The Appointed Share

Introduction: Where Does Iblis’s Power Begin and End?

Where does Iblis’s power begin, and where does it end? Perhaps this is the question with which we should begin before asking: who are the “appointed share” of whom Iblis spoke? The Qur’an reveals to us that Iblis’s power over human beings is not a power of coercion and compulsion, but a power of enticement, invitation, and making things seem alluring.

﴿قَالَ فَبِمَا أَغْوَيْتَنِي لَأَقْعُدَنَّ لَهُمْ صِرَاطَكَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ ۝ ثُمَّ لَآتِيَنَّهُم مِّن بَيْنِ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ وَعَنْ أَيْمَانِهِمْ وَعَنْ شَمَائِلِهِمْ وَلَا تَجِدُ أَكْثَرَهُمْ شَاكِرِينَ﴾ (He said, “Because You have led me astray, I shall surely lie in wait for them on Your straight path. Then I shall surely come upon them from before them and from behind them, from their right and from their left, and You will not find most of them grateful.”) [الأعراف: ١٦–١٧]

But Iblis himself reveals the limits of his authority on the day when he says:

﴿وَمَا كَانَ لِيَ عَلَيْكُم مِّن سُلْطَانٍ إِلَّا أَن دَعَوْتُكُمْ فَاسْتَجَبْتُمْ لِي﴾ (I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you responded to me.) [إبراهيم: ٢٢]

﴿إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ﴾ (Indeed, over My servants you have no authority.) [الحجر: ٤٢]

﴿إِنَّ كَيْدَ الشَّيْطَانِ كَانَ ضَعِيفًا﴾ (Indeed, Satan’s scheming is weak.) [النساء: ٧٦]

Thus, Iblis calls, and the human being responds. Iblis makes things seem alluring, and the human being chooses. Iblis commands, and the human being carries out the command. Here a point emerges that merits reflection: if Iblis’s fundamental power consists in enticement, making things seem alluring, and invitation, and if he has no coercive authority over God’s servants, how does his influence move from an immaterial influence to an act that occurs in reality?

﴿لَأَتَّخِذَنَّ مِنْ عِبَادِكَ نَصِيبًا مَّفْرُوضًا﴾ (I shall surely take for myself an appointed share of Your servants.) [النساء: ١١٨]

Here the real question begins.

General Enticement and the Particular Share

Iblis clearly declared his general project:

﴿لَأُغْوِيَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ﴾ (I shall surely lead them all astray.) [الحجر: ٣٩]

Enticement here is general. But elsewhere he says: ﴿لَأَتَّخِذَنَّ مِنْ عِبَادِكَ نَصِيبًا مَّفْرُوضًا﴾ (I shall surely take for myself an appointed share of Your servants). Here a distinction emerges that deserves consideration: in speaking of general enticement, he says ﴿أَجْمَعِينَ﴾ (all of them), whereas in speaking of the share, he says ﴿مِنْ عِبَادِكَ نَصِيبًا﴾ (a share of Your servants). Enticement targets human beings generally, while “taking” concerns a share of them.

This changes the question: is the “appointed share” merely a number of human beings who will fall into disobedience? Or does Iblis wish to take for himself a particular share of human beings for a purpose that goes beyond merely leading them astray? The verse itself reveals what he wishes to do with this share:

﴿وَلَأُضِلَّنَّهُمْ وَلَأُمَنِّيَنَّهُمْ وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ فَلَيُبَتِّكُنَّ آذَانَ الْأَنْعَامِ وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ فَلَيُغَيِّرُنَّ خَلْقَ اللَّهِ﴾ (I shall surely lead them astray, and I shall surely fill them with vain hopes; I shall surely command them, and they will surely slit the ears of livestock; and I shall surely command them, and they will surely alter God’s creation.) [النساء: ١١٩]

Here the sequence appears clear: taking ← leading astray ← vain hopes ← command ← obedience ← execution ← alteration. Iblis leads astray, Iblis fills with vain hopes, and Iblis commands; but it is the responding human being who slits and alters.

Perhaps the “appointed share” is a share of human beings whom Iblis does not merely wish to lead astray, but wishes to take for himself for a particular purpose: human beings capable of moving from receiving whisperings to carrying out in reality what those whisperings seek.

Why Does Iblis Need the Human Being?

Iblis possesses immaterial influence, but he does not possess human material capacity. He can whisper, entice, make things seem alluring, fill with vain hopes, and call. The human being, however, possesses a body, will, wealth, power, institutions, and the capacity to move, act, and effect change in reality.

