Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:22

(He who made for you the earth a bed and the sky a canopy)

The conjunctive noun (alladhī) is either in the accusative case as an adjective for "your Lord" (rabbakum), or as a substitute (badal) for it, or it is syntactically detached (maqṭūʿ) with the implied meaning of "I specify" or "I praise." To consider it the object of "you may fear" (tattaqūn), as Abū al-Baqā’ stated, is a weak parsing that the Quran should be exempt from. As for the claim that it is an adjective for the first, the objection is that—according to the majority—a noun is only modified in cases like "O you, the rider, the long-haired," and even that is not universally agreed upon.

Alternatively, it is in the nominative case as the predicate of an omitted subject, or it is a subject whose predicate is the sentence "(so do not set up)." The particle fā’ may introduce the predicate of a conjunctive noun associated with the past tense, as in the Almighty’s saying: "Those who persecuted the believers..." up to His saying: "For them is the punishment of Hell." According to al-Akhfash, the explicit noun stands in place of the pronoun link (rābiṭ), and a performative expression may function as a predicate through the well-known interpretation.

Despite all this, the best course is to abandon what these constructions necessitate. More refreshing than this is the view of those who claim it is a subject whose predicate is "a provision for you" (rizqan lakum), with the implied meaning of "He provides," where "made" (jaʿala) signifies "to render" (ṣayyara), and the two accusatives following it are its two objects.

It is said: "made" signifies "brought into existence," with the second accusative acting as a state (ḥāl), meaning: "He brought the earth into existence, in a state of being spread out for you," so you need not strive to make it so. The meaning of rendering it a "bed" (firāshan)—like a bed in its suitability for sitting and sleeping upon—is that He, the Exalted, made part of it elevated above the water, despite the fact that the requirement of its nature would be for the water to be above it due to its heaviness. He made it intermediate between hardness and softness to facilitate stability upon it without excessive difficulty. This "rendering" is considered from the perspective that, since it was receptive to other states, it is as if it were transformed from them.

If what is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās—may God be pleased with them both—that the earth was created before the creation of the sky without being "spread out" (daḥw), and then it was spread out after its creation, is true, then the meaning of "rendering" is clear. However, not everyone is aware of this, and an attribute must be known to the addressee. To resort to the story of the flood and consider the "rendering" relative to it is one of the turbulences of the waves of ignorance. The earth's sphericity does not contradict it being a "bed," for when a sphere is vast, every piece of it is like a surface in its spread, as is not hidden.

He, the Exalted, expressed this here with "made" (jaʿala) and previously with "created" (khalaqa) due to a difference in context or as a variation in expression, as in His saying: "He created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness and the light." The advancement of the indirect object is to hasten the joy of announcing the benefits that follow for the addressees, or to arouse anticipation for what is to come—especially after having signaled its utility, so that it becomes firmly established when it arrives. Or, it is because the delayed object and what is conjoined to it contain a certain length; if it had been brought forward, the balance of the parts would have been lost.

He, the Exalted, chose the term "the sky" (as-samā’) over "the heavens" (as-samāwāt) to match the term "the earth." There is no great benefit in specifying their multiplicity here. Nevertheless, it is possible that it refers to the entirety of the heavens, or every layer and direction thereof.

"Canopy" (binā’) is originally an infinitive used to refer to a built structure, whether it be a house, a dome, a tent, or a shelter. From this comes "He built his wife [a house]"—or built upon his wife—contrary to al-Ḥarīrī, because when they married, they would pitch a new tent to enter upon the bride. The meaning of the sky being a "canopy" is that it is like a dome pitched or a ceiling for the earth. The roof of a house is called a binā’. This is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās.

