Tafsir of Yunus 10:31

(Say)—that is, to those polytheists whose states have been recounted and for whom the consequences of their deeds have been clarified—(who provides for you from the heaven and the earth?) That is, from both together, for provisions are obtained through celestial causes, such as rain, the ripening heat of the sun, and so forth, and through terrestrial materials. The former act as an agent and the latter as a recipient, or each acts independently—such as rains, manna, and earthly nourishment—as a means of expansion for you. Thus, "from" (min) here indicates the beginning of the range (ibtida’ al-ghayah). It is also said that it is for clarifying the "Who" (man) by assuming an omitted noun; and it is said that it is partitive (tab’idiyyah) based on that same assumption, meaning: "who among the inhabitants of the heaven and the earth [provides for you]."

(Or who possesses hearing and sights?) The "or" (am) is disjunctive (munqati'ah), meaning "rather" (bal), and the shift is one of transition, not of refutation. It serves as an alert that this interrogation is sufficient for the intended purpose; that is, who is able to create them and fashion them according to this wondrous nature? Whoever studies their anatomy encounters that which dazzles the intellects. Or [who is it that] preserves them from afflictions despite their abundance and their swift responsiveness to the slightest thing that befalls them? Or [who is it that] manages them through taking away or sustaining? Possession in every sense is metaphorical. It is said that the first meaning is more consistent with the order of Creatorhood along with Provider-hood, similar to His saying: "Is there any creator other than Allah who provides for you from the heaven and the earth?"

(And who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living?) That is, who originates the animal from the drop of fluid, for example, and the drop from the animal? Or who gives life and brings death, such that the meaning of "bringing out" is realization, from the saying "the output (al-kharij) is such," meaning the realized result. That is, who realizes the living from the dead by bestowing life upon it, and realizes the dead from the living by bestowing death upon it and stripping away life? The ultimate result is what you know, and some people have interpreted "living" and "dead" here as the believer and the disbeliever, but the former is more appropriate.

(And who arranges the matter?) That is, who manages the ordering of the entire world? This is a generalization after a specification, as the visible matters previously mentioned are included within it. It contains an indication that all things are from Him—Exalted is He—and return to Him, and that it is impossible for you to know the details thereof. (So they will say)—without stuttering or delay—(Allah.) For there is no room for arrogance or stubbornness in any of that due to its extreme clarity. The Glorious Name is the subject, and the predicate is omitted; that is, "Allah does what has been mentioned of these actions, no one else."

This being said, sometimes the verse is used as evidence—on the assumption that min does not denote the beginning of the range—for the permissibility of saying that Allah—Exalted is He—is "of the inhabitants of the heaven and the earth." But for the intent there to be something other than Allah—Exalted be He—does not suit the answer. Whoever does not view it as permissible, or whoever views it as permissible based on the apparent meanings of the verses that suggest His being in the heaven, and [based on] his (peace be upon him) saying regarding the slave girl who pointed to the heaven when asked "Where is Allah?"—"Free her, for she is a believer"—and his approval of Husayn when he said to him, peace be upon him, "How many do you worship, O Husayn?" He replied, "Seven: six on earth and one in heaven." He (peace be upon him) said, "Then who is the one you have prepared for your hope and your fear?" Husayn said, "The God who is in the heaven"—these people leave the verse according to its apparent meaning. You know that it is not explicitly meant that He—Exalted is He—is "from the inhabitants of the heaven and the earth," even if it is established that He—Glorified and Exalted is He—is "in the heaven" in a manner befitting His Majesty. Thus, I do not see the permissibility of that, and there is no necessity to take "from" (min) out of the meaning of "beginning of the range" just to require effort in refuting the evidence, as is not hidden.

In al-Intisaf, it is stated that this verse fights the arguments of the Qadariyyah, who claim that provisions are divided: part of it is what Allah—Exalted is He—provided for the servant, which is the lawful, and part is what the servant provided for himself, which is the unlawful. The verse rebukes them for this hidden polytheism. If they would listen: "Then, can you make the deaf hear, even if they do not reason?" Likewise, it is said that it fights those who claim that the one who arranges the matter in every age is the Qutb (the pole), who is the pillar of the heaven in their view, and were it not for him, it would fall upon the earth. So it is as if you are asking them, "Who arranges the matter?" and they say, "The Qutb." Sometimes they are excused by the argument that they mean he is the arranger "by the permission of Allah—Exalted is He," and the term "arranger" (mudabbir) has been applied in this sense to others besides Him, in His saying—Exalted is He: "And those who arrange the matter."

It is sometimes said that for them there is no difference between Allah—Exalted is He—and the Qutb except by consideration, because he is the one who has attained the nearness of the supererogatory and the obligatory acts in the most perfect way, and thus "otherness" has vanished. Therefore, saying that the Qutb is the arranger is like saying that Allah—Exalted is He—is the arranger, without difference. This is countered by stating that this is a descent into the doctrine of "Unity of Existence" (Wahdat al-Wujud), which most theologians and some Sufis, like the Imam al-Rabbani—may his secret be sanctified—reject. The former [argument] is that, why didn't the polytheists [who were asked the question] respond with "the angels" or "Jesus"—peace be upon them—for example, in the sense that they are the arrangers of the matter by the permission of Allah? So those mentioned would be in their view like the Qutbs are to those [Sufis]. The answer is that the question is about the One to whom the matter terminates, so no answer is possible for them except the one mentioned. Perhaps if those who are not of the people of Unity were asked similarly, they would not deviate in their answer from Him—Exalted is He. As for the people of Unity—may Allah—Exalted is He—sanctify their secrets—they have utterances that the polytheists do not say, and they are, I swear, beyond the stage of reason; for this reason, the people of the apparent (Ahl al-Zahir) rejected them.

(So say) to them: (Will you not then be pious?) The interrogative (hamzah) is for denying the absence of piety, meaning the denial of the reality, as in your saying, "Do you strike your father?"—not for denying the occurrence, as in your saying, "Do I strike my father?" The fa is for conjunction with an implied [verb] that the noble arrangement encompasses; that is, "Do you know that, and yet you are not pious?" The disagreement regarding such a structure is famous, and what we have mentioned is what some hold. The object of (be pious) is omitted, and it is transitive to one [object]; that is, "Will you not be pious regarding His punishment, which is yours due to the polytheism you commit against Him—Exalted is He—[attributing to others] that which shares with Him nothing of what was mentioned of the properties of divinity?" Al-Qadi's words suggest that it is transitive to two objects, but that is not the case.