We can therefore understand “taking” differently: Iblis does not merely need a human being who hears his whisperings; he needs a human being who turns them into action. Iblis plants the idea, and the human being turns it into reality. Iblis makes things seem alluring, and the human being chooses. Iblis commands, and the human being carries out the command. When immaterial power combines with material power, Satan’s influence passes from the realm of whisperings into the realm of reality.

Here, in this reading, lies the particular character of the “share”: not everyone who is led astray necessarily becomes an instrument. A person may disobey and then regret it, or falter and then turn back. But there is a difference between a person overcome by a whispering and a person who espouses an idea, believes in it, defends it, advocates it, and possesses the capacity to implement it and influence others through it. This is the difference between those who are led astray and those who are taken.

Who, Then, Constitutes the Share?

If the “appointed share” denotes a particular function, the next question becomes: what are the characteristics of this share as the Qur’an reveals them? The Qur’an does not give us a list of names under the heading “the appointed share,” but it presents us with qualities and actions that we can compare. Among the passages most conducive to reflection are those in the Qur’an concerning some of those who were given the Book.

﴿أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا نَصِيبًا مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْجِبْتِ وَالطَّاغُوتِ﴾ (Have you not considered those who were given a share of the Book, who believe in al-jibt and al-taghut?) [النساء: ٥١]

Here an especially significant paradox emerges: these people were given a share of the Book, yet the Qur’an describes some of them as believing in al-jibt and al-taghut. Then we find another portrayal:

﴿أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَن يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَن يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا﴾ (Have you not considered those who claim to believe in what was sent down to you and what was sent down before you? They wish to seek judgment from al-taghut, although they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray.) [النساء: ٦٠]

Here it is no longer merely a matter of belief; there is a move toward seeking judgment. This is a movement from the inward to the outward: from belief to an authority of reference, and from that authority to conduct. Then comes the explicit connection: ﴿وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَن يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا﴾ (And Satan wishes to lead them far astray).

When Desire Becomes Stronger than Revelation

﴿أَفَكُلَّمَا جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنفُسُكُمُ اسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ فَفَرِيقًا كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقًا تَقْتُلُونَ﴾ (Is it that whenever a messenger came to you with what your souls did not desire, you grew arrogant, denying some and killing others?) [البقرة: ٨٧]

The striking expression here is: ﴿بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنفُسُكُم﴾ (with what your souls do not desire). The problem in this Qur’anic portrayal is not necessarily an absence of knowledge; a person may be confronted with a message that they recognize, yet reject it because it clashes with what their soul desires. Then comes the sequence: desire ← arrogance ← denial ← resistance to the messenger ← killing.

﴿وَيَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِيِّينَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ﴾ (And they kill the prophets without right.) [البقرة: ٦١]

﴿وَيَقْتُلُونَ الْأَنبِيَاءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ﴾ (And they kill the prophets without right.) [آل عمران: ١١٢]

Here we move from a merely inward deviation to an outward act with far-reaching effects. The human being is no longer merely influenced by whisperings, but has become capable of turning an inward stance into an act directed against the message itself.

From the Book to Al-Taghut

When we bring these Qur’anic portrayals together, a sequence emerges that merits reflection: the Book ← al-taghut ← seeking judgment ← desire ← arrogance ← denial ← resistance to the messenger ← killing. On the other side, we find the words of Iblis: ﴿لَأُغْوِيَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ﴾ (I shall surely lead them all astray), then ﴿لَأَتَّخِذَنَّ مِنْ عِبَادِكَ نَصِيبًا مَّفْرُوضًا﴾ (I shall surely take for myself an appointed share of Your servants), then ﴿وَلَأُضِلَّنَّهُمْ وَلَأُمَنِّيَنَّهُمْ وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ﴾ (I shall surely lead them astray, fill them with vain hopes, and command them), then ﴿فَلَيُغَيِّرُنَّ خَلْقَ اللَّهِ﴾ (And they will surely alter God’s creation).

Here the point of convergence emerges: Iblis possesses the power to entice, and the human being possesses the capacity to execute. Iblis possesses immaterial influence, and the human being possesses material power. If the two powers combine, an idea can become an act, and an act can become an influence upon others, society, and history. Hence the expression ﴿لَأَتَّخِذَنَّ﴾ (I shall surely take for myself) becomes more significant: Satan does not merely say, “I shall lead astray,” but says, “I shall take for myself.”

Why This Particular Share?

If Iblis can lead everyone astray, why does he need a “share”? Perhaps because general enticement is not the same function. General enticement means attempting to influence all human beings, whereas “taking,” in this reading, means selecting human beings whose response can become a power of execution.

