Al-Ankabut: (19) "Have they not seen..."

"Have they not seen how Allah originates the creation..." This is an incipit statement, presented from the side of Allah, the Exalted, to rebuke their denial of resurrection despite the clarity of its evidence. The interrogative particle (alif) is for denying their lack of perception—which necessitates the affirmation thereof—and the conjunction (waw) links it to an implied antecedent; that is: "Have they not looked, and have they not known the manner in which Allah, the Exalted, originates creation—whether from matter or without matter?" This means: "Indeed, they have known that."

Hamza, al-Kisa'i, and Abu Bakr (with a difference of opinion reported from him) read: "Have you not seen" (a-lam taraw), using the second-person address. According to some, this is to intensify the rebuke and emphasize it, and it does not require an implied verb of speech. Whoever does not consider this an incipit statement presented by Allah to rebuke their denial of resurrection says: "The address is based on an implied act of speaking," meaning their messengers said to them: "Have you not seen?" The reasoning for this is that he took the pronoun in "Have they not seen" (in the third-person reading) to refer to the nations mentioned in His saying: "Nations before you." Thus, in the second-person reading, he makes it refer to them as well, so that the meaning of both readings may be unified. In that case, an implied act of speaking is necessary to recount the messengers' address to them, as there is no scope for the direct address otherwise.

It has also been said: That is because it is not permissible for the address to be directed toward the deniers of resurrection among the nation of Abraham or our Prophet—peace be upon them both—who are the ones addressed by His saying: "And if you [people] deny..." because the interrogation is for the purpose of rebuke; i.e., "They have already seen [it]," so it does not harmonize with His saying: "Say, 'Travel through the land...'" and so on, because those addressed therein are the ones addressed initially. This means: If the "seeing" is of a cognitive nature, then the command to travel and observe does not suit those who have already attained knowledge of the manner of creation. The argument that the first [statement] is an internal proof and the second is a cosmic/external proof contradicts the apparent meaning in several respects. Reflect upon this. Perhaps the most apparent and least controversial interpretation in the arrangement of the verses is what we have conveyed from some of the verifiers.

Al-Zubayri, 'Isa, and Abu 'Amr (with a difference of opinion reported from him) read "How He yabda'u (initiates)" as the present tense of the triliteral bada'a, with the hamza replaced by an alif, as mentioned by al-Hamdani. His saying, "Then He will bring it back," is a conjunction linked to "Have they not seen," not to "initiates." This is because if the "seeing" is visual, it pertains to the origination, not the restoration; thus, if it were conjoined to [the latter], it would be incorrect. The same applies if it is cognitive, for the intention is to derive evidence from what they know of the states of the origination to prove the resurrection. If it were [already] known to them, it would be an acquisition of what has already been acquired.

It is permissible to conjoin it to it by interpreting "restoration" as His creating—Exalted be He—every year something similar to what He created in the previous year of plants, fruits, and other things. Indeed, this is something by which the validity of resurrection and its occurrence is proven, according to what has been said, without doubt. It is reported from Muqatil that "creation" here refers to the night and the day, but this is of no merit.

"Indeed, that"—meaning the restoration that was mentioned (though it is permissible that what is referred to is both matters mentioned)—"is easy for Allah," since His act—the Exalted and Majestic—does not require anything outside of His own Essence.