Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:2

(Allah who raised the heavens): That is, He created them in an elevated state—in the manner of "Glory to Him who magnifies the elephant and diminishes the mosquito"—not that He, glory be to Him, raised them after they were otherwise. (Without pillars): That is, without supports. It is a collective noun according to the majority, and the singular is ‘imad, like ihab and uhub. It is said: "I supported (‘amadtu) the wall, I support it with a support (‘amdan)," meaning I propped it up, so it relied and stood firm. It is also said that the singular is ‘amud; just as adim and adam, and qasim and qasam (are pairs), fa‘il and fa‘ul often share many grammatical rulings. It is also said that it is a plural, and the first view is considered stronger based on what we shall indicate shortly, God willing. Abu Haywah and Yahya ibn Wathab recited it as ‘umud with two dammahs, which is the plural of ‘imad like shihab and shuhub, or of ‘amud like rasul and rusul. They are both pluralized in the form of paucity as a‘midah. The collective plural refers to the heavens, not that the negation of pillars applies to each one of them individually, but to the collective. The prepositional phrase is in the position of a state (hal), meaning: He raised them empty of pillars. (You see them): This is an inaugural sentence (isti’naf) that holds no grammatical position, brought forth as evidence for the heavens being raised in such a manner. It is as if it were said: "What is the evidence for that?" It was replied: "Your seeing them without pillars." It is like your saying: "You see me without sword or spear."

It is possible for the inaugural sentence to be purely grammatical without the estimation of a question and answer, though the former is preferable. It is also permitted that the sentence be in the position of a state for the heavens, meaning: He raised them while being seen by you without pillars. This is a potential state (hal muqaddarah), because the addressed were not created at the time He raised them. In any case, the objective pronoun refers to the heavens. It is also permissible for the sentence to be an attribute of the pillars, in which case the pronoun refers to them. Evidence for this is the recitation of Ubayy ("You see them [the pillars]"), for it is apparent that the pronoun refers to the pillars, and its masculine gender is then clearly justified because it is a collective noun, so its origin in the singular was observed. Its return to the act of raising is contrary to the apparent meaning. Upon the assumption that it is an attribute, the negation may target the attribute and the described, similar to: "And you do not see the lizard burrowing therein," for if they had pillars, they would be visible. In meaning, this is like the inaugural sentence. It is also possible that the negation targets the attribute, implying that they have pillars, but they are not visible. This has been narrated from Mujahid and others, and the intended meaning is the power of God Almighty; He is the One who holds the sky from falling upon the earth. Thus, "pillars" in this view is a metaphor. Ibn Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas—may God be pleased with them—that he said: "The sky is upon four angels; each corner is entrusted to an angel." Some claimed that the pillars are Mount Qaf, for it surrounds the earth and the sky is upon it like a dome, but the Imam critiqued this as being utterly baseless. What might be his intent in this regard will come, God willing, and I do not view the preceding as authentic from Ibn Abbas. The truth is that the pillars are the power of God Almighty. This is proof of the existence of the Wise Maker, glory be to His status; this is because the elevation of the heavens above all other bodies equal to them in materiality—as established in its place—and their specification with that which necessitates this, must necessarily be for a Specifier who is neither a body nor corporeal, who favors some possibilities over others through His will.

