(Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth)
Al-Bayhaqi recorded from Abu al-Duha in a mu‘dal (broken-chain) narration that the polytheists around the Ka‘bah had three hundred and sixty idols. When they heard this verse, they were astonished and said: "If you are truthful, bring us a sign by which we may recognize your truthfulness." Thus, this verse was revealed. Due to the excess of their ignorance, the categorical proof indicated by the two descriptions [the heavens and the earth] did not suffice them.
The [term] "heavens" (al-samawat) is pluralized, while "earth" (al-ard) is kept singular. This is because one benefits from all parts of the former, considering the light of its stars and other features, whereas one does not [benefit the same way] from the latter, as one only benefits from a single part of it—which is the portion we observe. Abu Hayyan stated: "Earth" was not pluralized because its pluralization is heavy and contrary to analogy. There are singular nouns whose plurals do not appear in the Quran due to their heaviness and the lightness of the singular, just as there are plurals whose singulars do not appear, such as al-albab (intellects). The common proverb follows this pattern.
Some researchers said: "Heavens" was pluralized because they are layers, distinct from one another by their individual essences, as indicated by the Almighty’s saying: “...and made them seven heavens.” Whether they are in contact, as is the view of the philosopher, or not—as stated in the traditions that there is a distance of five hundred years between every two heavens—their reality differs, as the variation in the effects indicated by the Almighty’s saying: “...and inspired in each heaven its command,” demonstrates. "Earth" was not pluralized because its layers are not characterized by all of that; for whether they are separated by their essences—as stated in the hadiths that between every two earths there is the same distance as between every two heavens—or are not separated—as is the view of the philosopher—they are, by consensus, not different in reality.
(And the alternation of the night and the day)
Meaning their succession, and the fact that each of them is a replacement for the other; or the "alternation" of each of them within themselves through increase and decrease, or darkness and light. The "night" was mentioned first due to its precedence in creation or its nobility.
(And the ships that sail in the sea with what benefits people)
This is a conjunction to [the] "creation of the heavens," not to [the] "heavens," or a conjunction to "the night and the day." *Al-fulk* (ships) is among the words used as both singular and plural, with a conceptual difference estimated between them. If one considers its *damma* (vowel) to be original, like the *damma* in *qufl*, it is singular; if one considers it accidental, like the *damma* in *usud*, it is plural. From the first is the Almighty’s saying: *“...in the laden ship,”* and from the second is: *“...when you are in the ships and they sail with them.”* It is said: it is the plural of *falak* (with a *fatha* on the *fa* and a *sukoon* on the *lam*). Others say it is a collective noun. Some claimed it was recited *fulk* with two *dammas*, which some consider exclusively singular. Al-Kawashi said: *Fulk* and *fulk* with two *dammas* are two dialects; the singular and plural are the same in wording, and this is known by the plural or singular nature of the pronoun of their verb.
(With what benefits people)
*Ma* (what) is either *masdariyya* (a nominalization), meaning "by their benefit," or *mawsula* (relative), meaning "by that which benefits them." On the first [interpretation], the pronoun of the agent [in "sail"] is either for *al-fulk* because it is masculine in wording but feminine in meaning—as is said—or for the sailing, or for the sea. The possibility of it being an adjective does not suit the context of proof.
(And [in] what Allah has sent down from the sky of water)
This is a conjunction to *al-fulk*. It is said that its delay after the mention of the ships—despite it being more generally beneficial—is due to its increased excellence. Others say the intent of the former [the ships] is to use the "sea" and its states as proof, not the "ships" sailing within it. For the proof via the ships is either through their construction such that they sail on water, or the knowledge of how to make them sail, or the subjection of the wind and sea for that purpose, or their being a means to "what benefits people." None of these are inherent states of the ship itself. Also, using the ships as proof is using a state of the "sea," whereas using the "sea" and all its states is more comprehensive and appropriate to the context. However, *al-fulk* was singled out for mention—even though the requirement of the context would then be to say "the wonders that are in the sea"—because it is the cause for becoming aware of the sea's states and wonders. Thus, its mention is a mention of all its states and a path to the knowledge of its existence and its indication. Therefore, it was placed before the mention of rain and clouds, because in most cases, the sea is their origin. Otherwise, it would have been appropriate, after mentioning the "alternation of the night and the day" (which are celestial signs), to mention rain and clouds (which are phenomena of the atmosphere), without including "the ships" in between, as they are terrestrial signs.
