Tafsir of Fatir 35:3

(O mankind, remember the favor of Allah upon you) meaning: His favors—Blessed and Exalted is He—bestowed upon you, if "favor" (al-ni'mah) is taken as an infinitive; or [existing] upon you, if it is taken as a noun. It means: observe it, preserve it by recognizing its rightful due, acknowledging it, and dedicating worship and obedience to its Bestower. It is not intended as mere verbal remembrance; rather, it is a metonymy for what has been mentioned [of observation and gratitude].

It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas—and the address is directed toward those who have heard—"Remember the favor of Allah upon you, for He has settled you in His Sanctuary (Haram) and protected you from the entire world, while people around you are being snatched away." It is also narrated from him that the "favor of Allah" refers to well-being (al-'afiyah). The former is preferable, as there is no need for restriction.

Since the favors of Allah, despite the diversity of their types, are encompassed by the favor of existence and the favor of sustenance, the Almighty negated that there exists anything in existence other than Him from which one of these two favors originates. This is done through an interrogative format, which is used for the denial of validation and the falsification of a proposition. Thus, the Almighty said: (Is there any creator other than Allah?).

Hal (is there) is used for this purpose, as discussed in al-Mutawwal and its marginalia. As for the statement of al-Radi that "‘Hal’ is not used for denial," he intends by this the denial of someone claiming that an occurrence has taken place—as in the Almighty’s saying: Has your Lord favored you with sons?—which necessitates negation. It is also used for denying someone who has caused a thing to happen, as in your saying, "Do you strike Zayd, when he is your brother?" [meaning: Is there any creator distinct from Him existing for you or for the world?]

Given that "Creator" (Khaliq) is a subject whose predicate is omitted, the particle min (from) is added to it to emphasize universality. Ghayr Allah (other than Allah) is an adjective for it based on its grammatical position. Its status as an adjective is valid despite its annexation to the most definite of all definite nouns (Allah), because ghayr is deeply rooted in indefiniteness (tankir); thus, it does not acquire definiteness in such a construction. It is also permitted that it be a substitute (badal) for "Creator" in that same regard. Denial is considered under the rule of negation so that "other than Allah" is the creator that is being negated, and because the meaning is one of exception—that is: "There is no creator except Allah." Substitution in an exception using ghayr only occurs in negative sentences.

Based on this consideration, min was added according to the majority [of scholars], making the initiation with an indefinite noun valid. Likewise, it is permitted that it be the agent (fa'il) of "Creator" because it relies upon an interrogative particle—like A-qa'im Zayd (Is Zayd standing?) in one of its two views—and in that case, it fulfills the role of the predicate. Abu Hayyan critiqued this, saying: "There is a flaw in it: when an active participle (ism al-fa'il) or its equivalent relies on an interrogative particle and is treated like a verb, thereby elevating what follows it, is it permissible for the particle min—which is for generalization—to enter upon it? One would say Hal min qa'im al-zaydun (Are there any of the Zayds standing?) just as one says Hal qa'im al-zaydun? It is apparent that this is not permissible. Do you not see that when it is treated like a verb, it does not contain generalization, unlike when min enters upon it? I have not encountered the like of this in the speech of the Arabs, and one should not proceed to permit such a thing without having heard it from their speech." The response to this is that the conditions for addition and operation are present, and no compelling obstacle has been presented; therefore, withholding [from this view] is obstinacy without basis.

In al-Kashf, it is mentioned that there is no obstacle to "Ghayr" being the predicate, though al-Shihab prevented this on the grounds that the meaning does not support it. Ibn Wathab, Shaqiq, Abu Ja'far, Zayd ibn Ali, Hamza, and al-Kisa'i read Ghayri with a kasra (genitive case) as an adjective for Khaliq based on its phrasing. This is definite in this reading. Since the agreement between the two readings is better than their disagreement, it is more apparent that in the first reading, it is also an adjective for Khaliq. Al-Fadl ibn Ibrahim al-Nahwi read Ghayra with a fatha (accusative case) based on exception.

His statement—Exalted is He—(He provides for you from the heaven and the earth) with rain and vegetation, is a new, initiating sentence (istinaf) that has no place in grammatical inflection; it is not an adjective for Khaliq based on its phrasing or position. The author of al-Kashf states: "Because the meaning is one of reproach and a reminder of what they themselves acknowledge, it is as if it were said: 'Is there any creator for those favors which you were ordered to remember,' or [for favors] in general, which is better." Ghayr Allah enters into this as a primary inclusion. Then, He completed it by [saying] that He provides for you from the heaven and the earth, which also necessitates His exclusivity regarding worship, just as being the Creator necessitates it. The point here is that the Creator cannot be anything but a Provider; if one were to say, "Is there any Creator, Provider from the heaven and the earth, other than Allah?", it would deviate the speech from its intended purpose.

