Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:117

(The Originator [Badi'] of the heavens and the earth), meaning their Creator. It is a fa'il form derived from af'ala. Al-Asma'i used to deny the fa'il form functioning in the meaning of muf'il (the active agent). Ibn Barri stated: It has come frequently, such as musakhan and sakhin, maq'ad and qa'id, musi and wasi, muhkam and hakim, mubram and barim, and muwiq and aniq, among its peers. From this is also al-sami' (the All-Hearing) in the previously cited verse of 'Amr ibn Ma'di Karib. The proof is based on the apparent and immediate understanding, which is what is most fitting for the investigations of the Arabic language. Therefore, what was said regarding that verse is not a valid refutation, as it is contrary to this, which is not hidden from one who is fair-minded.

It is said: It is from the genitive construction of the intensive adjective (sifah mushabbahah) to its agent for the sake of lightness, meaning badi'u samawatihi (the Originator of His heavens). You know that it has been established that when an adjective is attributed to its agent, it contains a pronoun referring to the described object. Thus, the attribution is only valid if it is correct to describe the object by that attribute, such as hasan al-wajh (beautiful of face), where it is correct to describe the man as beautiful due to the beauty of his face, unlike hasan al-jariya (the beautiful girl [meaning her face is beautiful]). The construction Zayd is many of brothers is only valid because he is described as being supported by them. In our present case, even if his description by the aforementioned attribute is impossible, it is valid to describe him by what it indicates, which is that He is the Originator of them. This necessitates that it is more appropriate to keep the Mubdi' (Originator) upon its apparent meaning, which is what the pillars of the linguists hold.

Al-Ibda' (Origination) is the invention of a thing not from matter and not in time. This is used regarding His—Exalted is He—bringing the primordial things into existence, as Al-Raghib stated. It is different from al-san'a (manufacture), as that is the assembling of a form with an element. It is used in the creation of physical bodies and is different from al-takwin (formation), for that is what occurs through change and usually in time. When "heavens and earth" is intended to mean all things other than He—Exalted is He—from among the originated, manufactured, and formed things, due to their containment of the worlds of mulk (visible) and malakut (invisible), then after considering the dominance (taghlib), the application of each of the three is valid. However, the word ibda' is more appropriate because it indicates the perfection of His—Exalted is He—power. The claim that ibda' must be interpreted as takwin from matter or parts because the creation of the heavens was from something—as indicated by His—Exalted is He—saying: "Then He turned to the heaven while it was smoke"—arises from heedlessness of what we have mentioned. The verse is another proof for refuting that heinous doctrine.

Its confirmation is that He—Exalted is He—is the Originator of everything other than Him, the Creator absolutely, and nothing of a "progenitor" is like that, necessarily because of its susceptibility to being affected by the separation of the matter of the offspring from it; thus, Allah—Exalted is He—is not a progenitor. Al-Mansur read Badi'a with an accusative case (nasb) as a commendation. It was also read with a genitive case (jarr) as a substitute for the pronoun in lahu (to Him), according to the opinion of those who permit that.

"And when He decrees [qada] a matter", meaning: when He wills a thing, by the indication of His—Exalted is He—saying: "His command is only when He wills a thing." Al-Qada' has come in various facets that all return to the completion of a thing, whether by word or deed. Its application to "will" is a metaphor from the usage of the word for the "effect" (the result) to mean the "cause," since bringing into existence—which is the completion of a thing—is the effect of the attachment of the will, because it necessitates it. Ibn al-Sayyid equated it with al-qadar (predestination). The well-known view is to distinguish between them by making al-qadar the estimation of matters before they occur, and al-qada' the execution of that qadar and its emergence from non-existence to the state of action. The majority affirmed this, as it came in the Hadith that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—passed by a cave inclined to collapse, so he walked quickly until he passed it. It was said to him, "Do you flee from the qada' of Allah—Exalted is He?" He said: "I flee from the qada' of Allah—Exalted is He to His qadar." Thus, the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—distinguished between qada' and qadar.

"He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is": The apparent meaning is that both verbs are from the "complete" kana (meaning: exists), due to the absence of a predicate, even though it is the original, meaning: "He brings into existence, and it exists." It indicates the meaning of the "incomplete" kana because absolute existence is more general than its existence in itself or in another. The command is interpreted according to its reality, as the verifiers among our Hanafite masters have held. Allah—Exalted is He—has decreed His custom in the formation of things that it is by this word, even though their formation by other than it is not impossible. The intended meaning is the Pre-eternal Speech, because it is impossible for the articulated word to subsist in the Essence of Allah—Exalted is He, and because it would be originated, requiring another address, leading to an infinite regress. Its posteriority to the will and its anteriority to the existence of the being are with respect to [the nature of] the attachment. Since the address of formation does not contain understanding but contains the greatest benefits, it is permissible for it to attach to the non-existent.

