Tafsir of As-Sajdah 32:7

(Who perfected everything He created) is a fourth predicate, or a third adjective, or in the accusative case as an expression of praise. Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be the predicate of an omitted subject—i.e., “He is the One Who”—and that “the Almighty” is the subject, “the Merciful” is its adjective, and this (the verse) is its predicate. The sentence “He created” is in the genitive position as an adjective for “everything.” It is also permissible for it to be in the accusative position as an adjective for “all.” The possibility of it being a new, independent sentence is remote—meaning: He, glory be to Him, perfected every creature among His creatures, for there is not a single thing among them but that it is ordered according to what wisdom requires and what interest demands. Thus, all creatures are perfect, even if they vary in the ranks of perfection, as indicated by His, the Almighty’s, saying: “We have certainly created man in the best of stature.” The negation of discrepancy in His creation, the Almighty, in His saying: “You do not see any discrepancy in the creation of the Most Merciful,”—according to a meaning you will know, God willing—does not contradict what has been mentioned. It has also been suggested that the meaning is “He knows how to create it,” derived from the saying “a person’s worth is what he does well [yuḥsinu],” and the reality of it is “he knows it well,” meaning: he knows it with knowledge that is perfect, by verification and certainty; yet its remoteness is not hidden.

The two Arabs [‘Asim and al-Kisa’i] and Ibn Kathir read khalqahu [in the verse alladhi aḥsana kulla shay’in khalqahu] with a quiescent lam [khalqahu instead of khalaqahu]. It is said: It is a substitution of inclusion (badal ishtimal) for “everything,” and the pronoun attached to it returns to Him, and it remains upon its verbal noun meaning. It is also said: It is a substitution of the whole for the whole, or part for the whole, and the pronoun refers to God, the Almighty, and it [the word khalq] carries the meaning of “the created thing.” It is further said: It is a second object for aḥsana [perfected], based on it implying the meaning of “gave”—that is: He, glory be to Him, gave every thing its creation that befits it by way of benevolence and grace. It is also said: It is the first object, and “everything” is the second object, and its pronoun refers to God, the Almighty, based on aḥsana implying the meaning of “inspiration,” as al-Farra’ said, or “making known,” as Abu al-Baqa’ said. The meaning would be: He inspired or made known to His creation everything they need, which leads to the meaning of His, the Almighty’s, saying: “Gave everything its creation, then guided.”

Abu ‘Ali chose in al-Hujjah what Sibawayh mentioned in al-Kitab: that it is an absolute object (maf‘ul mutlaq) for aḥsana because of its meaning, and the pronoun refers to God, the Almighty, similar to His saying: “The creation of God” and “The promise of God.”

{And He began the creation of man from clay}—that is: Adam, peace be upon him—or He began the creation of this well-known species from clay, since the creation of Adam, peace be upon him, was the beginning of the creation of a nature encompassing the inherent qualities of all other individuals of the species in a summary fashion. Al-Zuhri read bada with an alif instead of a hamza. He [the author of al-Bahr] said: The analogy in bada’a is not to replace the hamza with an alif; rather, the analogy for this hamza is softening it between two sounds. However, al-Akhfash reported that in qara’tu one says qaraytu. It is said: This is the dialect of the Ansar; they say in bada’a, badi—with a kasra on the middle radical and a ya’ following it—and in tata’a they say tata’a... they say in the verb that does this, like baqa and baqa (as in ramay). Thus, it is possible that al-Zuhri’s reading is based on this dialect, such that the origin was badi, then it became bada. On the dialect of the Ansar, Ibn Rawahah said: In the name of the God, and by Him we began; And had we worshipped other than Him, we would have been miserable.