In my view, this is quite contrary to the apparent meaning, even if its proponent is of high status, because the meaning would lead to: "And the sea in which ships sail with what benefits people." This is a subversion of the noble order without necessity or evidence to rely upon. What prevents the proof from being [based on] the alternation of the ships, their movement one way and then another according to what Divine decrees move them, or the ships sailing in the sea in terms of their sailing, being laden, approaching and receding, and clinging to the ropes of the air—despite its subtlety and their density—without sinking to the bottom of the sea despite the crashing of its waves and the turbulence of its depths? The claim that none of this is an inherent state of them is not accepted.
The order, as I see it, is that He, Glory be to Him, first mentioned the creation of two things—a celestial and a terrestrial—and the alternation of two things through the influence of two things—heavenly and earthly. Secondly, the succession of night and day, or their variation by increase and decrease, or darkness and light, is only by the influence of the movement of the celestial spheres (al-fulk) and the positioning of the body of the earth in two specific ways. Then, He followed that with something that resembles the signs of night and day, each swimming in the abyss of its rotating sphere, subjected to sailing therein back and forth "(with what benefits people)" in the matter of their livelihood and the regulation of their affairs. That is the ship which sails on the surface of the "sea" through this, and its sailing varies east and west according to the Divine decrees in those paths. The verse, in this case, is of the same order as the Almighty’s saying: “And a sign for them is the night; We withdraw from it the day, and behold, they are in darkness... And the sun runs... That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing... And the moon—We have determined for it phases... It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming... And a sign for them is that We carried their forefathers in the laden ship.” However, the difference between the two verses is that in the second, the two signs [sun and moon] were explicitly placed between the discourse on the celestial sphere and the state of the night and day, while in the first, what feels like them and points to them precedes them.
Then, He followed that with something in which the celestial world and the terrestrial world participate, and it has a connection to the mention of "the sea"—indeed, even to the mention of "the ships that sail" in it "(with what benefits people)"—which is the sending down of water from the sky and the spreading of what was buried in the earth through revival. In that is complete benefit and general bounty. The first min (from) is for origination, and the second is for explanation. It is permitted that it be partitive, or that it be a substitute for the first. The intent of "the sky" is the direction of height, and the investigation of that has preceded.
(And revived thereby the earth)
By exciting its vegetative powers and bringing forth what was deposited therein of types of plants, flowers, and trees after its death and the lack of their appearance therein due to the dominance of dryness upon it, as its nature requires.
(And dispersed therein from every creature)
This is a conjunction either to *anzala* (sent down), and the unifying factor is that each of them is an independent sign for His oneness, the Exalted, which is the purpose for which the speech is addressed, while sharing the agent. And *ahya* (revived) would be a completion of the first; the proof being the sending down [of water] which is the cause of the revival, so the separation by it does not prevent the conjunction. Or [it is] a conjunction to *ahya*, so it falls under the *fa* of causality. The causality of sending down the "water" for the dispersal is because water is the cause of the life of livestock and creatures, and the dispersal is a branch of life. It does not require estimating a pronoun for connection because the *fa* of causality is sufficient for it, as is well known. It is said: it requires estimating "with it" (meaning by the water) to signal its connection to "sending down" independently, like "revived," and the *fa* of causality is not sufficient for that, as it is possible that the cause is the combination of them both. The argument that the genitive is only deleted if the relative is joined to its like is a majority view, not an absolute one. *Min* is explanatory on the first estimation, according to the correct view. The intent of "every creature" is every type of creature. The meaning of its dispersal is their multiplication through reproduction and generation. Thus, the proof is the multiplication of every type that creeps upon the earth and its not being limited to some. It is said: it is partitive, because Allah, the Exalted, did not disperse except some individuals in relation to what is in His power, although Al-Zamakhshari established creatures in the sky also, in Surah *Ha-Mim ‘Ayn Sin Qaf*. The response to this is that the dispersal of every type that creeps upon the earth does not negate that some of its individuals are destined, nor its existence in the sky. Furthermore, the meaning of the partitive is that something is a part of its entry-term, not an individual of it, and [if it were] extra on the second estimation, it would be because the explained word does not precede it and partitivity is not correct. It is an addition in the statement which none permitted except Al-Akhfash.
