Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:40

(إِنَّمَا قَوْلُنَا لِشَيْءٍ): This is a resumption [of speech] to explain the [process of] creation, whether initial or restorative, following the admonition regarding the reality of the Resurrection, from which its modality is known. Innama (إِنَّمَا) is a particle of restriction, and qawluna (قَوْلُنَا) is the subject (mubtada’). His saying, Exalted is He, (lishay’in) (لِشَيْءٍ) is attached to it, and the lam (ل) denotes communication, as in your saying, "I said to Zayd, 'Stand up,' and he stood." Al-Zajjaj said: It is the lam of causality, meaning "for the sake of bringing a thing into existence." This was contested on the grounds that it is not clear.

What is understood from "thing" (shay’) here is the non-existent, and this is one of its applications. Shaykh Ibrahim al-Kurani—may God have mercy on him—demonstrated that the application of "thing" to the non-existent is literal, just as its application to the existent. He authored a profound treatise on this titled Jala' al-Fuhum (The Clarification of Understandings), from which it is known that advocating for this application is not exclusive to the Mu'tazila, as is commonly held. Therefore, those of the group who did not grasp the [correct] research interpreted it here by saying: "The expression of it as such is in consideration of its existence upon the attachment of His Will, Exalted is He, to it, not that it was a 'thing' before that." In al-Bahr, citing Ibn 'Atiyyah, it is stated that there are two aspects to His saying, Exalted is He, (lishay’in): First, that since its existence is certain, it is permissible to call it a "thing" while it is in the state of non-existence. Second, that this is a reminder regarding the archetypes (amthilah) that are considered, and that whatever of them was existent was intended, and it was said to it, "Be," and it was, thus becoming an archetype for the things that follow [based on] those that preceded. In this, there is a release from calling the non-existent a "thing." Yet, this [interpretation] contains its own inherent obscurity. In any case, the tanwin (nunation) is for indetermination: "for a thing, any thing it may be, whether esteemed or insignificant."

(Idha aradnahu) (إِذَا أَرَدْنَاهُ) is an adverb for qawluna, meaning: "at the time our will attaches to bringing it into existence." (An naqula lahu kun) (أَنْ نَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ) is interpreted as a verbal noun acting as the predicate of the subject. The lam in (lahu) is like the lam in (lishay’in).

(Fayakuna) (فَيَكُونُ): It is either a conjunction to a deleted element implied by the fa’ (ف) and upon which the discourse flows—meaning, "We say that, and then it exists"—or it is the response to a deleted condition, meaning, "When We say that, it exists." It has been said: It is after estimating huwa (it), the sentence being the predicate of a deleted subject, meaning, "Whatever We intended, it exists." Kana (كان) in both instances is complete (tamma).

Most scholars of verification—and Shaykh al-Islam stated this exclusively—maintain that there is neither speech, nor an object of speech, nor a command, nor one commanded, such that one might claim one of two impossible consequences: either addressing the non-existent or achieving the already achieved. Or it is said: Innama requires restriction, and His saying, Exalted is He, in His saying: (Kun) (Be) does not necessitate the restriction of the causes of creation to it, as indicated by His saying, the Almighty: (His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be," and it is). For "command" (amr) here refers to the affair (sha’n) that encompasses both speech and action. It is not necessary that its restriction to the word "Be" implies that all causes of creation, absolutely, are restricted to it. Rather, it is a figurative representation (tamthil) of the ease with which the determined matters occur according to the attachment of His Will, Exalted is He, and a depiction of the speed of their occurrence by way of what is known in that regard concerning the obedience of a commanded subject to the command of a commanding authority. Thus, the meaning is: "Our bringing of a thing into existence, upon the attachment of Our Will to it, is [accomplished] in the swiftest manner possible." Since He expressed this through the "command," which is a specific type of speech, it became necessary to express absolute creation through absolute speech.

It has been said: The discourse is upon its literal reality, and the divine custom proceeds accordingly. This is attributed to the Salaf. They were answered regarding the objection of the necessity of one of the two corrupt consequences: once by stating that the address is "formative" (takwini) and there is no harm in its being directed toward the non-existent—this was contested as being an argument by figurative representation—and again by stating that the non-existent is fixed in [God's] Knowledge, and that is sufficient for the validity of addressing it; some even said it is witnessed by Him, Exalted is He, in its state of non-existence, which was contested at length. As for the issue of restriction, they said the matter is trivial, and some discussion has already passed regarding this position.

