"Is then He who is standing over every soul for what it has earned [like him who is not]?"
"Is then He who creates like him who does not create?" and His, the Exalted’s, saying: "Is then he who knows that what has been revealed to you from your Lord is the truth like him who is blind?" and other similar verses. The hamza is for interrogative refutation (istifham inkari). As for the inclusion of the fa, it is said that it is to direct the refutation toward the presumption of similarity regarding what has been established concerning what the Almighty has done to the mockers, by way of respite and seizure, and from the fact that the entire affair belongs to Him, the Almighty, and that the guidance of all people is dependent upon His will, and from the recurring blows of calamity upon the disbelievers until His promise comes to pass. It is as if it were said: "The matter is thus; so is he who is in such a state [comparable] to those who are not even counted among things, that they should associate them with Him?" Thus, the refutation is directed toward the sequence of the conjoined clause—meaning the presumption of similarity—upon the implied antecedent—meaning the state of affairs as mentioned—not toward both conjoined parts.
In al-Kashshaf, it is stated that this sequence implies an escalation in the refutation; meaning: there is no wonder in their denial of your brilliant signs despite their manifestation, but the absolute wonder is their placing the One Capable of revealing them—who compensates them for their turning away from contemplating their meanings and their parallels with recurring calamities, one after another, which they witness with their own eyes and which cast them into the abode of destruction and its terrors—on the same level as one who possesses no power over himself for harm or benefit, let alone one who takes him as a lord from whom he expects defense or gain.
Some have claimed that the fa is for sequential mention; that is, "after what has been mentioned, I say this matter," but this is weak. "And they have attributed partners to Allah" is an isti'naf (resumed) sentence, in which there is an indication of an elided predicate. It is also permissible for it to be conjoined to "earned" (kasabat), based on the assumption that "what" (ma) is a masdariyyah (infinitive particle) not a relative pronoun, and the referent is elided; there is no necessity for both matters to coincide such that every soul is singled out by the polytheists.
It is more remote for one to say it is conjoined to "was mocked" (ustuhzi’a). It is also permissible for it to be a state (haliyyah), meaning: "Is he who has these attributes like him who is not such, when they have attributed partners to Him?"—not "a partner" in the singular. The author of Hall al-'Uqad said: "The meaning is based on the state: 'Is He who is standing over every soul for what it has earned existent, while they have attributed partners to Him?' This is similar to your saying: 'A generous man who gives to people and enriches them is present, yet he deprives the likes of me.'"
Some have permitted the conjunction to the sentence "Is then He who is standing over every soul for what it has earned [like him who is not]," because the interrogative refutation is in the sense of a negation, so it is declarative in meaning. Others estimated the predicate as "they have not recognized His oneness, and they have attributed partners to Him," and made the conjunction dependent upon it; meaning, "Is he who is in this state—that they have not recognized His oneness and have attributed partners to Him—[like Him]?" The apparent meaning of their speech is that the conjunction is specific to the predicate under this estimation, rather than the estimation "like him who is not."
Al-Badr al-Damamini said: "The aspect of this specificity is not apparent." The scholar al-Shamni explained it by saying that the realization of the correspondence between the conjoined and the antecedent—which is a condition for the acceptance of conjunction with waw—only exists under the latter estimation, not the former. The experts in rhetoric point to this condition, saying: "Zayd writes and recites poetry" is acceptable, unlike "He gives and recites poetry." al-Shihab countered this by stating that this is due to a lack of contemplation, for their intent is that under the first estimation, the interrogation is a refutation meaning "it has not been," and it is not a negation of resemblance by way of refutation. If "their attributing partners" were conjoined to it, it would imply "it has not been," which is incorrect. Under the latter estimation, the interrogation is for reproof, and the refutation therein is in the sense of "why has it been?" Thus, the lack of acknowledging oneness and the attribution of partners is a reality that is reproached and refuted, so the conjunction to the predicate becomes apparent. As for what was mentioned regarding correspondence, it is an oversight, because the correspondence between likening Allah—the Almighty—to others and polytheism is complete. Furthermore, under the latter view, the lack of acknowledging oneness is the very essence of polytheism, so it is not a location for conjunction according to the rhetoricians, based on what he mentioned, so it requires another explanation.
Some verifiers chose the first estimation, and in that omission is an exaltation of the subject and a debasement of the one characterized by that state. In moving away from the explicit noun in "Is then He who is standing," there is an aggrandizement through the ambiguity of the pronoun in bringing it as a relative, along with verifying that the standing is actually occurring and they are the ones being realized. In placing the Majestic Name in the place of the pronoun referring to "who" (man), there is a stipulation of His—the Almighty’s—oneness in essence and name, and an alert to His exclusive right to worship, along with the clarification provided after the ambiguity. Perhaps the directing of this placement is not exclusive to one estimation over another; some restricted it to where a pronoun is needed following a rebuke, i.e., "Name them: who are they and what are their names?"
In al-Bahr, it is said the meaning is: they are not among those who are mentioned and named; only those who benefit and harm are mentioned and named. This is like someone mentioning to you that a person is honored and exalted, while in your view he does not deserve that, so you say to the speaker: "Name him, so that I may show you his worthlessness and that he is far removed from deserving that." Close to this is what was said: this is only said for a despised thing that reaches such a level of contempt that it is not mentioned or named, so it is said "Name them," in the sense that it is too base to be mentioned or named. But if you wish to assign it a name, do so. It is as if it were said: "Name them [as gods]" by way of threat. The meaning is: whether you name them as such or do not, they are in such a state of contempt that they do not deserve to have a rational person turn to them.
