Explanation of the Author's Statement: And His saying, the Exalted: (He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden)

The Shaykh : The author said: And his saying, "And his saying?" Let us see: "What He described Himself with in Surat al-Ikhlas and what He described Himself with in the greatest verse of the Book of Allah, and His saying" — the genitive case here means "and what He described Himself with in His saying, the Exalted and Glorified is He: These are four names, all of which are opposites in terms of time and place, indicating the all-encompassing nature of Allah, the Exalted and Glorified is He, over everything, as the First and the Last, and likewise in place, meaning it includes temporal encompassing and spatial encompassing. As for "the First," the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it by his saying: Here, he explained the affirmation by negation, making this affirmative attribute a negative attribute. We have mentioned previously that affirmative attributes are more perfect and more numerous. Why is that? We say that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it this way to emphasize the "Firstness," meaning a Firstness that is not additional, because Firstness can be additional. It is said, "This is the first," meaning in consideration of what comes after it, and there is something else before it. For example, you might say, "So-and-so entered my house; he is the first." Is he the first in relation to everyone who entered the house, or in relation to those who entered this time? It is this time. Since Firstness can be intended as relative Firstness, explaining it with a negative matter is more indicative of generality, that it is an absolute Firstness. For this reason, he said: This is in consideration of temporal precedence.
Now, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it by his saying: Do not imagine that this indicates a limit to His "Lastness." No, because there are eternal things that are created, such as Paradise and the Fire. Therefore, the meaning of is that He, the Exalted and Glorified is He, encompasses everything, even that which has no end, so there is nothing after Him.
From the Manifest, which is the High, as He, the Exalted, said: meaning, to make Him high. From this, the beast appeared, because He is high above it. And from this is His saying, the Exalted: that they make it manifest, meaning: that it becomes high above it. And so, regarding "the Manifest," the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said in explaining it: So He is above everything, and there is nothing above Him.
: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it, saying: This is an allusion to His encompassing everything; there is nothing beneath Him. No mountain, ceiling, water, tree, or anything else stands between Him and it. There is nothing beneath Him, so He reaches everything, the Exalted and Glorified is He. But the meaning is that with His Highness, Mighty and Majestic is He, He is Hidden. He is Manifest and Hidden. So with His Highness, it does not contradict His Nearness, Mighty and Majestic is He. For "the Hidden" is close in meaning to "the Near," because He said: meaning, nothing stands between Him and it, but He reaches everything, the Exalted and Glorified is He. This is the meaning of "the Hidden."
Reflect on these four names and you will find that they are opposites: Highness and the second is Lowliness; Highness is in "the Manifest" and Lowliness is in "the Hidden." Firstness and Lastness; Firstness is in "the First" and Lastness is in "the Last." So He encompasses everything, all times and all places, Mighty and Majestic is He. Then reflect on the "waw" (and) in His saying: meaning, they are all news about a single subject, but through the letter of conjunction. News through the letter of conjunction is stronger than news without the letter of conjunction. For example, these are multiple news items without the letter of conjunction. Yes, but sometimes the "waw" of conjunction comes. What is its benefit? Its benefit is:
First: It emphasizes the preceding, because when you conjoin to it, you make it the base, and the base is established. So if you say, "The First and the Last," it is as if you are saying: He is the First, and despite the certainty that He is the First, He is the Last. So the benefit of that is to emphasize what came before, because it is the one to which the conjunction is made, and the one to which the conjunction is made is the base, so you have now established it.
Second: the benefit of the conjunction, for the letter "waw" (and), as is well known in grammar, implies what? It implies conjunction. So when the mind might say that there is a vast distance between the First and the Last, and that the apparent and the hidden are likewise so, he used the "waw" indicating conjunction, showing that the combination of these two attributes for the Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is a possible matter and not an impossible one. It is a possible matter, so it affirms the possibility of what the mind might assume to be impossible, namely that He is the First before everything and the Last after everything, because the implication of sequence is that the First would cease to exist before that which comes after it. But he said, "No, He is the First and the Last as well." This is the benefit of using the "waw" of conjunction. This does not necessitate the multiplicity of the one described. Have you not seen His saying, the Exalted: This is the First, not the Last? He is the First, and He is the One who created and proportioned, He is the One who decreed and guided. It is this. So if you say, "It is known that conjunction implies difference?"
The answer is: Yes, but the difference is sometimes in the entities and sometimes in the attributes. This is a difference in attributes. And the difference may be non-semantic; it may be purely lexical, not semantic, not in the entity, and not in the meaning. Like the saying of the poet:
"So he found her words to be lies and falsehood"
The right hand is lying, and yet he conjoined it to it. Yes, for the difference of what? For the difference of the wording. The meaning is one. So the difference, if it exists, is either in the entity, in the meaning, or in the wording, and there is no objection.
Now, the difference here in His saying: is a semantic difference, but in consideration of the attribute. But if I said: "Zayd and 'Amr and Bakr and Khalid came," then the difference is in the entities, not in the attributes.
We have derived from this noble verse the affirmation of four names from the names of Allah, which are the First, the Last, the Manifest, and the Hidden.
And we have derived from it four attributes: Firstness, Lastness, Manifestness, and Hiddenness. Yes, from these names.
And we have derived from the combination of the names the encompassing of Allah, the Exalted, over everything in time and place, because the combination of attributes may result in an additional attribute. Like "Al-'Afu" (The Pardoner) is an attribute of perfection, a name indicating an attribute of perfection. So "Al-'Afu" is an attribute of perfection, and "Al-Qadir" (The All-Powerful) is also an attribute of perfection. But with their combination, it becomes a perfection above the first. What is it? That He pardoned with power. This is a perfection, because pardon without power is weakness, and the pardoner may not be praised for it, unlike when they are combined. So the important thing is that we take from this noble verse four names, four attributes, and a third attribute resulting from the combination of these things, which is encompassing.
Now, if someone asks: Are these names interdependent? Meaning, if you say "the First," you must say "the Last," or is it permissible to separate some of them from others?
The apparent view to me is that they are interdependent, and that if you say "the First," you say "the Last." As for "the Manifest," it is with "the Hidden." "The Manifest" with "the Hidden" is not required to be mentioned with "the First" and "the Last." Meaning, you may say "the First and the Last" only. As for "the Manifest," do not separate it from "the Hidden." This is the best. Why? So that the attribute of opposition, which indicates encompassing, is not lost.