In al-Kashf, it is considered more likely that the sentence is inaugural, because the proof by the raising of these celestial bodies without pillars is sufficient, and providing as evidence that it is observed and sensed is a confirmation for verification. Then, it is not hidden that when the objective pronoun in "you see them" refers to the raised heavens, the apparent meaning of the verse necessitates that what is seen is the sky. The philosophers have explicitly stated that what is seen is the sphere of vapor and its thickness—as the author of al-Tuhfah stated: fifty-one miles and fifty-nine minutes, and the total is approximately seventeen and a third farsakhs. They mentioned that the reason for seeing it as blue is that it is always illuminated by the rays of the stars, and what is beyond it, due to its lack of receptivity to light, is dark in relation to it. Thus, when the light of vision passes from the parts illuminated by the rays to the parts that are like darkness, the viewer sees what is above him of the darkness—mixed with the terrestrial light and stellar light—as a color intermediate between darkness and light, which is the azure color. This is just as if we look from a transparent red object to a green object, a color composed of red and green appears to us. They agreed that the heavens, which are the spheres, are not seen because they are transparent and have no color, as they do not block the vision from seeing the stars beyond them; and every colored thing blocks that. The Imam al-Razi critiqued this, saying: "We do not concede that every colored thing is a blocker, for water and glass are colored—because they are visible—and yet they do not block." If it is said: "They block complete vision," we say: "And how do you know that you have attained a complete perception of these stars?" This ends the argument. Moreover, what they stated does not hold for the Limitless Sphere (al-muhaddid), as there is nothing behind it to be seen, nor for the sphere they call the sphere of fixed stars, since there is no visible star above it. They cannot say: "If each were colored, it would have to be seen," for we say: It is possible that its color is weak, like the color of glass, so it is not seen from a distance. If we concede the necessity of seeing its color, we say: "Why is it not possible that this clear, visible blue is its color?" What was mentioned initially regarding it, without proving the sphere of fire, and what is said—that it is a matter that appears in transparency when its depth is far, as in seawater, for it is seen as blue, varying in blueness with the variation of its depth in proximity and distance—so the aforementioned blue is a color imagined in the atmosphere between the sky and the earth because it is transparent and has great depth—is of no avail. Because blueness, just as it can be an imagined color, can also be a real color inherent in bodies. What is the evidence that it does not occur except through that imagined path? Thus, it is possible that that visible blue is a real color for one of the two spheres. This is what some investigators have said. You know that there is no obstacle for Muslims in the view that what is seen is the lowest heaven, called the sphere of the moon by the philosophers; rather, it is what the apparent texts dictate. We do not concede that what they mention of atmospheric layers is a blocker. This blue may be a real color for that heaven, with which God Almighty dyed it according to what His wisdom necessitated, and this is the position of the Atharis (traditionalists), as al-Qastallani stated. This is supported by the manifest meaning of what is authentic from the Prophet, peace be upon him: "The green (sky) has not shaded, nor the dust (earth) has not lifted—in one narration: 'the earth'—any one with a more truthful tongue than Abu Dharr." It is also possible that it is an imagined color in a layer of the transparent atmosphere with which God filled what is between the sky and the earth, while it has, in itself, a real color whose nature God Almighty knows best. There is no distance in it being white, which is what some reports necessitate, but we see it from behind that atmosphere with this quality, just as we see a white object from behind a green glass as green, and from behind a blue glass as blue, and so on. It came in some traditions that this is from the reflection of the color of Mount Qaf upon it. This is critiqued by the fact that Mount Qaf has no existence, and it is proven by that which refutes it. As the scholar Ibn Hajar said: "What has come from Ibn Abbas—may God be pleased with them—through chains of transmission brought out by the Huffaz and a group among them—from those who committed themselves to extracting the authentic—the statement of the Companion in this and the like, where there is no room for opinion, is effectively the same as a statement raised to the Prophet, peace be upon him. Among them is that beyond our earth is a surrounding sea, then a mountain called Qaf, then an earth, then a sea, then a mountain, and so on, until he counted seven of each." Some of those extracted from Abdullah ibn Buraydah that it is a mountain of emerald surrounding the world, upon which are the fringes of the sky, and Mujahid said the same. The author of Hall al-Rumuz reported that it has seven branches, and that for every heaven there is a branch from it. In my heart, there is concern regarding the authenticity of this. Rather, I am certain that the sky is not carried except on the shoulder of Power, and the apparent meaning is that it surrounds the earth from all its sides, as is narrated from al-Hasan. Regarding the blue, both possibilities exist. There remains the discussion on the visibility of the rest of the heavens. The apparent meaning of the verse necessitates it, and I think you do not see that, and the apparent meaning of some verses assists you. So you need to say that the rest, even if not visible in reality, is in the status of the visible, by necessity: if this (lowest heaven) had no pillars, it is not conceivable that what is behind it has pillars in any way. This leads to the intended meaning of "you see them" being "you see them in reality or in status" without pillars. It is permissible that the meaning is "you see their raising," that is, of all the heavens, without that (the pillars). In al-Kashf, there is that which points to it. When the pronoun is assigned to the pillars, the matter is apparent, so contemplate it. Among the remote interpretations that we do not favor is the claim of some that "you see them" is a statement in wording, but its meaning is an imperative: "See them and observe whether they have any pillars."

