Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:17

"Is He then Who creates—[that which has been mentioned of wondrous creations, or He who creates everything He wills]—like him who does not create—[anything, neither something great nor something trivial?]"

This is a rebuke to the disbelievers and an invalidation of their polytheism and their worship of things other than the Almighty—the idols—by denying the resemblance that such worship implies between Him, Glorified be He, and them, after having enumerated matters that manifestly demand [His exclusive worship]. The placing of the hamza followed by the fa is to direct the denial toward the absurdity of assuming such resemblance, given the great and manifest affairs He, Glorified be He, has performed—affairs known to them as being exclusive to Him, as is indicated by more than one verse.

The restriction to mentioning "creation" from among what preceded is because it is the greatest and most apparent of them, and because those [previous examples] follow it, or because each of them is a specific creation. That is to say: after the manifestation of His exclusivity, Glorified be He, in originating these clear matters that testify to His Oneness, Exalted be He, and His uniqueness in Divinity and the right to be worshipped, can a resemblance be imagined between Him and that which is completely isolated from such capability, as is the case in your polytheism?

Although the structure, at first glance, would seemingly demand: "Is he who does not create like Him who does?" it is said that since the comparison is a relation that subsists between the things being compared, the current noble arrangement was chosen out of regard for the priority of existence over non-existence, to avoid placing non-existence between Him and the detailed particulars mentioned before Him, and to alert [the reader] to the utter ugliness of what they have done—in that it is not merely elevating their idols above their station, but degrading the status of Lordship to the rank of inanimate objects; and there is no doubt that this is uglier than the former.

"He who does not create" refers to everyone whose state is such, whether they are possessors of knowledge, such as the angels and Jesus, peace be upon them, or others, such as the idols. "Who" (man) was used to give precedence to those with knowledge over others, along with the mushakala (stylistic correspondence) involved, or it refers specifically to those with knowledge, and from this, the state of others is known through the dalalat al-nass (implication of the text); for if the one who creates—while not being like the one who does not create—is among those who possess knowledge, then what is your suspicion regarding inanimate objects?

It is also said that it refers exclusively to the idols, and the expression "who" (man) is either for the sake of mushakala or based on what their worshippers believe. The former is better. The inclusion of the idols in the ruling of non-resemblance is either by way of subsumption or by way of implication through the dalalat al-nass based on a demonstrative path, as some researchers have stated. The verse is used as evidence for the invalidity of the Mu'tazilite doctrine regarding their claim that servants are the creators of their own actions.

Al-Shihab said, after establishing the generality of the object in the manner we mentioned: "It is permitted that the generality here be taken from treating the verb as though it were intransitive." He noted that this implies that using this as an argument against the Mu'tazilites to refute their claim that servants create their actions—as has occurred in books of theology—is not sound, because a universal negation does not contradict a partial affirmation. [This is] as we found it in the copies in our possession, though they may be corrupted; otherwise, I do not think this is anything but a stumble of a horse, for it [the argument] is manifest.

"Will you then not take heed?" That is: Will you not observe and then take heed of that? For because of its clarity, it requires nothing but "taking heed," which is the reviewing of what was previously conceived but then neglected. Some have estimated the object [of the verb] as "the absence of equality," mentioning that since it was not previously conceived so that one could conceive the reality of "taking heed"—by conceiving it and then neglecting it—"taking heed" is treated as an explicit metaphor (isti'ara tasrihiyya) for knowing it. Others said the metaphor is implicit (makniyya) in the estimated object, and the affirmation of "taking heed" is imaginative (takhayyul).