(And the directing of the winds)
Meaning Allah, the Exalted, turning them south, north, east, and west; hot and cold; stormy and gentle; barren and fertilizing; sometimes for mercy and sometimes for punishment. Hamzah and Al-Kisa’i recited *al-rih* (the wind) in the singular, and it refers to the genus. From Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both: *al-riyah* (the winds) are for mercy, and *al-rih* (the wind) is for punishment. It is narrated that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when the wind blew, would say: "O Allah, make it *riyahan* (winds [of mercy]) and do not make it *rihan* (wind [of punishment])." Perhaps he intended by the first and second the Almighty’s saying: *“And of His signs is that He sends the winds as bringers of good tidings,”* and the Almighty’s saying: *“And in ‘Ad [was a sign] when We sent against them the barren wind.”*
After reviving the earth with rain and the dispersal of every creature therein, He followed it with the directing of the winds, because in that is the cultivation of plants and the preservation of the life of the animals that creep upon the face of the earth. If Allah, the Exalted, were to withhold the wind for an hour, what is between the sky and the earth would become putrid, as some traditions state.
(And the clouds)
A conjunction to what precedes it. It is a collective noun; its singular is *sahaba*. It is named so because of its trailing (*insihab*) in the atmosphere or the wind’s dragging it.
(Subjected between the sky and the earth)
[This is] an adjective for the clouds, considering its wording; one may also consider its meaning, and it is described with the plural, like *“heavy clouds.”* *Baina* (between) is a prepositional phrase, related to *musakhkhar* (subjected). The meaning of its subjection is that it neither descends nor vanishes, even though nature requires its ascent if it is subtle and its descent if it is dense. It is said: the prepositional phrase is a stable one, acting as a state from the pronoun of "subjected," and its referent is omitted, meaning: "subjected by the winds, as it turns it in the atmosphere by the will of Allah, the Exalted." The directing of the winds was followed by the clouds because it is like the effect of the winds, as the Almighty’s saying points to: *“And it is He who sends the winds, and they stir up clouds.”* Also, because making it the seal of the conjoined items takes into account, in general, what it began with—as it is earthly-celestial—so the beginning and end of the speech are organized. By what we have mentioned, the reason for the order in the verse is known. Some scholars said: "Perhaps the delay of the directing of the winds and the subjection of the clouds in the mention, after the sailing of the ships and the sending down of water, despite the inversion of the external order, is to signal the independence of each of the items counted in being a sign." If the external order were observed, it might be imagined that the whole, ordered one upon another, is a single sign. It is not hidden that this is dispelled by the manifest nature of the Almighty’s saying: *“...are signs.”* The noun [in] *inna* is entered by the *lam* because it is delayed after its predicate, and the indefiniteness is for magnification, both in quality and quantity—meaning: great, many signs, pointing to the Overpowering Power, the Dazzling Wisdom, and the Vast Mercy, requiring the exclusivity of divinity to Him, the Exalted.
(For a people who use reason)
Meaning: who reflect. So, reason is a metaphor for the reflection which is its fruit. Ibn Abi al-Dunya and Ibn Marduyah recorded from ‘Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, that when the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, read this verse, he said: "Woe to him who reads it and does not reflect upon it." In it is an allusion to the polytheists who suggested to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, a sign to confirm his truthfulness, and a recording against them of the foolishness of their minds. Otherwise, whoever ponders these signs finds each of them containing many facets of indication of His existence, the Exalted, His oneness, and all His attributes of perfection that necessitate the exclusivity of worship to Him, the Exalted. [Whoever does this] finds no need for the others.
The summary of the discourse on this is that each one of these counted matters has come to exist in a specific way out of the possible ways, not others, following specific effects and distinct rulings, without its essence requiring its existence, let alone its existence in such a specific pattern. Therefore, it must have an originator, because the existence of a possible being without an originator is impossible; [an originator who is] capable—if He wills, He acts, and if He does not will, He does not act—wise, knowing the realities of things and the evils and interests they contain, creating it according to what His knowledge of the interest it contains requires and what His will necessitates; transcendent above having an equal. For if there were with Him a necessary [being] capable of what the True One, the Exalted, is capable of: if the will of each of them agreed to create it in a specific way that the other willed, then if the action were from both, it would necessitate the meeting of two agents on one effect, which entails the meeting of two complete causes. And if the action were for one of them, it would necessitate preferring one agent without a preferrer, as they are equal in the will to create it independently, and the incapacity of the other, as the agent blocked him from executing what he willed. And if the wills differed, such that one willed its existence in one manner and the other willed its existence in another, it would necessitate mutual hindrance and repulsion, as there is no preferrer, thus necessitating their incapacity. Incapacity is obviously contrary to divinity.
The verse establishes the proof by rational arguments and provides a notification of the nobility of the science of Kalam (theology) and the virtue of its people, and perhaps it points to the nobility of the science of astronomy.