(Then He ascended): Glory be to Him, an ascension befitting His essence (upon the Throne): And it is the Limitless Sphere (al-muhaddid) in the language of the philosophers. It has come in reports of its greatness that which dazzles the intellects. More than one of the later scholars made the statement a metaphorical representation (isti‘arah tamthiliyyah) for preservation and management. Some interpreted "ascended" as "conquered." The position of the predecessors (salaf) regarding this is famous. Despite this, we have previously discussed it. In any case, the intended meaning is not the intention to create the Throne, as they said regarding His saying: "(Then He ascended to the heaven while it was smoke)," because its creation is before the creation of the heavens, and there is no need for such an intention with the statement of the precedence of creation, and interpreting "then" as referring to delay in rank. Yes, some said: "It is for delay in rank, not because ascension in the sense of the mentioned intention is preceding, but because it is an eternal attribute befitting Him, glory be to His status, and it is preceding the raising of the heavens as well, and there is between them a delay in rank." (And He subjected the sun and the moon): He rendered them compliant and made them obedient to what is intended from them. (Each): Of the sun and the moon (runs): Travels through the stations and degrees (for a specified term): That is, a determined time, for the sun traverses the sphere in a year, and the moon in a month; the running of each of them does not differ in His saying: "(And the sun runs to a settled place for it... and the moon, We have decreed for it phases)." This is what is narrated from Ibn Abbas. It is said: Each runs toward a set limit, short of which is its running, and it is: "(When the sun is folded up, and when the stars are scattered)." This is the intent of Mujahid from interpreting the "specified term" as the world (the life of this world). It is said: The true interpretation is what is narrated from the Rabbi (Ibn Abbas), whereas the second does not befit being separated between subjection and management. Then, their end is unified, and the expression "each runs" is explicit in multiplicity. As for the limit being "to" (ila) instead of "for" (lam), it was refuted by saying: If he meant that the expression is explicit in the multiplicity of the end-target, then it is conceded, but it does not benefit him; and if he meant its explicitness in the multiplicity of the end-target, then it is not conceded, and the lam can come in the sense of "to," as in al-ma‘na and others. You know that it does not benefit more than the validity of the second interpretation, so understand. What we pointed to as the intended meaning of "each" is the apparent one. Ibn ‘Atiyyah claimed that the mention of the sun and the moon has included the mention of the stars, so the intent from each of them, and from what is in their meaning among the stars, is the truth as you have known. (He manages the affair): That is, the affair of the upper and lower world, and the intended meaning is that He, glory be to Him, decrees, estimates, and manages that in the most perfect way; otherwise, management in the linguistic sense, due to its requirement of contemplation in the outcomes of affairs, is not what is appropriate to attribute to Him. (He details the signs): That is, He reveals them and clarifies them in detail, and the intended meaning is the signs of the revealed books or the Quran according to what is appropriate to what preceded, or the intended meaning is the proofs pointed to in what preceded, and their detailing is their clarification. It is also said: their bringing into existence, according to what is appropriate to what follows.

