Al-Ra'd: 16
"Say: Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?"
This is a verification—as some scholars of verification have stated—because their Creator and the One who manages their affairs, along with everything within them, is absolutely Allah, the Exalted. It is also said that after mentioning the subjection of the enclosed [the creation] to His will, He mentioned what serves as an argument for this: that He, the Majestic and Exalted, is the Creator and Disposer of this vast enclosure [the universe] which baffles the intellects. That is, say, O Muhammad, to these disbelievers who have taken protectors besides Him: "Who is the Lord of these great celestial and terrestrial bodies?"
He was commanded to provide the answer himself, signaling that it is the definitive answer, for he (peace and blessings be upon him) and the adversary are equal in its acknowledgment. It is also possible that this is a prompting of the answer to show them how they are contradicting what they already know. It is said that this is a narration of their own admission, though the context rejects this. Makki stated: "They were ignorant of the answer, so they requested it from him (peace and blessings be upon him), and he was commanded to inform them." However, this is far-fetched, as Allah, the Exalted, has already informed us of their knowledge in His saying, "And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth?' they will surely say, 'Allah.'" If so, how can it be said that they were ignorant of the answer and requested it? Indeed, al-Baghawi said: "It is narrated that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said this to the polytheists, they turned the matter back to him, saying, 'You answer!' So Allah commanded him to answer." This, even if it were sound, does not imply their ignorance, as is obvious.
"Say: Have you taken besides Him protectors?"
"not possessing for themselves"
—the ones who are more precious to them than you—
—which they might attract—
—which they might repel from themselves—
—let alone possessing the power to bring benefit to another or repel harm from them. The interrogative particle [the hamza] is for the sake of denunciation. The meaning is: after you have known that He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, you have taken besides Him protectors who are in the utmost state of incapacity to benefit you; thus, you have made what ought to have been a cause for monotheism—your knowledge—a cause for polytheism. The fa (so) is conjunctive, signifying causality and derivation. The hamza of denunciation was attached to it because the object of denunciation is the act of taking them as protectors after having gained knowledge, not the knowledge itself, nor both together. Describing these protectors with what has been mentioned strengthens the denunciation. It is understood, according to some, that this is a second proof for their misguidance and the corruption of their judgment in taking protectors in the hope that they might benefit them. There is a difference of opinion regarding the first proof: some say it is what is understood from His saying, "Say: Have you taken besides Him protectors?", while others say it is what is understood from His saying, "And those whom they invoke besides Him..." So reflect on this.
"Say: Is the blind equal to the seeing?"
This portrays their feeble opinions in the form of something tangible. The "blind" is the polytheist, ignorant of worship and who is deserving of it, and the "seeing" is the monotheist who knows that. Mujahid held this view. The speech contains a primary metaphor (isti'ara tasrihiyya). The same applies to the view that the first refers to one ignorant of such an argument, and the second to one who knows it. It is also said that the speech is based on analogy, meaning: the believer and the disbeliever are not equal, just as the blind and the seeing are not, and thus there is no metaphorical speech here. Some interpret the first as the heedless deity and the second as the Deity who knows all things, but this is far-fetched.
"Or are the darknesses equal to the light?"
Darkness refers to disbelief and misguidance; light refers to faith and monotheism. This is also narrated from Mujahid. Darkness is pluralized because of the multiplicity of types of disbelief, such as the disbelief of Christians, the disbelief of Magians, and others—the fact that disbelief as a whole is one creed is another matter.
The "or" (am), as in al-Bahr, is disjunctive, estimated as "rather" (bal) and the hamza of interrogation, according to the preferred view. The estimate is: "Rather, are they equal?" Even if "or" (hal) replaces the hamza in many places, it has also occurred alongside it, as in the poem: Have they seen us in the valley of al-Qaff, possessed of mounds? If it co-occurs with it when explicitly stated, then it is even more appropriate for it to co-occur with am, which contains it. It is also possible that am is brought here because of its similarity to nominal particles used for interrogation, in that it does not have the same originality in interrogative usage, as in the saying of Allah, "Or who possesses hearing and vision?" It is also permitted that it not be brought, as am inherently contains interrogation. Both modes appear in the verse: Is that which I knew and what I was entrusted with hidden? Or is her cord, when we parted from you today, severed? Or has a great man wept, who has not yet fulfilled his grief, by the trace of loved ones on the day of separation, to be blamed? The two brothers [Hamza and al-Kisa'i] and Abu Bakr read it as "am hal yastawi" with the ya (as a prefix).
Furthermore, Allah, the Exalted, emphasized what the previous speech implied regarding the condemnation of the polytheists, by saying:
"Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation,"
—meaning, "Rather, have they attributed to Allah, the Majestic and Exalted, partners who created like His creation?" The hamza is for the denunciation of the occurrence. The object of denunciation is not the act of attribution, for that occurred from them, but rather the act of [these partners] creating like His creation. The meaning is that they did not attribute to Allah partners who created like His creation—
"so that the creation seemed indistinguishable to them?"
—because of that, such that they said: "These have created like the creation of Allah, and thus deserve worship just as He deserves it," for that to be the source of their error. Rather, they have attributed to Him partners who are incapable, who are unable to do what the creation is able to do, let alone what the Creator is able to do. The goal of the denunciation and the negation is the constraint and the constrained, as established by more than one scholar of verification. In al-Insaf, it is stated that "created like His creation" appears in a context of denunciation to mock them; for anything other than Allah does not create anything at all, neither equal to it nor inferior. If not for that, it would have sufficed in the denunciation to say that the gods they have taken do not create.
Al-Tayyibi critiqued this, saying that establishing mockery is forced; for mentioning a thing while intending its opposite is to disparage the addressee, as in the saying of Allah, "Give them tidings of a painful punishment." Here, "like His creation" was brought as a hyperbole in proving the incapacity of their gods by way of luring them in and giving them free rein. For when Allah first denounced their taking of partners besides Him and described them as not possessing for themselves any benefit or harm—so how could they possess that for others?—He denounced them a second time, by way of gradation, regarding the description of creation as well. Meaning: Grant that those partners are capable of benefiting themselves and benefiting their worshippers, can they create anything? And grant that they are capable of creating some things, are they capable of what the Creator is capable of, namely, creating the heavens and the earth?
The truth is that the verse is attacking them and mocking them; for one who does not possess any benefit or harm for himself is even further from granting it to them. And how can one with any intellect imagine him to be a creator, or for it to be indistinguishable to him, so that he is warned against it? This amount is sufficient for the purpose. So understand.
"Say: Allah is the Creator of all things,"
—of substances and accidents. It follows from this that there is no creator other than Him, lest "co-occurrence" [in creation] result, and this is the intended meaning, so as to point to the desired conclusion: the negation of anyone else’s entitlement to worship and divinity. That is, there is no creator besides Him to share with Him in this entitlement. By the generality of the verse, the Sunnis argued that the actions of the servants are created by Him, the Exalted, while the Mu'tazilah claim it is restricted to things other than their own actions. Some also argue for the position held by the People of Truth using the first verse, and it is as you see.
"and He is the One, the Prevailing."
He is the One who is unique in divinity, alone in lordship, the Subduer, the Victor over everything else—and among that is their gods. So how can the vanquished be a partner to Him, the Exalted? This, as is said, is like a conclusion for what preceded it. It is possible that it is part of what he was commanded to say, and it is possible that it is an independent sentence.
