Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:30

"Have those who disbelieved not seen..."

This is an attempt to render them ignorant due to their failure to contemplate the creational signs that demonstrate His immense power and authority, and that all besides Him are subjugated beneath His dominion. These are signs from which they might derive benefit, knowing that one who is as such should not turn away from His worship toward the worship of a stone or similar things that neither harm nor benefit. The interrogative particle (hamzah) is for denunciation, and the conjunction (waw) connects to an omitted clause. Ibn Kathir, Humayd, and Ibn Muḥayṣin read it without the waw.

The "seeing" (al-ru’yah) here is one of the heart; that is: "Have they not contemplated and known..."

"...that the heavens and the earth were..."

The pronoun refers to the heavens and the earth. The intention behind "the heavens" is the collective class; hence the pronoun is dualized rather than pluralized. Similar to this is His saying, “Indeed, Allah holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease,” and likewise the saying of al-Aswad ibn Ya‘fur: "Indeed, fate and the decrees, both of them, wait for my shadow beyond the prohibited ones."

The predicate—meaning His saying, “a joined entity” (ratqan)—is singularized and not dualized because it is a verbal noun (maṣdar). The construction is either by interpreting it as a derivative, by intention of hyperbole, or by assuming an omitted possessor; that is, "possessing joining." Ratq in its origin signifies connection and fusion, whether by creation or craftsmanship. From this comes al-ratqa’, the woman who is fused such that intercourse is impossible.

Al-Ḥasan, Zayd ibn ‘Ali, Abu Ḥaywah, and ‘Isa read rataqan with a fatha on the ta’, which is the noun for the thing joined (al-martuq), similar to naqḍ (breaking) and nuquḍ (what is broken). Its analogy would have been to dualize it here to match the noun [it describes]. Al-Zamakhshari said: "It is based on the assumption of a described object; that is, 'they were a joined thing,' and 'thing' is a generic noun for the few and the many, so it is correct to predicate it of the dual, like the plural." What makes this sound is that in the state of being joined, there is no multiplicity.

Abu al-Faḍl al-Razi said: "Most often in this category, the one with a moving vowel is a noun in the sense of the passive participle, and the one with the quiescent vowel is a maṣdar. It is possible that both are maṣdars, and the first is preferable here."

In this case, there is no need for what al-Zamakhshari said regarding the validity of the predication. By "joining," according to what is narrated from Abu Muslim al-Iṣfahani, the state of non-existence is intended, as there are no distinct entities within it; thus, the heavens and the earth were one connected, uniform affair. By "cleaving" (fatq)—the origin of which is separation—in His saying, “We clove them asunder,” is intended creation, as it results in distinction and the separation of some essences from others. Thus, it is like His saying, “Originator of the heavens and the earth,” based on the premise that fatr (originating) means splitting. Its apparent meaning is the negation of the distinction of non-existent things.

That which our master al-Kurani verified in Jala’ al-Fuhum, defending it to the best of his ability, is that a possible non-existent thing is distinct in essence because it is conceivable, and a thing cannot be conceived except by its distinction from another; otherwise, it would have no more priority for being conceived than anything else. Furthermore, some non-existent things are intended over others; were there no distinction between them, this could not be reasoned, as intending the creation of an undetermined thing is impossible, because what is not determined in itself cannot be distinguished in intent from intending another. One might say to this: it suffices for that will that the heavens and the earth were not distinguished in the state of non-existence, relative to the external observed world.

However that may be, the meaning of the verse is: "Do they not know that the heavens and the earth were non-existent, then We brought them into existence?" The meaning of their knowing this is their capacity to know it with the slightest reflection, for they are both possible [entities], and the possible—considering its essence alone—is non-existent; its attribution with existence can only come from the Necessary Being.