He, the Exalted, brought the state of the earth forward because their need for it and their benefit from it is greater and more manifest. Or, because when He mentioned their creation, it was appropriate to follow it with the mention of the first thing they need after it, which is their place of settlement. Or, to achieve an ascent from the lower to the higher. Or, because the creation of the earth preceded the creation of the sky, as the literal meanings of many verses indicate. Or, because the earth—being the dwelling place of the prophets and that from which they were created—is superior to the sky (though there is a famous disagreement on this).

"And sent down from the sky water, and brought forth thereby, as a provision for you, fruits" is conjoined to "made." The first "from" (min) is for the beginning of the action, related to "sent down" or to an omitted item functioning as a state for the object. It was brought forward for the sake of anticipation in the first instance, along with the increased harmony it creates with what follows, or because the sky is its origin and beginning. It allows for the state in the second instance; for if the object—which is indefinite—had been brought forward, the prepositional phrase would have become an adjective. In al-Baḥr, it is mentioned that the "from" here is for partition, i.e., "some of the waters of the sky," which is as you can see.

The intended meaning of "from the sky" is the direction of height or the clouds. Intending the specific celestial sphere, based on literal meanings, is not far-fetched, considering the power of the King, the Omnipotent, Majestic is His Majesty, whose actions transcend the grasp of intellect. However, it is common knowledge that when the sun is directly above certain seas and deserts, it stirs from the seas moist vapor and from the deserts dry vapor. When the vapor rises to the third layer of the air, it condenses. If the cold is not strong, it gathers and drips due to its heaviness from the condensation; the gathered portion is clouds, and the dripping portion is rain. If it is strong, it becomes snow and hail. Sometimes it does not solidify, and this is called mist. "And in everything He has a sign" indicating that He is One.

According to this, "sending down from the sky" means its origination from celestial causes and ethereal influences; thus, it is a metaphorical origin for it. Moreover, one who has cleared the clouds of ignorance from the eye of his insight sees that everything in this lower world descends from the Throne of Will and the Sky of Power, as wisdom requires—by way of a cause or without one, as His saying indicates: "And there is not a thing but that with Us are its depositories, and We do not send it down except according to a known measure." Indeed, one who knows that Allah, the Exalted, is in the sky—in the sense He intended and with the attribute befitting Him, while maintaining the transcendence befitting the majesty of His Essence—it is correct for him to say: "Everything in the worlds is from that sky, and the attribution of its descent to others is sometimes due to apparent considerations, while in the end, they return to Him."

Water is known. Some define it as a fluid substance by which the life of animals is sustained. Its weight is faʿl, and its final letter is a substitute for wāw, and its hamzah is a substitute for hā’, as shown by the diminutives muwayh (little water), miyāh (waters), and amwāh. Its nunation is for partition. He, the Exalted, specified it with descent from the sky in many verses to signal its status due to its great benefit and increased blessing.

The second "from" (min) is either for partition—as there are many fruits that have not yet come forth, so "provision" (rizqan) in that case is in the sense of an infinitive, an object for "brought forth," and "for you" (lakum) is a loose prepositional phrase acting as an object for "provision," meaning: He brought forth something (of the fruits), i.e., some of them, because it is your provision. It is permitted that "some of the fruits" be the object of "brought forth," and "provision" in the sense of "provided" (marzūqan) as a state of the object, or accusative as an infinitive for "brought forth."

Or, the "from" is for explication (tabyīn), so "provision" means "provided" as an object for "brought forth," and "for you" is its adjective. It was the case that "from the fruits" was also its adjective, but when it was brought forward, it became a state according to the rule in such instances. There is a disagreement regarding the advancement of the explication over the explained; Zamakhsharī and many others permitted it, while the author of ad-Durr al-Maṣūn and others forbade it. The possibility of considering it as an initial min with the implication of "mentioning the fruits," or interpreting "fruits" as seeds, is a far-fetched interpretation that yields no fruit.