Some Sunni scholars used this verse, based on the literal interpretation, to argue for the eternity of the Quran. They said: It indicates that when He, Exalted is He, intends to bring a thing into existence, He says to it, "Be." If "Be" were originated, an infinite regress would ensue, which is impossible; therefore, it must be eternal. Whenever the eternity of one part is posited, the eternity of the whole must be posited. This was contested by noting that the word "if" (idha) does not denote repetition. Hence, if a man says to his wife, "If you enter the house, you are divorced," and she enters multiple times, she is not divorced more than once. Thus, it does not follow that every originated thing must be originated by the word "Be," so the infinite regress does not follow. Moreover, the assertion of the eternity of "Be" is necessarily false due to the sequential arrangement of letters, and the same is said for all verbal speech.

The Imam said: The verse suggests the origination of speech from several aspects: First, that His saying, Exalted is He, (Innama qawluna lishay’in idha aradnahu) entails that the speech occurs by will, and whatever is such is originated. Second, that He linked the speech with the word "if" (idha), and there is no doubt it refers to the future. Third, that His saying, Exalted is He, (an naqula) (that We say) indubitably indicates the future. Fourth, that His saying, the Almighty, (Kun fayakun) (Be, and it is), "Be" is antecedent to the occurrence of the created object, even if by a single instant, and what is antecedent to an originated thing is likewise originated. Therefore, it is necessary to hold the view of the origination of speech. True, it suggests the origination of verbal speech—which the Hanbalis and those who agree with them hold—but it does not suggest the origination of psychological speech (kalam nafsi). The Ash'arites, in the popular view held by them, do not claim anything other than the eternity of the psychological [speech] and deny the eternity of the verbal [speech]. This is a debate they have discussed at length, so let it be consulted.

What was mentioned regarding the indication of "if" (idha) and "We say" (naqulu) toward the future is what more than one [scholar] mentioned, but Abu Hayyan reported from Ibn 'Atiyyah that he said: "Whatever meaning of future and inception resides in the words of this verse refers to the intended object, not to the intention (Will), nor to the command, for those two are eternal. Because of the intended object, He expressed it with 'if' and 'We say'." You know that there is no debate concerning the eternity of the Will, but they differed on whether it has an originated attachment or not. Some held the former, while others said: "It has only an eternal attachment, but [it relates to] the existence of the possible things in the indefinite future, each at its determined time." Thus, God, Exalted is He, willed in eternity the existence of Zayd, for example, on such-and-such a day, and the existence of 'Amr on such-and-such a day, and so on; there is no need for an originated attachment on that day. As for the command, its psychological aspect is eternal, and the verbal aspect is originated, according to those who hold the origination of verbal speech. As for time, often it is not considered in actions attributed to Him, Exalted is He—consider "God existed and nothing was with Him" and "God created the world," and the like. I do not see this ruling as exclusive to instances where time is interpreted as the philosophers held, but rather it applies universally, even if interpreted as the theologians held. Reflect on this, and God, Exalted is He, is the Guide.

More than one [scholar] held that the verse is for explaining the possibility of the Resurrection. Their argument is that the creation of God, Exalted is He, is by His sheer power and will, having no dependency on preceding materials and means; otherwise, an infinite regress would occur. Just as it was possible for Him to create things initially without preceding material or archetype, it is possible for Him to create them again after it. Its manifest meaning is that it is an assertion of the restoration of the non-existent, while the manifest meanings of many texts indicate that the Resurrection is by gathering the dispersed parts. The verification of this will come, as we promised you just now, if God, Exalted is He, wills.

Ibn 'Amir and al-Kisa'i read fayakuna (فَيَكُونَ) here and in Ya-Sin with the accusative (nasb). Al-Zajjaj interpreted this as a conjunction to naqulu, meaning "then it becomes," or as the response to kun. This was refuted by al-Radi and others on the grounds that the accusative in response to a command is conditional upon the first's cause necessitating the second, which is impossible here because they are identical [in reality], so that is not correct. It was argued that his meaning is that it is in the accusative because it resembles the response to a command by coming after it, even if it is not a response to it in terms of meaning—like your saying, "I said to Zayd, 'Strike,' [so that] you might strike." This was contested by noting its obvious weakness and that it necessitates discarding the aforementioned condition. Then it was said: The apparent [way] to justify it is that when such a [form] is issued by an eloquent speaker with the intent of figurative representation for the speed of effect through the speed of the commanded subject's promptness to obey, the meaning is: "I will not say to you 'Strike' [except that you] hasten to obey." Thus, the source (masdar) from which the result is derived is fashioned from the modality, not the substance, and the source of the second [verb] is from the substance, or [it refers to] the accomplished meaning. By this, the distinction between the two sources is attained, and the causality and result become clear. Some said: The intent of those who say the accusative is for resemblance to the response of a command is that fayakuna, as in the reading of the nominative, is conjoined to what the discourse flows upon, or it is by estimating "it is" as a predicate of a deleted subject, except that it is in the accusative due to this resemblance. And in that is what is in it.