The share, then, does not necessarily consist of the most disobedient people; rather, it may consist of those most disposed to turn enticement into action and influence. Within the framework of this hypothesis, this explains the sequence of the verse: ﴿وَلَأُضِلَّنَّهُمْ﴾ (I shall surely lead them astray): changing their conception; ﴿وَلَأُمَنِّيَنَّهُمْ﴾ (I shall surely fill them with vain hopes): producing hopes and a vision; ﴿وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ﴾ (I shall surely command them): turning the vision into obedience; ﴿فَلَيُغَيِّرُنَّ خَلْقَ اللَّهِ﴾ (And they will surely alter God’s creation): turning obedience into action in reality.

Here the “share” can be understood as the link between Iblis’s immaterial capacity and the human being’s material capacity.

Why Does This Portrayal Appear in the Qur’an?

When we search the Qur’an for a human group in which some of these qualities appear together, we find in several verses a description of some of those who were given the Book: ﴿أُوتُوا نَصِيبًا مِنَ الْكِتَابِ﴾ (They were given a share of the Book), then ﴿يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْجِبْتِ وَالطَّاغُوتِ﴾ (They believe in al-jibt and al-taghut), then ﴿يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ﴾ (They wish to seek judgment from al-taghut), then ﴿بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنفُسُكُم﴾ (with what your souls do not desire), then ﴿فَرِيقًا كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقًا تَقْتُلُونَ﴾ (Some you denied, and others you kill), then ﴿وَيَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِيِّينَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ﴾ (And they kill the prophets without right).

These are not descriptions invented by this inquiry; they are descriptions found in the Qur’an. From this arises the inquiry’s hypothesis: could the “appointed share” that Iblis declared he would take from God’s servants be connected, from one reflective perspective, with those whom the Qur’an describes as possessing these qualities? Not simply because of their affiliation, but because the question concerns the qualities and function revealed by the Qur’anic text.

﴿لَيْسُوا سَوَاءً﴾ (They are not all alike.) [آل عمران: ١١٣]

Thus, the discussion here concerns the group to whom the Qur’anic descriptions apply, not everyone affiliated with the People of the Book.

Al-Taghut: The Turning Point

Perhaps the word “al-taghut” is one of the most important links in this construction. When a person believes in al-taghut, their conception changes; when they wish to seek judgment from it, their authority of reference changes; when that authority changes, their obedience can change; and when obedience becomes execution, the person becomes capable of turning an idea into reality.

Here this converges with the words of Iblis: ﴿وَلَأُمَنِّيَنَّهُمْ وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ﴾ (I shall surely fill them with vain hopes and command them). Hopes form conceptions, commands form conduct, and conception and conduct form the capacity for action. Thus al-taghut becomes not merely a name, but a turning point in the human being’s relationship to an authority of reference.

The question is no longer merely: what does a person believe? Rather: to whom do they turn for judgment? Whom do they obey? And whose command do they give precedence to when it conflicts with the truth?

The Share May Not Know It Is a Share

Perhaps this is the most dangerous point. A person who has become part of Iblis’s project may not know it; they may think that they are defending the truth, serving their religion, protecting their community, seeking power, or securing a benefit.

But the Qur’an draws attention to the real test: what happens when the messenger brings what the soul does not desire? Does the person follow revelation or grow arrogant? Do they seek judgment from the truth, or wish to seek judgment from al-taghut? Do they exercise their will, or surrender it to whoever commands them? Here the question changes from “Are you a believer?” to: who is your authority of reference when the truth conflicts with your desire?

The Difference between the Disobedient Person and the Instrument

Not every disobedient person is an instrument. A person may err and then regret it; a desire may weaken them and then they may turn back; they may fall into sin whose effects do not extend beyond themselves. But a person who espouses an idea, defends it, advocates it, influences others through it, and possesses the capacity to implement it represents an entirely different level.

Here the difference between those who are led astray and those who are taken becomes fundamental: a disobedient person may harm themselves, whereas a person whose response becomes a power may turn into an instrument that influences others and changes reality. This is why we can understand Iblis’s saying: ﴿لَأَتَّخِذَنَّ﴾ (I shall surely take for myself).

Is the Share a Human Force in Iblis’s Project?

Iblis does not possess a human body, human wealth, human institutions, or direct human authority; but the human being possesses all these. Thus, for Iblis, the human being may be more than merely a target: the human being may be a means of execution.

Iblis possesses immaterial power, and the human being possesses material power. Iblis whispers, and the human being thinks. Iblis fills with vain hopes, and the human being sets goals. Iblis commands, and the human being carries out the command. If immaterial power combines with material power, the idea becomes more capable of shaping reality. Here we can understand the “appointed share” as a share with a particular function, not merely a share of disobedient people.