The Mu'tazilah and many of the Sunnis held that the intended meaning is not the reality of the command and compliance; rather, it is a representation for the attainment of that to which the will is attached without delay, like the obedience of an obedient commanded one without hesitation. It is a representational metaphor where the state of the attainment of the intended object after the attachment of the will—without delay or refusal—is likened to the obedience of an obedient commanded one immediately after the command of the commander—without delay or refusal—portraying the state of the Unseen in the image of the Witness. Then the language set for the subject of the comparison was used for the object of the comparison without considering the metaphor in its individual words. The original statement was: "When He decrees a matter, it happens immediately," so it is as if "He says to it, 'Be,' and it is." Then the subject of comparison was deleted and the object of comparison was used in its place. Some make it a categorical constitutive metaphor based on comparing a state to a saying.

Perhaps what invited these [scholars] to turn away from the apparent meaning is their assumption of its impossibility due to reasons mentioned by some of their leaders:

1. That His—Exalted is He—saying "Be" (kun) must be either eternal or originated. It cannot be eternal due to the lateness of the Nun and the precedence of the Kaf, and the preceded is necessarily originated. Likewise, [it cannot be] that which is preceded by an estimated time. Also, since "when" (idha) is for the future, the qada' is originated, and "Be" is ordered after it with the Fa' of immediate succession, and that which is posterior to the originated is originated. It cannot be originated, otherwise it would lead to circularity or infinite regress.
2. Either He addresses the creature with "Be" before it enters into existence—and addressing the non-existent is foolishness—or after it enters, and there is no benefit in it.
3. The creature may be an inanimate object, and commanding it does not befit Wisdom.
4. If we assume the Capable and Willing [One] to be detached from His word "Be," if He is capable of bringing into existence, there is no need for it. If He is not capable, then the Capable one is not capable of the act except when He speaks "Be," which necessitates His incapacity with regard to His Essence.
5. We know by necessity that this word has no effect if we speak it, so it is the same if another speaks it.
6. The effect is either the combination of Kaf and Nun, and they do not exist combined, or one of them, which is contrary to the premise.

When you contemplate what we have mentioned, it becomes clear to you that all these reasons are warded off. How astonishing it is for someone who holds to "Inner Speech" (al-kalam al-nafsi) and makes this [verse] indicate it, how these clamors frighten him, or how these bubbles deceive him! Yes, if someone were to hold to this opinion—because of the increase in the establishment of the greatness of Allah—Exalted is He—which is not in the first, not because the first is false in itself—it would be worthy of acceptance. Perhaps I hold to it.

The verse is driven to explain the manner of ibda' and is conjoined to His—Exalted is He—saying "The Originator of the heavens and the earth," containing the confirmation of the meaning of ibda'. It contains a hint toward another proof for refuting that delirium: that the "taking" of a child from a parent only occurs after intending it through stages and delay, because that is not possible except after the separation of its matter and its becoming an animal. His—Exalted is He—action after His will or the attachment of His word is free from the need for delay; thus, taking a child is not His—Exalted is He—action. It seems the cause of this misguidance is that the application of "Father" to Allah—Exalted is He—was reported in the previous laws considering that He is the First Cause. This application became frequent in the Gospel of John, then the ignorant thought that the intended meaning was the meaning of procreation, so they believed that through blind following and became disbelievers. The scholars of today have not permitted the application of that to Him—Exalted is He—metaphorically, definitely because of the corruption it entails.

Ibn 'Amir read fayakun (and it is) in the accusative case (nasb). It was problematic for the grammarians to the point that Ahmad ibn Musa became bold and ruled it to be an error, which is poor etiquette; nay, it is among the ugliest of errors. Its direction is that it is then the response to the imperative, based on the form of the word even if its meaning is a report. For its meaning is not to suspend the denotation of what follows the Fa' on the denotation of the form of the imperative—which the causality of what is before the Fa' for what is after it necessitates—as is necessary for the response to the imperative with the Fa', because there is no meaning to our saying, "Let there be from You a being, so it is." It is said: The reason for attributing it to the form is that the command is not real, so its response is not in the accusative case. One of the conditions for that is that a condition and a conclusion are formed from them, such as "Come to me and I will honor you," for its estimation is "If you come to me, I will honor you." Here, it is not valid that "Be" should be "It is," otherwise the thing would be the cause of itself. It was answered that the intention is: "If it is in the knowledge of Allah—Exalted is He—and His will, it will be in the outside," so it is on the level of "Whoever's emigration is to Allah and His Messenger, his emigration is to Allah and His Messenger." Also, [it is answered] that the claim that a non-real command does not take its response in the accusative is forbidden; if it is with a wording, it is apparent, but it is a metaphor for the speed of formation. If it is not considered, then it is a metaphor for the speed of its will, so it leads to the intention of the speed of the existence of a thing that exists in the moment, so there is no harm in the apparent difference. The implication of this is not hidden.

The direction of the nominative case (raf') is as an initiation, meaning: "So it is." This is the view of Sibawayh. Al-Zajjaj went to the view that it is conjoined to yaqulu (He says). On both estimations, yakunu is not included in the "quoted speech" and is not a completion of it. To address the shift from the address [in the imperative], it is of the category of iltifat (grammatical turn), to belittle the affair of the command in the ease of its formation. Several have addressed it upon the estimation of inclusion.