Fatir: (40) Say: "Have you considered your partners..."

"Say"—intended as a rebuke to them—"Have you considered your partners whom you call upon besides Allah?" That is, your deities. The attribution of them to the polytheists is due to the closest connection, as they are the ones who made them partners of Allah Almighty and believed them to be such, without there being any basis for it whatsoever.

It is also said: The attribution is literal, in that they made them partners for themselves in what they possess, or Allah Almighty made them partners with them in the Fire, as He, may He be glorified, says: "Indeed, you and what you worship instead of Allah are the firewood of Hell." The attribute in both cases is restrictive, not explanatory, and the context and sequence of the noble arrangement are clear regarding what has preceded.

"Show me what part of the earth they have created" is a substitution of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal) for "Have you considered," because it is in the sense of "Inform me." It is as if it were said: "Inform me about your partners; show me what part of the earth they created so that they might deserve divinity and partnership."

It was permitted to be a substitution of totality (badal kull). Abu Hayyan said: Substitution is not permissible because if one substitutes something for that which it follows, the interrogative particle must enter upon the substitute. Furthermore, substituting a sentence for a sentence is not known in their language. Also, a substitution is based on the intention of repeating the governing agent (amil), and that cannot be achieved here because there is no governing agent for "Have you considered." He then said: That which I hold is that "Have you considered" is in the sense of "Inform me," which requires two objects: one accusative and the other containing the interrogation, as in the saying of the Arabs: "Have you considered Zayd, what did he do?" The first object here is "your partners," and the second is "what they have created." "Show me" is a parenthetical sentence in which there is emphasis and reinforcement of the speech. It is possible that this is also a case of "governing" (i'mal), where both "Have you considered" and "Show me" act upon "what they have created," because "Show me" has suspended its second object—just as the verb "to see" (ra'a) which does not have the hamza of transfer (transitive) is suspended from its object in their saying: "Do you not see what lightning is here?" Thus, the second [verb] acts upon it, according to the preferred view of the Basrans.

This is ended. What he mentioned is a possibility in the noble verse, just as what was mentioned first is a possibility, and what he said in refutation is of no weight. As for the first point, the necessity of the interrogative particle entering the substitute applies only if the interrogation remains in its original meaning; if it is abrogated, as it is here, it is not necessary. As for the second point, the scholars of Arabic and semantics have stated the contrary, and it has occurred in the speech of the Arabs, such as his saying: "I say to him: depart, do not remain with us; otherwise, in secret and in public, be a Muslim." As for the third point, the claim that substitution requires the intention of repeating the governing agent only applies—as al-Khafaji narrated from them—to the substitution of single nouns.

It is not for you to say that the governing agent here exists, which is "Say," for the significance lies in what is said (the quote), and there is no governing agent in it, as it is a statement—and this is clear.

It was also permitted that "Have you considered" is not in the sense of "Inform me," but rather the intended meaning is the literal interrogation about seeing, and "Show me" is a command of incapacitation to clarify: "Do you know these whom you call upon, what they are, and whether they possess inability, or do you imagine power in them? If you know them to be unable, then how do you worship them? Or if you imagined power in them, then show me its effect." The first interpretation is more evident.

"Or have they a partnership in the heavens?" That is, or do they have a partnership with Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, in the creation of the heavens such that they deserve what you claim for them? Some said: It is better not to supply a predicate, so the meaning is: "Or do they have a partnership with Him, may He be glorified, in the heavens in terms of creation, preservation, and disposal?" This is because the intended meaning is the negation of the signs of divinity from the partners, and these are not limited to creation, and the estimation is more consistent with what precedes. The speech is said to be by way of gradation: from independence to partnership, then from that to a proof and a scripture written regarding the partnership. It is as if it were said: "Inform me about those whom you call upon besides Allah; did they act independently in creating any part of the earth such that they should be worshiped like Allah Almighty? Or do they have a partnership with Him, may He be glorified, in the creation of the heavens?"

"Or have We given them a book?" That is, or have We given them a book that speaks saying: "We have taken them as partners?" "So they are upon a clear proof from it"—that is, a manifest argument from that book that they have a partnership with Us.

In al-Kashf, it is stated: It is apparent that the speech is built upon progression in proving partnership, because independence in creating a part of the earth is some form of partnership with Him, may He be glorified; and partnership with Him in creating the heavens is more indicative of proving it; and then the giving of a book from Him, may He be glorified, saying they are His partners is even more indicative.

It is said: The pronoun in "We have given them" refers to the polytheists, and likewise in "they are upon a clear proof," as in His saying: "Or have We sent down to them an authority," etc. Thus, there is a shift (iltifat) in the speech from the pronoun of address to the pronoun of the third person, turning away from the polytheists and treating them as absent.

The meaning is that the worship of these is either by reason—and no reason judges the validity of worshiping one who does not create even a part of the earth, as a proof of partnership in the sky—or by revelation—and We have not given the polytheists a book containing the command to worship them. In this, there is a separation of pronouns. Some said: The pronoun in "We have given them" refers to the partners, as in the previous pronouns, and the pronoun in "they are upon a clear proof" refers to the polytheists, and "or" (am) is disjunctive (munqati'ah), serving to shift the topic from the previous speech. He claimed there is no shift or separation of pronouns then—so contemplate this.

Nafi', Ibn 'Amir, Ya'qub, and Abu Bakr read "on clear proofs" (plural), which is an allusion that polytheism is serious, requiring the mutual support of proofs; it is a type of mockery.

"But the wrongdoers do not promise one another except delusion." When He, may He be glorified, negated the arguments mentioned, He shifted away from that by mentioning what led them to polytheism, which is the validation of the descendants by the predecessors, and the leading astray of the followers by the leaders, by claiming that they are intercessors before Allah Almighty, interceding for them by drawing near to them. The verse, according to many, concerns idolaters, but its ruling is general. It is said: It concerns the worshipers of anything other than Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, whether it be an idol, an angel, or others.