The definite article in "the fruits" is either for the genus or for totality. Making it possessive and the "from" redundant is of no account, because the addition of "from" in an affirmative sentence before a definite noun is something only al-Akhfash advocated. It would also necessitate that all fruits that were brought forth are a provision for us, yet how many trees have fruited what cannot possibly be a provision? He used the plural of paucity despite the position being one of plurality; therefore, it would have been appropriate to use the plural of abundance to imply that what appears in the gardens of existence through the overflow of the waters of generosity is like a little—nay, less than a little—in comparison to the fruits of Paradise and what is stored in the realms of the Unseen. Or, it is to signal that their species, from the perspective that some are eaten entirely and some only their exterior or only their interior, points to the fact that these few did not reach the limit of abundance.

What the Imam al-Bayḍāwī and others mentioned—that this plural was permissible here because he intended the collection of the noun "fruit" which is meant to convey abundance—is like saying "I have harvested the fruit of your orchard"; the tā’ is not for real unity but for conceptual unity. This is supported by the reading of Ibn as-Sumayqaʿ: "from the fruit" (thamarah). Or, because plurals take the place of one another, like His saying: "How many they left behind of gardens," and "three periods." Or, because when it was decorated with the definite article, it left the limit of paucity.

The bā’ in "thereby" (bihi) is for causality. It is well-known among the Ash'arites that it is a customary causality in such places, so for them, the water has absolutely no influence in the bringing forth—nor in anything else. The Influencer is only Allah, the Exalted, at the occurrence of causes, not by them. They argue this due to the tradition of perfection through another. They said: whoever believes that Allah, the Exalted, deposited the power of quenching in water, for example, is a corrupt-doer (fāsiq), and there are two opinions regarding his disbelief. The majority leaned toward his disbelief, like the one who said that it is an influencer by itself. Therefore, according to them, the accountable person must believe that quenching comes from the side of the Overflowing Source without an intermediary, and that the act of drinking water coincided with it without the water having any role in that in any way, save for superficial correspondence.

I, the poor servant, do not say that. Rather, I say: Allah, the Exalted, has linked causes to their effects, religiously and existentially, and has made causes the location of His wisdom in His religious-legal command and His cosmic-existential command, and the location of His dominion and disposal. To deny causes and powers is to reject necessities, to insult the intellect and natural dispositions, to struggle against the senses, and to reject the Law and its retribution. Allah, the Exalted, has made their state the welfare of the servants in their worldly life and their afterlife; and reward, punishment, legal limits, expiations, commands, and prohibitions, and the lawful and the forbidden, are all linked to causes and established by them. Indeed, the servant himself and his attributes and actions are a cause for what proceeds from him. The Quran is full of the affirmation of causes. If we were to trace what indicates this from the Quran and Sunnah, it would exceed ten thousand instances, truly, not as an exaggeration.

To Allah belongs the wonder! If Allah is the Creator of the cause and the effect, and He is the One who made this a cause for that, and the causes and effects are subject to His will and power—subservient to Him—then what insult does this pose to the Oneness (tawḥīd)? And what polytheism results from it? We ask Allah's forgiveness for what they say. Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, acts by the causes that wisdom has necessitated, despite His being independent of them, just as it is confirmed that He acts at them, not by them. The tradition of perfection is refuted by the fact that perfection would only be necessary if the action truly depended on that cause; the consequent is false due to His saying: "His command is only when He intends a thing, that He says to it, 'Be,' and it is."

Thus, causes are influential by powers that Allah, the Exalted, deposited within them, but by His permission. If He does not permit, and He intervenes between them and the influence, they do not influence, as His saying guides you: "And they do not harm anyone with it except by permission of Allah." If there were no powers in these causes that the All-Mighty, the All-Wise deposited, He would not have said: "O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham." For what benefit is there in the saying if there is no power of burning in it? If burning were from Him, the Exalted, without an intermediary, and if the matter were as they mentioned, the fire could say: "My Lord, You deposited nothing in me, nor did You grant me power; I am but like a paralyzed hand accompanied by a healthy hand that performs deeds and charges and roams the field of actions." Would one say to the paralyzed hand, "Do not act," and to that field, "Do not descend," and not say that to the active hand, even though it is the one worthy of that statement? I do not think the Ash'arites can provide an answer to this, nor do I see them showing any address regarding it.