It is permitted that Khaliq be the agent of an implicit verb clarified by the one mentioned, where the origin is: "Does a creator provide for you?" and min is an addition in the agent. This is critiqued by stating that if this is from the category of Hal rajulun 'arafa (Has any man known?), al-Sakkaki has declared this structure ugly because Hal only enters upon nominal sentences; thus, it must be valid before Hal enters, and rajulun 'arafa is not valid without considering precedence and postponement, as there is no other justification for its initial status. If precedence and postponement are considered, the speech would indicate the attainment of validation by the verb itself, so the entry of Hal is invalid because it is for requesting validation, and what has already been attained is not requested—lest one fall into the "attainment of the attained." Because of the possibility that rajul is an agent of an omitted verb, he declared it ugly rather than impossible.

If it is of the category of Hal Zaydun 'arafa, the second master, al-Sa'd al-Taftazani, declared it ugly by the consensus of grammarians, and that what the author of al-Mufassal mentioned—that expressions like Hal Zaydun kharaja are based on the assumption of a verb—is a justification for a distant, ugly form, not that it is common or good. The ultimate point regarding the reason for its ugliness is not what was mentioned regarding Hal Zaydun 'arafa in the view of al-Sakkaki (due to its inapplicability), but rather that Hal is in the meaning of Qad originally. Its origin is A-hal, as in the saying: Has the house become known in the two locations? The omission of the hamza before it occurred due to its frequent use in interrogation; thus, it was raised to the position of the hamza and became a parasite on it in interrogation. Qad is one of the necessities of verbs, and so [is what is] in its meaning. Its entry upon nominal sentences where both parts are nouns is not ugly because, when it does not see the verb in its sphere, it forgets about it. This is contrary to when it sees it; for then it remembers the pacts in the Hima (protected sanctuary), yearns for the familiar friend, and seeks to embrace it, not accepting the separation of the noun between them. It is known from this that there is no difference according to the grammarians between Hal rajulun 'arafa and Hal Zaydun 'arafa in their ugliness. Some of them answered that the one who permits this view is al-Zamakhshari and his followers, and he does not concede what was mentioned, because the conditional particle, for instance, was more binding to the verb than Hal, because it is not permissible for it to enter upon a nominal sentence where both sides are nouns, just as Hal entered upon them. Yet, it was permitted without ugliness for the verb to function after it, provided it is interpreted, as in the Almighty’s saying: And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection. Thus, it is permitted for Hal by a greater priority.

It is said: It is permitted that (He provides for you), etc., be an initiating sentence in response to an estimated question, the estimation of which is: "What creator is being asked about?" and that it be the predicate for Khaliq. It is not hidden from the contemplative that what was transmitted from al-Kashf dictates the weakness of all these views; so ponder this. In the verse, according to what is most appropriate in its interpretation and inflection, there is a refutation of the Mu'tazila in their statement that the servant is the creator of his own actions, and support for the people of the Sunnah in their statement that there is no creator except Allah.

(There is no god but Him) is an initiating sentence, confirming the negation understood from what preceded it by intention. Jar-Allah did not permit it to be made an adjective for Khaliq as he made yarzuqukum an adjective for it, stating: "If you were to join the sentence (There is no god but Him) as you joined (yarzuqukum), the meaning would not support it. For your saying, 'Is there any other creator besides Allah, [there is] no god but that creator,' is not upright. Because your saying, 'Is there any creator besides Allah,' is an affirmation for Allah—Exalted is He—and a negation of any participant with Him in it. Then, describing the 'other' with the restriction of divinity to Him would be for negating His creatorship, not for [His] uniqueness in divinity. And uniqueness in divinity, while being distinct from Allah—Exalted is He—are contradictory, because the first is negated by Him regarding that, while the second affirms it with another." He then said: "The verification in this is that Hal is for the denial of what follows it. If what follows it is from its completion, the rule of denial extends to the remainder; otherwise, it remains as it is, in negation and affirmation. Since the speech was regarding creatorship, as passed, the two descriptions—the uniqueness of the other in divinity and his distinctness from the True Sustainer—were not the focus of it. They are contradictory in themselves, as explained, and therefore, what Jar-Allah mentioned results by necessity." With his formulation of this, he has repelled much contention, though it is not free from debate. It is possible to frame the contradiction, assuming the adjectival position, in a more apparent way that may not be hidden from the contemplative. It is also permissible that the obstacle to the adjectival position is the miraculous composition, of which sound taste is the judge; the discussion on this is lengthy, so reflect.

The fa (so) in the Almighty’s saying: (So how are you deluded?) is for sequencing the denial of their turning away from monotheism to polytheism upon what preceded it. It is as if it were said: "Since His uniqueness—Exalted is He—in divinity, creatorship, and provision has become clear, from which direction are you turned away from monotheism to polytheism?"