Ibn Sina said in the eighth discourse of the Ilahiyat of al-Shifa’: "All other things besides the Necessary Being do not deserve existence; rather, in themselves, and separated from their relation to the Necessary, they deserve non-existence." It is inconceivable that the existence of the heavens and the earth, with their necessary possibility, could be without a cause. As for the view held by Democritus—that the existence of the world came about by chance because its principles are small, indivisible, solid bodies scattered in an infinite void, of uniform nature but varying shapes, in constant motion, and it happened that a group of them congregated and gathered in a specific configuration, thus forming this world—that is a type of delirium. Empedocles supposedly agreed with him, though the former claimed that the formation of animals and plants was not by chance, while this one claimed that the elemental bodies were also formed by chance, except that whatever of those things happened to have a configuration suitable for survival and reproduction remained, and whatever did not, did not remain. This delirium is far from this man, for they mentioned that he was one of the leaders of Greece who lived in the time of David (peace be upon him), received knowledge from him, frequented Luqman the Wise, and acquired wisdom from him.

Furthermore, their existence from the Knower is originated; indeed, the sensible world and others are originated in time by the consensus of the Muslims. Whatever is imagined from some of the expressions of some Sufis—that it is originated in essence but eternal in time—is deflected from its apparent meaning, for they are too exalted to say such a thing, as it is disbelief. Philosophers on this issue hold three opinions. A group of the early ones—the pillars from Miletus and Samos—held the view that all the existents of the world, its principles, simple elements, and compounds, are originated. A faction of the Athenians and the Stoics held the view that their principles—the Intellect, the Soul, the separated entities, and the simple elements—are eternal, but not the intermediaries and compounds, for the principles according to them are above time and dahr (infinite time), so temporal origination does not occur within them, unlike compounds which are under dahr and time. They denied that movements are eternal. The school of Aristotle and his followers is that the world is eternal and that circular movements are eternal. This is based on what is famous about him; otherwise, it is mentioned in the Asfar (Travels) that the pillars of wisdom considered by the school are eight: three Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, and Agathodaemon) and five Greeks (Empedocles, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle). All of them are proponents of what the Prophets (peace be upon them) and their followers said regarding the origination of the world in all its substances, accidents, spheres, angels, simple elements, and compounds. Words were narrated from each of them supporting this. Similar things were narrated from philosophers other than these. I have spoken at length in this place, and were it not for the fear of weariness, I would have quoted it; perhaps I shall quote some of it in its more appropriate place, if Allah (the Exalted) wills.

It is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas in a report from ‘Ikrimah, al-Hasan, Qatadah, and Ibn Jubayr that the heavens and the earth were one thing, stuck together, then Allah (the Exalted) separated them and raised the sky to where it is and set the earth. Ka‘b said: "Allah created the heavens and the earth stuck together, then He created a wind that entered between them and cleft them." From al-Hasan: "Allah (the Exalted) created the earth in a place between Jerusalem, in the shape of a stone, upon which was smoke stuck to it. Then He raised the smoke and created the heavens from it, and He kept the stone in its place and spread the earth from it." That is His saying: “They were a joined entity, and We clove them asunder.” So He made them seven heavens, and likewise the earth was joined as one layer, then He clove it and made it seven earths.

The meaning of "knowledge" in these reports is also the capacity for it, but not by way of reflection; rather, by inquiring from the scholars of the People of the Book whom they used to mingle with and whose sayings they accepted. Or, it is said, [they knew] by that or by perusing the heavenly books, including the Quran, even if they did not accept it because it is a miracle in itself. In that, there is a subtlety that is not hidden.

Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Ḥatim, and Abu Nu‘aym in al-Ḥilyah narrated via ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar from Ibn ‘Umar that a man came to him and asked him about the verse. He said: "Go to that old man [Ibn ‘Abbas] and ask him, then come to me and tell me." The man went to him and asked him. He said: "Yes, the heavens were joined, not raining, and the earth was joined, not sprouting. When Allah (the Exalted) created inhabitants for the earth, He cleft the former with rain and the latter with vegetation." The man returned to Ibn ‘Umar and told him. Ibn ‘Umar said: "Now I know that Ibn ‘Abbas has been given knowledge in the Quran. Ibn ‘Abbas spoke the truth; that is how it was." It is also narrated from him with similar meaning by a group, including al-Hakim, who authenticated it. The majority of exegetes incline toward this.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: "It is a good statement that combines the lesson, the evidence, and the enumeration of the blessing, and it fits what is mentioned afterward." The "joining" and "cleaving" are metaphorical here, just as they are in the first view. The heavens mean the direction of height or the lowest heaven, and the totality is relative to the horizons, or it is from the style of "a worn-out garment." It is said that it is on its apparent meaning, but that the heavens have an entry point in rain. The "seeing" also means knowledge, and the knowledge of the disbelievers of that is evident.