This which we have mentioned is what the righteous predecessors held, and the people of Allah accepted. Do not let the fact that this is attributed to the Mu'tazilites make you doubt it, for they also say, "There is no god but Allah." Do you doubt that because they said it? God forbid from such bigotry. Wisdom is the lost property of the believer, and the Truth is more deserving of being followed. Allah, the Exalted, speaks the Truth, and He guides to the way.

"So do not set up rivals to Allah" is a prohibition conjoined to "worship," consequential to it, as if it were said: "Since it is mandatory upon you to worship your Lord, do not set up a rival to Allah, and single Him out in worship, for you have no Lord other than Him."

Placing the Majestic Name in place of the pronoun is to designate the Worshipped by Essence after designating Him by attributes, and to provide the reason for the ruling through the attribute of divinity, upon which the matter of Oneness and the impossibility of partnership revolves, and to signal that it covers all other attributes.

It is said: "The term 'Lord' (Rabb) is used for the universal concept, and 'Allah' is the proper name for the specific, true, Necessary Existence—Majestic is His state—so this is not a case of using an explicit noun where a pronoun should be." In this case, the difference becomes clear between this noble verse, where worship is linked to the attribute of Lordship (thus the fā’ is appropriate), and His saying: "Worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him," where worship and the absence of association are linked to His Essence (thus the wāw is appropriate). Therefore, the objection that the wāw is appropriate here, as in the second verse, is invalid.

Or, "do not set up" is in the jussive by the elision of an as a response to the command, as our master al-Bayḍāwī said. It was objected that this is denied by the fact that such is only when the first is a cause for the second, and there is no doubt that worship is not a cause for the Oneness which is its origin and source. It was answered that the foundation of His worship is Oneness and the absence of associating with Him, whereas the worship of the Lord is not originated by the absence of associating with His Essence, but is rather among its branches.

The truth is that the verse includes the worship of a Lord described by that which makes Him like an observer of His creation for their sake, and the creation of the great beings, and the grace of overflowing with tremendous blessings. Thus, it pointed to Him with a proof that made Him known. Its summary is: "Worship Allah, the Exalted, whom you have known with a knowledge in which there is no doubt and no hesitation." Worship and knowledge are the cause for the absence of association, for whoever knows Allah does not equate another with Him. So, what seduced the objector was looking at the worship and cutting off the view of the knowledge.

It is possible that it is related to "so that" (laʿalla), so the verb is in the accusative... [truncated grammatical discussion]... the meaning is: He created you so that you may fear and dread His punishment, "so do not set up" Him as a likeness to His creation. Understand. It is also possible that the fā’ is redundant, signaling causality, and the sentence of the prohibition is interpreted as the predicate of "He who" regarding its being a subject. It is said the sentence is related to "He who," and the fā’ is the consequence of an implied condition; the meaning is: He is the One who "made for you" what was mentioned of the numerous blessings, and if that is the case, then "do not set up," etc.

"Making" here means rendering. Just as it happens through action, like "I made iron a sword," of which what passed is an example, it also happens through word and contract. "Rivals" (andād) are the plural of nidd, like ʿadl and aʿdāl, or nadīd like yatīm and aytām. A rival is the equivalent of a thing that opposes it, differs from it in its affairs, keeps away from it, and avoids it. It is not among the contraries (aḍdād), according to the most correct view, and it originates from nadda, nadūdan, meaning to flee or alienate. It is said: the rival is the participant in essence only, while the shape (shakl) is the participant in measure and area, the likeness (shabah) is the participant in quality only, the equal (musāwī) in quantity only, and the like (mithl) is general in all of that.