It is said that the threat here is like the threat to one who was forbidden from drinking wine and then was told: "Name wine after this," which is contrary to the apparent. It is also said that the meaning is: "Mention their attributes and see if they have anything in them for which they deserve worship and merit being associates."
"Or do you inform Allah of what He does not know on the earth?" i.e., of partners who deserve worship, whom He—the Glorified and Exalted—does not know. The intent is to negate them by negating their necessary consequence by way of metonymy, because if He—the Almighty—does not know them, and He is the One from whose knowledge not even an atom’s weight in the earth or the heavens escapes, then they have no reality at all. The earth is specifically mentioned because the polytheists only claimed that He—the Almighty—has partners therein. The pronoun embedded in "knows" (ya'lamu) according to this interpretation refers to Allah, and the referent for "what" (ma) is elided, as we indicated.
It is permissible for the referent to be the pronoun of "knows" (ya'lamu), and the meaning: "Do you inform Allah of the partners of the idols which possess no knowledge whatsoever?" The mention of the negation of knowledge on the earth is because the earth is the abode of the idols, and if their knowledge is negated in the abode where they reside, then its negation in the high heavens is even more appropriate. Al-Hasan read it "atunabbi’unahu" with a light nun (takhfif) from al-inba'.
"Or by an apparent saying?" i.e., or do you name them partners by an apparent saying, without any meaning realized in the essence of the matter, like calling an Ethiopian 'Camphor', as in His saying: "That is a saying from their mouths." It is narrated from al-Dahhak and Qatadah that "apparent from saying" means the falsehood of it, and they cited as proof his saying: "You reproach us for their milk and their meat, and that is a shame, O son of Raitah, that is apparent." 'Apparent' (zahir) is also used to mean 'vanishing' (za'il). Whoever intends that here has labored excessively. From al-Jubba'i, it is said the intent of "apparent from saying" is the appearance of a book revealed by Allah in which He called the idols true gods. The gist of the verse is the negation of both rational and textual evidence for the truth of their worship and their taking them as gods. It is permissible for the am (or) to be connective, though disconnection is the apparent.
It is not hidden that the verse contains argumentation and wondrous styles that call out with a fluid and eloquent tongue that it is not the speech of humans, as al-Zamakhshari stipulated. The author of al-Kashshaf clarified this by stating that since His saying—the Almighty’s—"Is then He who is standing" was sufficient to demolish the foundation of polytheism due to the preceding derivation and the realization of the following attribute, along with the added subtleties it contained—and since it was a refutation from the side of Truth, he followed it with its refutation from the side of the contradiction, with the meaning: "Would that when they associated with Him one who is not permitted to be associated with, they had associated one in whom the slightest [virtue] could be imagined." It was observed that those partners have no names, let alone the Named, by way of evocative metonymy. Then it was exaggerated that they do not even deserve for their state to be asked about, due to the manifestation of their corruption. He pursued the path of allusive metonymy by negating knowledge through the negation of the known, and then from that through the lack of merit.
The hamza included therein indicates rebuke and confirmation that they intend to inform the Knower of the secret and the hidden of what He does not know, and this is an impossibility upon an impossibility. There is a hidden subtlety—nay, hidden subtleties—in his making their taking of partners and their arguing with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Then he turned away from that, and it was said: "He has explained the sun to one who has eyes, and that naming is nothing but an apparent saying without anything substantial underneath it; it is nothing but a mere empty sound." It is fitting for whoever reflects upon it with true reflection to confess that it is speech guarded against artifice, emanating from the Creator of powers and faculties, before which the comprehensions of mankind fall short of reaching any of its mysteries.
Al-Zamakhshari appended to his speech: "So blessed be Allah, the best of creators." This, as in al-Intisaf, is a true word by which a falsehood is intended, hummed by one who is devoid of the ornament of justice. This is "But it has been beautified to those who disbelieved." This is an abrupt turn from arguing against them, and placing the relative noun in the place of the pronoun is a censure for them and a recording of them as disbelievers, as if it were said: "Leave this, for there is no benefit in it, because their scheming has been beautified for them." Their plot for submission through their polytheism, or their camouflage of falsehoods, so they exerted themselves in placing them in the imagination without reality. Then after that, they thought them to be something due to their persistence in error. According to this, the intent is their plotting against themselves; according to the first, their plotting against others. The attribution of makr (plot) to their pronoun is from the attribution of the verbal noun to the agent. It is permissible in the second case for it to be attributed to the object, though that is remote.
Mujahid read "But He beautified" as active voice, and "their plot" in the accusative. "And they were diverted from the way," i.e., the way of truth; its definiteness is for covenant, or other than it, as if it were not a way. The agent of the diversion is either their plot and the like, or Allah—the Almighty—by sealing their hearts, or Satan by his beguiling them. The latter two possibilities are applicable to the agent of "beautifying." Ibn Kathir, Nafi', Abu 'Amr, and Ibn 'Amir read "and they diverted" (wa saddū) as active voice, and it is like the first, from sadda sadran; thus the object is elided, i.e., they diverted the people from belief. It is possible it is from sadda sududan, so there is no object. Ibn Wathab read "and they were diverted" (wa suddū) with a kasrah on the sad. Some said he read it likewise in al-Mu'min, and the kasrah here is for Ibn Ya'mar; the verb according to that is passive, where the vowel of the middle letter was transferred to the first, treating it like a hollow verb. Ibn Abi Ishaq read "and diversion" (saddun) with nunation, conjoined to "their plot."
"And whomsoever Allah sends astray"—i.e., creates straying in him due to his poor disposition—"he has no guide," to grant him success for guidance and deliver him to that in which his salvation lies.