It is permissible for the "seeing" to be optical, and making it represent knowledge is better. It is far-fetched what is narrated from some Islamic scholars that the "joining" is the alignment of the two zones of the first and second motions, which necessitates the invalidation of habitable regions and the seasons, and that the "cleaving" is their separation, which necessitates the possibility of habitation and the distinction of the seasons. Indeed, this is hardly correct according to the Islamic foundations established by the righteous predecessors, as is not hidden.

"And We made from water every living thing..."

This is connected to “that the heavens...” and there is no need to force a connection to “We clove them asunder.” "Making" (ja‘l) here means creation, taking one object. "From" (min) is for the originative sense, and water is the well-known substance; that is: "We created from water every animal," i.e., everything described with true life. This is narrated from al-Kalbi and a group, and it is supported by His saying: “And Allah has created every living creature from water.” The reason water is the origin and material of the animal, and the reason for specifying it, is that it is their greatest component and they have the most extreme need for it and benefit from it. There must be a specification of the general term because the angels (peace be upon them), as well as the Jinn, are living, yet they are not created from water nor in need of it, according to the correct view.

Qatadah said: "The meaning is: We created every growing thing from water," thus including vegetation, with life intended as growth or the like. Perhaps those who claim that vegetation has sensation and perception kept "life" to its literal meaning.

Qutrub and a group said: "The intended meaning of water is the sperm-drop." There must be a specification for things other than the angels (peace be upon them) and the Jinn, and indeed for things other than that, and animals created without a sperm-drop, such as most terrestrial insects. It is permissible for "making" to mean "rendering," taking two objects, which are here "every living thing" and "from water," with the second object placed first for the sake of importance. The "from" here is for connection, as is said in the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) statement: "I am not of the dadd nor is the dadd of me." The meaning is: "We rendered every living thing connected to water," that is, mixing with it and never detached from it. The intention is that it does not live without it. Abu al-Baqa’ allowed, regarding the first view, that the prepositional phrase is in the position of a state (ḥal) from "every." Al-Tayyibi considered this to be an explanatory metaphor (bayan tajridi), so that "the living" is abstracted from water by way of hyperbole, as if it were water itself. Humayd read ḥayyan in the accusative as an adjective for kull or as a second object for ja‘l, and the prepositional phrase relates to what is implied by it, not to ḥayya (living). The "thing" is specific to animals because it is what is described by life. It is permissible to generalize it to include plants.

You know that there are some people who say: "Every thing, from the higher and lower worlds, is alive with a life suitable to it." They are those who went toward the idea that the glorification of things, as indicated by His saying: “And there is not a thing except that it glorifies Him with His praise,” is not a state-based [glorification]. If one says this, then one must also specify "thing," since not everything was made alive from water. I have not encountered a dissenter among us in this. Yes, it is narrated from Thales of Miletus—the first to philosophize in Miletus—that the origin of existents is water, as he said: "Water is receptive to every form, and from it all substances were originated, both heaven and earth."

It is possible to interpret this according to a Sufi perspective by saying that he intended by "water" the expansive existence, expressed in the terminology of the Sufis as the "Breath of the Merciful" (al-nafas al-raḥmani). In that case, if the indication in the verse were directed toward that, in their view, it would not be far-fetched.

"Will they not then believe?"

A denunciation of their lack of belief in Allah (the Exalted) alone, despite the emergence of signs that necessitate it mandatorily. The fa’ is for connection to an omitted clause required by the denunciation: "Do they know that, yet they do not believe?"