Conclusion: The Question Is Not Only Who They Are, but What They Do

In my view, the verses reveal two levels in Iblis’s project. The first is general enticement: ﴿لَأُغْوِيَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ﴾ (I shall surely lead them all astray), which is an attempt to influence all human beings. The second is the particular share: ﴿لَأَتَّخِذَنَّ مِنْ عِبَادِكَ نَصِيبًا مَّفْرُوضًا﴾ (I shall surely take for myself an appointed share of Your servants).

Here, in this reading, it appears that Iblis does not merely want disobedient people, but human beings whose response can pass from the inward domain to the outward domain. Satan leads astray, fills with vain hopes, and commands; the human being believes, obeys, and executes. Thus the sequence becomes: enticement ← leading astray ← vain hopes ← command ← obedience ← execution ← alteration.

Here the theory poses its central question: was the “appointed share” a share of human beings possessing sufficient capacity and influence to turn satanic enticement into a material force on earth? If so, the most dangerous thing Iblis seeks is not merely to make the human being evil, but to make the human being powerful in the service of evil.

Iblis does not want everyone in the same way: he wants everyone through enticement, but he wants a share of them through taking.

The Qur’an has not given us a list of names under the heading “the appointed share,” but it has revealed a sequence, qualities, and actions through which we can investigate its function. Perhaps this is the deeper question the verse leaves us with: has the Qur’an told us of the appointed share by name, or revealed it to us through its function, qualities, and actions?

The Qur’an Is Read through the Qur’an

Here the importance emerges of reflecting upon the Qur’an through its own verses, rather than making the inherited tradition the final arbiter of what the verses may signify. In my view, the Qur’an is not a text whose meanings were closed at the time of its revelation. Rather, it is an enduring book of guidance, and the human capacity to discover its verses is renewed whenever times and human questions change.

﴿أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ﴾ (Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an?) [النساء: ٨٢]

Reflection does not mean imposing upon the Qur’an whatever we wish, but allowing the verses to enter into dialogue with one another, searching for Qur’anic concepts within the Qur’an itself, and placing a verse in its context, then comparing it with other verses until the picture takes shape from within the text.

Thus, the question of the “appointed share” does not begin with: what did the exegetes say about it? Rather, it begins with the Qur’an itself: what did Iblis say? What did he declare about his goal? What are the limits of his capacity? What can he do? What can he not do? And who are the human beings whose qualities and actions the Qur’an reveals in different contexts? We then let the verses lead us to the conclusion, rather than leading the verses to a predetermined conclusion.

This does not mean discarding the inherited tradition or denying its historical value. Rather, it means not placing human understanding of the Qur’an above the Qur’an itself. The inherited tradition is a human experience of understanding revelation, whereas the Qur’an is revelation, and the difference between them is fundamental. A person may understand correctly or incorrectly, and one generation may discover a meaning that an earlier generation did not notice, provided it remains within the bounds of the text and its context and does not claim that its reflection is the verse’s sole, definitive meaning.

Perhaps herein lies one aspect of the Qur’an’s greatness: it does not come to an end when an age ends. Times change, questions change, and circumstances change, but the verses endure, and in every age human beings can return to them and question them anew. Thus we should not fear questioning, reflection, or reconsideration: the Qur’an does not fear being read; rather, it invites reflection.

﴿وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِّكُلِّ شَيْءٍ﴾ (And We sent down to you the Book as an explanation of all things.) [النحل: ٨٩]

The greatest respect for the Qur’an is to trust its capacity to reveal to us what it contains, rather than assuming in advance that everything we can understand from it has already been said and settled. Human understanding does not override the Qur’an, nor do human statements become the standard by which the Qur’an is measured. Rather, the reverse is true: the Qur’an is the standard against which human statements are assessed.

“The Qur’an overrides and is not overridden” is not merely a rhetorical expression, but a methodological principle: we read the inherited tradition without sanctifying it, benefit from exegesis without making it the arbiter of the text, and respect the interpretive efforts of our predecessors without prohibiting subsequent interpretive effort.

Perhaps some verses have remained before people’s eyes for centuries, yet it is a new question that reveals a new angle of their significance. This, in essence, is what reflection means: not adding to the Qur’an what is not in it, but discovering what we have not noticed in what it contains.

To understand the Qur’an, we do not need the inherited tradition to override it; rather, we need to return to it. Whenever we return to it sincerely, question it through its verses, and place its verses alongside one another, something of its guidance suited to human beings in their time becomes apparent to us. The Qur’an endures, while the human being changes; thus the door to reflection remains open. Perhaps for precisely this reason: the Qur’an rises above and is not surpassed.