Tafsir of Al-Ikhlas 112:2

(Allah is the Samad) is a nominal sentence consisting of a subject and a predicate. It is said that "al-Samad" is an adjective and that the predicate is what follows it, but this is baseless.

Regarding "al-Samad," Ibn al-Anbari stated there is no disagreement among linguists that it is the Master above whom there is none, and to whom people direct themselves in their needs and affairs. Al-Zajjaj said: "He is the One in whom mastership ends and to whom everything directs itself," meaning they seek Him. They cited the verse: "The herald of grief has come early with the best of the sons of Asad, with 'Amr bin Mas'ud, and with the Master (al-Sayyid), the Samad." And the verse: "I struck him with a blade, then I said to him: 'Take it, you have been disgraced, for you are the Master, the Samad.'"

From Ali bin Abi Talha, Ibn Abbas said: "He is the Master who has attained perfection in His mastership, the Noble who has attained perfection in His nobility, the Great who has attained perfection in His greatness, the Forbearing who has attained perfection in His forbearance, the Knowing who has attained perfection in His knowledge, and the Wise who has attained perfection in His wisdom; He is the One who has attained perfection in all types of nobility and mastership."

From Abu Hurayrah: "He is the One who is independent of everyone, while everyone is in need of Him." From Ibn Jubayr: "He is the Perfect in all His attributes and actions." From al-Rabi': "He is the One whom afflictions do not touch." From Muqatil bin Hayyan: "He is the One who has no defect." From Qatadah: "He is the One who remains after His creation," and similar to this is the statement of Ma'mar: "He is the Eternal." And the statement of Murrah al-Hamadani: "He is the One who does not decay and does not perish." From him also: "He is the One who judges what He wills and does what He wishes; there is no one to reverse His judgment and no one to repel His decree."

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Abdullah bin Buraydah from his father—and I do not know it except as a prophetic tradition—that he said: "The Samad is the One who has no cavity (hollow)." It is narrated from al-Hasan and Mujahid, and from this is the saying: "A star of wars, his steeds are always frowning, chewing the bit, the Samad (the firm/solid one)." From Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami from Ibn Mas'ud: "The Samad is the One who has no innards." This is also a narration from Ibn Abbas. From 'Ikrimah: "He is the One who does not eat." In another narration: "The One from whom nothing comes out." From al-Sha'bi: "He is the One who does not eat and does not drink." From a group, including Ubayy bin Ka'b and al-Rabi' bin Anas: "He is the One who does not beget and was not begotten," as if they treated what follows it as an explanation of it.

The relied-upon interpretation is the Master to whom creation directs itself for needs and demands, and the interpretation as the One who has no cavity; what is besides these two either refers back to them or is something the language does not support. Defining His status as Master means He is the Origin of all, and in its meaning is the interpretation as Absolute Wealthiness, to whom all else is in need. It is said it is possible that both meanings are intended, making it a description of Him, the Almighty, by the combination of negation and affirmation; this is evident in the permissibility of using a polysemous word for both its meanings, as al-Shafi'i held.

The interpretation I have chosen is the Master to whom creation directs itself. It is a verbal noun in the sense of a passive participle (maf'ul) from samada, meaning to intend/seek, thus it is transitive both by itself and with the particle lam. Using "al-Samad" in the sense of "the Master" for Him, the Almighty, is free from danger, even if there is disagreement regarding the use of "al-Sayyid" (the Master) itself. The correct view is its permissibility for Him, the Almighty, as in the Hadith: "The Master is Allah." Al-Suhayli said it is not to be used for Him in a possessive construct, so one does not say, for example, "the Master of the angels and of men."

The directing of creation toward Him, the Almighty, for needs is broader than natural direction or direction according to the inherent disposition fixed for all essences, since they are all oriented toward the Origin, the Almighty, in seeking their perfections from Him.

As for why He is defined (with the definite article al-) and "Ahad" is not: it is said it is because of their knowledge of His "Samad-ness" as opposed to His "Oneness." This has been countered by saying it is not free from ambiguity, because the interlocutor's knowledge of the content of a statement does not necessitate defining it; rather, it only necessitates that it is not presented to him until he is placed in the position of the ignorant, as providing the logical consequence of the statement's benefit is removed from this context. Therefore, it is better to say that the definition is to provide exclusivity, like your saying "Zayd is the man." There is no need for this in the previous sentence based on the concept of "Ahad," which is purified of all modes of composition and plurality, especially since they neither know His Oneness nor acknowledge it. This was objected to on the grounds that it necessitates that if a statement is known to the listener, it is not relayed unless he is treated as ignorant or the consequence of the statement is provided, or if exclusivity is intended. This contradicts what was established in meaning: that the subject and predicate being known does not negate the speech providing a benefit to the listener. What the listener benefits from the speech is the attribution of one to the other and that he is indeed He. So it is permissible to say here that they know Him, the Almighty, in some way, and they know the meaning of the intended one, whether it is Allah the Exalted or someone else in their view, but they do not know that He is that [God], whether in the sense of the perfect individual or the genus, so Allah defined Him for them.

It is said that "Ahad," outside of negation and counting, is not used for anyone other than Him, the Almighty, so there was no need to define it, unlike "al-Samad," which appeared in their speech used for others—as in the two verses mentioned earlier—hence it was defined.

As for the repetition of the glorious name (Allah) without using a pronoun, it is said to signal that whoever is not characterized by "Samad-ness" does not deserve Divinity. According to what al-Dawwani stated, this is taken from the fact that defining both parts (the subject and predicate) implies exclusivity. So if you say "The just Sultan," it implies that whoever is not characterized by justice does not deserve sultanate. It is also said that attaching "al-Samad" to "Allah" signals that Divinity is the cause of Samad-ness, based on the fact that it is originally an adjective. And if Samad-ness is the result of Divinity, then whoever is not characterized by it does not deserve Divinity. This has been researched by suggesting that Divinity, as it appears, is for Samad-ness, because He is only worshipped for being the One needed, not the reverse, unless it is said that what is meant by Divinity is its origin and what follows from it, not His being worshipped in act.

The reason one subject and two predicates (Ahad and Samad) were not used for the glorious name—by saying "Allah is Ahad, the Samad"—is to alert that each of the two attributes is independent in defining the Essence. The omission of the conjunction in the aforementioned sentence is because it acts as its evidence; for whoever is rich by His Essence and is needed by all else can only be One, or that which is besides Him can only be possible and in need of Him. Or, it is like the result of it, based on the fact that Oneness necessitates Samad-ness and absolute wealthiness. In short, this sentence, from one perspective, is like the evidence, and from another, like the result; it is thus an initiate (a new sentence) or a corroborating one.