Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:49

After having mentioned what He mentioned, He followed it with that which provides confirmation with an increase—the prostration of that which has no shadow—by saying, Glory be to Him: "And to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth."

Or, after He clarified the prostration of shadows and their fading from the lower spheres of the second-order physical bodies in their spatial domains and their subservience to Him, He began the subject of the prostration of creatures that move by volition, whether they have shadows or not, and said what He said—and He is the most powerful of speakers.

The meaning of "prostration," according to more than one scholar, is submission; whether it is submission to His will and His influence by nature, or submission to His command and law by choice. This is so that the attribution of the act may be applied to all inhabitants of the heavens and the earth without needing to combine the literal and the metaphorical. However, the verse is a verse of prostration (sajdah), so it must necessarily imply the conventional act of prostration, at least implicitly. The majestic name [Allah] is connected to "prostrates," and its precedence is to signify restriction (hasr). This encompasses both the prostration of the heart and the prostration of the individual limbs, though what is more appropriate to the state of the addressed is the restriction of the individual limbs, as is indicated by His saying: "And Allah said, 'Do not take for yourselves two deities.'" That is: to Him alone submits and bows everything in the heavens and on the earth.

"From among the dabbah (living creatures)" is an explanation of what is in them, based on the principle that "dabb" refers to physical movement, whether it be on earth or in the sky. The angels are subtle bodies, not abstract entities. The restriction of "dabb" to those on the face of the earth is either because of its obviousness or because it is the root of the word's meaning, although it is general here by virtue of what it explains.

His saying, "and the angels," is a conjunction to the place of the word dabbah which is explained by it; it is in the nominative case as the predicate of an omitted subject, because the min of explanation cannot be a preposition in a grammatical sense. This is an instance of mentioning the specific after the general, to signify the lofty status of the angels (peace be upon them). It is permitted that it be a conjunction of distinct categories, based on the assumption that what is meant by "what is in the heavens" are physical bodies, while maintaining the stance that angels are abstract entities; thus, they are not included in "what is in the heavens" because abstract entities occupy no space or direction.

Some have used this verse as proof for the abstract nature of angels, based on the fact that "what is in the heavens and what is on the earth" has one part explained by the dabbah and the other by the angels; the root of contrast is difference, and the dabbah is one that moves with physical movement, so its counterpart cannot be of [the same] bodies, because a body must involve physical movement. It is not hidden that this is a persuasive argument, for it is possible that it is a specific mention after a general one, as you just heard, or it is an explanation of what is on the earth—where dabbah is a name for that which creeps on the earth, and "the angels" is a conjunction to "what is in the heavens," serving as a repetition and specification for the sake of honor and exaltation.

More than one has mentioned that it is a conjunction of the specific after the general for that same reason. It is also permitted that what is meant by "what is in the heavens" are the creatures called the "Spirit," and it is maintained that they are the angels (peace be upon them), so it would be a conjunction of distinct categories. Or, both are explanations of what is on the earth, with the angels being those who are within it, such as the watchers and the noble scribes.

The dabbah is not intended to include them; and as for "what" (ma), if we say it is reserved for non-rational beings—as the bread of Ibn al-Zaba'ri testifies—then its use here for both rational and non-rational beings is for the sake of dominance (taghlib). But if we say its placement is such that it is used for non-rational beings and for that which encompasses both rational and non-rational—like a visible specter of which it is not known whether it is rational or not, to which ma is applied in reality—then the matter is as was said: not in need of dominance. In Anwar al-Tanzil, it states that since ma is used for the rational just as it is used for the non-rational, its usage when both groups are gathered is more appropriate than using man (who/whom) by way of dominance. In al-Kashshaf, it is stated that if man had been brought, there would be no proof of dominance, and it would have applied only to the rational; so ma was brought, which is appropriate for both, to intend universality. This is an answer to the reason for choosing ma over man. Its essence, according to al-Kashf, is that man is for the rational, and dominance is metaphorical; so if man were used without a context determining the literal, and the situation required universality, then ma was brought because it encompasses both. He meant that there is no evidence in the wording itself, and the context of universality in the previous [discourse] is not enough to allow for the exclusion of them after generalization, especially since the requirement of the context for universality and the particularity involved in dominance are sufficient to justify the shift.

It has been said—based on the premise that ma is specific to non-rational beings and man is specific to rational beings—that bringing ma and committing to dominance is more consistent with the exaltation of Allah than bringing man and committing to that [which is less appropriate].

"And they"—that is, the angels, despite their lofty status—"do not grow arrogant"—"regarding His worship"—the Exalted is His state—"and prostration to Him." The precedence of the pronoun is not for restriction, and the sin (in yastakbirun) is not for seeking. It has been said: it is for it, in the sense that they do not seek arrogance, let alone practice it and be characterized by it. If we say the imperfect verb form denotes renewed continuity, then the meaning is the continuity of the negation. The sentence is either a state from the subject of "prostrates," attributed to the angels, or an initiation to inform about them regarding that. The pronoun was not made to refer to "what" (ma) because it is specific to those who possess knowledge, and the context is not a context of dominance, though some have differed in this and made it refer to it.