It is permissible for the two sentences to be inaugural, or for them to be states from the pronoun in "ascended" and "subjected," as a completion of it, based on the fact that it was brought to establish the meaning of ascension and clarify it, or as a sentence explaining it. It is also permissible for "manages" to be a state from the subject of "subjected," and "details" to be a state from the subject of "manages." "Allah who" and so on, on all these assumptions, is a subject and predicate. It is also permissible for the Majestic Name to be a subject and the relative clause to be its attribute, and the sentence "He manages" its predicate, and the sentence "He details" a predicate after a predicate. It is considered more likely in al-Kashf that this is a subject and predicate, because His following saying: "(And it is He who spread the earth)" is a conjunction to it by way of contrast between the upper and lower (realms), and in contrast, the predicative function is determined, so likewise in the (first) contrast to be in agreement, and for its indication that its being such is what is intended by the judgment, not that it is a pretext to realize the predicate and magnify it as in the other view. Then he said: "And it is upon this a sentence confirming His saying, glory be to Him: '(And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord is the truth).'" He turned from the pronoun of the Lord to the inclusive Manifest Name to strengthen the confirmation, as if it were said: "How could it not be the truth—of which there is no greater truth—that which was revealed by the One whose actions are these?" In bringing the subject and predicate as definite nouns, there is that which benefits the confirmation that these actions are His actions without participation, especially since they were made clauses for the relative noun. This is more appropriate to the context than making it an attribute benefiting the confirmation of His being a manager and detailer while magnifying His status, as in the saying of al-Farazdaq: "Indeed, the One who raised the sky built for us a house, its pillars are mightier and taller." The aforementioned mention of the signs is a weak supporter because the signs in the two places are different in indication, and because what is appropriate then is its delay from His saying: "(And it is He who spread the earth)," etc., provided that the driving of those attributes—I mean the raising of the heavens and what followed it—is for the mentioned purpose, and the driving of their opposites is for another conflicting purpose. In the first, a subtlety was observed in following the first ones with His saying: "(He manages, He details)" for certainty, and the second ones with His saying: "(Indeed in that are signs for a people who reflect)," meaning: from the superiority of the preceding ones for their benefiting certainty, and the subsequent ones are pretexts to its attainment, because reflection is its tool. The indication is to the precedence of the second ones in relation to us, despite their delay in rank; that is lost in the other view. It is of great beauty as I see it, and there is no contradiction, as al-Shihab said, between the two views considering that the attributive function requires familiarity and the predicative function requires its opposite, because familiarity exists in both, and the intention of benefit is His saying: "(That you may be certain of the meeting with your Lord)."

That is, perhaps you reflect and verify the perfection of His power, glory be to Him, so you learn that whoever has power over that has power over the resurrection and the recompense. In summary, He, glory be to Him, did all of that for that. Upon the other view, He did the last two for that, even though all is for Him. Then he said: "And this is something that favors the first view as well, just as it is favored by the fact that He mentioned the clarification of the signs, which is the raising and what followed it, for He mentioned them to prove His power and knowledge, and one does not prove them except if they are known, so it necessitates its being an attribute." If it is said: "It is necessary in the relative clause that it be known, whether it is an attribute or a predicate," it is said: "When it is a relative clause, it indicates the attribution of the signs to God Almighty, and when it is a predicate, it indicates their attribution to an indefinite existing thing, and that is not sufficient in providing proof," so contemplate it. Al-Nakha‘i, Abu Razin, and Aban ibn Taghlib narrated from Qatadah: "We manage, we detail," with the nun in both. Likewise narrated Abu ‘Amr al-Dani from al-Hasan. Al-Khaffaf and ‘Abd al-Wahhab from Abu ‘Amr, and Hubayrah from Hafs agreed upon "we detail" with the nun. The author of al-Lawami‘ said: "It came from al-Hasan and al-A‘mash: 'we detail' with the nun." Al-Mahdawi said: "There is no disagreement regarding 'He manages'," and it is not as he said because of what you heard. Then, when He, glory be to Him, mentioned from the celestial evidence what He mentioned, He followed it with the mention of the terrestrial proofs, so He said, exalted is His glory: