam, who would not accept people’s wealth as a deposit, but would take it as a loan, because he feared it might be lost.

The point is clear. A loan can be used as a form of protection and guarantee, not only as a response to poverty or need. So Ar Razi’s foundation fails even in ordinary dealings among people.

He then adds another answer. A person may borrow on behalf of someone else, not because he himself needs the money, but in order to help both sides. He helps the needy one by getting the wealth to him, and he helps the lender by taking responsibility for it and guaranteeing repayment.

Ibn Taymiyyah applies this to the verse and says that Allah may command some of His servants to give, then count that as a loan to Himself, while the benefit goes to others, and He Himself guarantees the repayment and reward. So calling it a loan does not go against the clear meaning at all.

He then strengthens this by another example. A man may take from his own servant some of the wealth that originally came from him, and do so in the form of a loan, not because he lacks anything, but in order to honour the servant and to direct the wealth to another place of benefit. Allah is the owner of the creation and of their wealth.

If He willed, He could take all of it back without asking anyone, and that would not be injustice. So if He commands them to spend, names that spending a loan to Himself, then rewards them for it and uses it for the benefit of others, there is nothing in that which opposes the meaning of qard.

Ibn Taymiyyah then says that this objection repeats the same false line used by the Jews when they said, “Allah is poor and we are rich” (Al Imran: 181). They heard the verse about lending to Allah and understood it in the worst and most corrupt way, saying that only the poor borrow. So if someone insists that naming charity as a loan to Allah proves need, he has fallen into the same kind of false reasoning that the verse came to expose and condemn.

He then moves to the clearest point in the whole discussion. The meaning of the verse is already well known to everyone who hears it. There is no confusion in it. Everyone understands that it means spending in charity for the sake of Allah. So the verse does not present some hidden or doubtful wording that demands interpretive escape.

Rather, the intended meaning is known at once from the full phrase itself. Once the loan is ascribed to Allah, no one with sound understanding imagines that Allah is being described as needy. The mind immediately goes to spending for His sake, seeking His reward.

After that, Ibn Taymiyyah addresses the issue of metaphor. He says that even if someone wants to call this usage metaphorical, that still does not help Ar Razi. The whole dispute is not about whether a wording may be called metaphor in some technical sense. The dispute is about what Ar Razi claimed, namely that the apparent meaning must be abandoned.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that this is false, because the meaning understood immediately by the hearer from the complete wording is exactly the intended meaning. So even if one uses the label “metaphor”, the verse still does not become an example of unclear speech needing ta’wil away from its understood sense.

He then gives examples from the Sunnah to show how language works in a clear and obvious way. The Prophet ﷺ said about Khalid that he is “a sword from the swords of Allah”. He said about Abu Talhah’s horse, “We found it to be like the sea.”

Abu Bakr said about Abu Qatadah that he is “a lion from the lions of Allah.” No one understands from these expressions that Khalid is literally a sword, or that the horse is literally a sea, or that Abu Qatadah is literally a lion. The intended meaning is plain without confusion. Khalid is understood to be brave and a means by which Allah aids the religion.

The horse is understood to be swift and powerful. Abu Qatadah is understood to be fierce and courageous. So clarity of meaning does not depend on forcing every word into a crude literal sense taken in isolation. It depends on the way the Arabs understand the full speech in its setting.

Ar-Razi said: “The seventh proof for the necessity of ta’wil is: Allah’s saying, “Who is it that will lend to Allah a good loan?” (al-Baqara: 245). “And there is no doubt that this must be interpreted.”

The response has several parts: The first: This is denied. He did not give any proof. At most he could say: lending only occurs when the one borrowing is in need, and Allah is rich.

It is said to him: Where in the Arabic language does the word qard (loan) by itself mean that the one borrowing must be in need?

The second: It is known that people may borrow even if they are not in need, but do so because of the need of the one lending. This is what az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwam used to do. In Sahih al-Bukhari, from ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr: “I calculated what my father owed and found it to be two million and two hundred thousand. He would not take people’s wealth as a deposit; rather, he would say: ‘No, it is a loan. I fear it may be lost.’” (al-Bukhari: Book of al-Khums, hadith 2971. Also in Kitab al-Maghazi, Kitab al-Ahkam, and others.)

And this is well-known among people: that someone who is solvent and trustworthy might be loaned money for safekeeping while it is being transported. So if this occurs among humans, how can it be claimed that when a loan is ascribed to Allah it must imply His need?

The third: A person may borrow on behalf of someone else as an act of kindness and help both the one in need and the one giving, and the borrower guarantees the loan. Allah may borrow from some of His servants to give to others. He provides for the borrower and rewards the lender, and guarantees the repayment in the best way. So why would calling this a loan be considered going against the apparent meaning?

The fourth: A man may borrow from his own servant what he gave him, and if he wanted to take it without asking it would be allowed in the law. But he does so as a loan to be kind to him and to give it to someone else. Likewise, Allah, who owns the creation and their wealth, and has allowed them to use it as He wills. If He wanted to take it back without asking, He could, and it would not be injustice. But if He takes it as a loan to benefit someone else, and rewards the lender, how could this not be called a loan?

The fifth: This objection is the same as what the Jews said, those who said, “Allah is poor and we are rich” (Al ‘Imran: 181). When Allah revealed this verse, some Jews said, “Only the poor borrow, so Allah must be poor and we are rich.” (Reported by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Kathir from Ibn ‘Abbas and Qatadah.)

The sixth: The meaning of the verse, “Who is it that will lend to Allah a good loan?” (al-Baqara: 245), is well known and agreed upon. There is no confusion about it, and everyone who hears it understands that it means giving in charity for the sake of Allah.

At most, some people may say: calling it a loan is metaphorical. But just because something is called a metaphor does not mean it is not the apparent meaning, for metaphors with clear context are still understood as being clear in their meaning. The language has no clearer intended meaning than this when the loan is ascribed to Allah.

So, the issue is not whether the word is literal or metaphorical, nor whether the Quran contains metaphors. This is another matter. The point here is that ar-Razi claimed all the sects agreed that some verses require interpretation away from the apparent meaning, and that interpretation means diverting the wording from its apparent sense to something else.

So is the apparent meaning of this verse, when heard by the Arabs, something that goes against what it really means? So that we must say it’s being interpreted?

The only confusion enters when someone says: lending is only done by one in need. We say: even if that is true for humans, the loan here is to Allah, and everyone understands from this that it means giving charity to the poor, not that Allah Himself is in need.

At most, one might say: the term is metaphorical. But that does not mean that the meaning is unclear. Rather, when you put the words together and see that the loan is said to be to Allah, the intended meaning becomes absolutely clear.

Don’t you see the Prophet ﷺ said about Khalid: “He is a sword from the swords of Allah.” (al-Bukhari: Book of al-Maghazi, hadith 4014. Also in Kitab Fada’il as-Sahabah, and Muslim from Abu Sa‘id.) And about Abu Talhah’s horse: “We found it to be like the sea” (al-Bukhari: Book of Hibah, hadith 2484. Also in Kitab al-Jihad, and Muslim in Kitab al-Fada’il). And Abu Bakr said about Abu Qatadah: “He is a lion from the lions of Allah.” (al-Bukhari: Book of al-Khums, hadith 2973. Also in Kitab al-Maghazi and others.)

If someone says: this is a metaphor, fine, but no one thinks the apparent meaning is that Khalid is literally a sword, or the horse is literally water, or Abu Qatadah is literally a lion. Rather, the speech is absolutely clear: that Khalid was brave and used by Allah against His enemies, and that the horse ran like the sea, and that Abu Qatadah was fierce like a lion.

Bayan Talbis Al Jahmiyyah (6/72-90)