In naming what the polytheists worship instead of Allah "rivals," despite their not claiming they are equivalent to Him in His Essence and attributes, nor that they oppose Him in His actions, but rather worshipped them to draw them near to Him, the Exalted, is a signal to a mocking metaphor, where the word for "equal" (which implies opposition) is borrowed for the "intercessor/bringer closer," just as "giving glad tidings" is borrowed for "warning," and "lion" for the coward.

If by "rival" is meant "equivalent" in an absolute sense, there is no opposition there; it is rather from the metaphor of using one of two similar things for the other, for the polytheists made the idols—according to their actions and states—similar to Him, the Exalted, in worship. This is a heinous plan and a foolish attribute; in mentioning it, there is what necessitates making them look foolish and mocking them. Perhaps the first is better. In using the plural, there is a vilification of them, for they made "rivals" for One who it is impossible to have even a single rival.

"And you know" is a state from the pronoun "do not set up," and the object is dropped; meaning: while you are of the people of knowledge, recognition, scrutiny, and sound opinion. When you reflect with the slightest reflection, you know the existence of a Maker who must be worshipped in His Essence and attributes; it is not fitting that anyone other than Him be worshipped. Or, it is an estimative verb as the context requires, filling the place of the two objects of "know," meaning: "You know" that nothing resembles Him, or that they do not resemble Him and cannot perform the like of what He performs.

The state in the first view is for reproach or restriction, because knowledge is the basis of accountability, and there is no accountability when there is no capacity. In the second view, it is for reproach only, because the restriction of the ruling is the linkage of knowledge to the object, and the basis of accountability is knowledge alone. Reproach is considering some individuals among the addressees of the prohibition, based on the generality of the address as mentioned regarding the command; this does not necessitate restricting the address to the disbelievers. Although, there is no harm in restricting it to them in both command and prohibition; indeed, it is said it is better to escape the artificiality and to have good harmony, as there is no escape in the apparent meaning of the challenge verse from stripping the address and restricting it to the disbelievers, along with what it contains of honoring the place of the believers and raising their status above being in the rank of the wretched disbelievers, and signaling that they are continuous in obedience and worship, and need not be commanded or forbidden. Reflect.

These verses have included such wonders of craftsmanship, subtleties of wisdom, and manifestations of proofs that it is necessitated that He, the Exalted, is the Sole Creator, worthy of worship, to the exclusion of others—the rivals that neither create nor provide, and possess neither benefit nor harm. "Unquestionably, for Allah is the creation and the command."

From the angle of allusion, it is said that He, the Exalted, likened the body to the earth, the soul to the sky, and the intellect to the water. And what He bestowed upon the recipients of scientific and practical virtues—realized through the use of intellect and sense, and the joining of psychic and physical powers—to the fruits born from the joining of the active celestial powers and the passive earthly powers, by the permission of the Choosing Creator.

It is also said: when He, the Exalted, favored them by mentioning that He created them and those before them, reminding them of what guides them to know the manner of their creation, He made the earth, which is a bed, like the mother upon whom a man spreads himself (which is also called a firāsh), and likened the sky, which is elevated over the earth, to the father who rises over the mother and covers her. He struck the water descending from the sky as an example of the drop (nuṭfah) descending from the loin of the father, and struck what comes out of the earth of fruits as an example of the child who comes out of the mother. All of this is to comfort their intellects and guide them to know the manner of creation, and to inform them that He is the Creator of this child and the One who brings it out from the mother's womb, just as He is the Creator of the fruits and the One who brings them out from the wombs of their trees, and brings the trees out from the womb of the earth. When this becomes clear to them, they single Him out in divinity and reserve worship for Him alone, and they obtain guidance.

Reflect on the gardens of the earth and look at the traces of what the King has made: eyes of silver, gazing, upon their eyelashes is molten gold on branches of emerald, witnessing that Allah has no partner.