Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:21

This is an initiation [of a new topic] intended either to provide a parable for the worldly life in its rapid demise and near decay, through the mentioned states of vegetation, as a warning against being deceived by its splendor; or to serve as proof for the fulfillment of the promise of the rivers flowing beneath the chambers [in Paradise], by observing the sending down of water from the sky and the effects resulting from it that demonstrate the power of the Almighty, the precision of His wisdom, and His mercy.

"Water" refers to rain, and "the sky" refers to the direction of altitude. It has been said: [it refers to] the celestial bodies, and the sending down of rain from them is considered in the sense that it occurs due to causes originating from them; for the rising of vapors and the formation of clouds occur due to the attraction of the sun, the variation of its positions, and similar causes known to Allah the Almighty. As for the claim that the rain itself descends from the substance of the well-known sky, often clouds rise and rain heavily while someone is at the summit of a mountain where there is neither cloud nor rain. The insistence that in such a case the rain is also descending from the substance of the sky onto the clouds, but is not seen by the one standing above the mountain, does not hide its state.

It has been said: "Water" refers to all water on the earth, and the "sending down" mentioned refers to the descent at the beginning of creation—that when He, the Almighty, created the earth, He created it devoid of water, then sent down water from the Sea of the Throne. "So He caused it to penetrate" (i.e., He made it enter) "springs in the earth" (i.e., into sources and channels existing in the earth like veins in bodies). According to the first interpretation, the literal meaning of the verse necessitates that the water of springs and conduits comes from rainwater, while according to the second, it does not.

It is widespread among the philosophers that the water of springs and what flows like them originates from vapors. They said: If vapor is trapped in the earth, it inclines towards a direction and cools there, turning into water mixed with vaporous particles. When it increases to the point that the earth cannot contain it, it causes the earth to split, and springs burst forth from it. Abu al-Barakat al-Baghdadi refuted this in al-Mu'tabar, saying: "The cause of springs and what runs like them is what flows from snows and rainwater, because we find that they increase with their increase and decrease with their decrease. The transformation of air and vapors confined in the earth has no role in that; for the interior of the earth in summer is colder than it is in winter. If the cause of this were their transformation, it would necessitate that springs, conduits, and well waters be greater in summer and lesser in winter, whereas the reality is the opposite, as proven by experience." Al-Maybudi said: "The truth is that the cause mentioned by the author of al-Mu'tabar is undoubtedly considerable, yet it does not prevent the consideration of the cause that was mentioned [the vapor theory]. His argument in prevention only indicates that it is not permissible for that to be the complete cause, not that it is not permissible for it to be a cause in general."

In Sharh al-Mawaqif, they differed as to whether waters are generated from disparate watery particles in the depth of the earth when they gather, or from vaporous air that turns into water. Although this second [view] is possible, the first is more appropriate because the waters of springs, conduits, and wells increase with the increase of snows and rain.

In my view, it is better to interpret "water" in the verse as rain and its like, such as snow. The verse indicates that Allah the Almighty causes that water to flow into "springs in the earth," but it does not indicate that what is in the springs is only that water. Thus, it is possible that some of what is in them is the water sent down from the sky, and some is generated from vaporous air turning into water due to causes known to Allah the Almighty.

Interpreting the "sending down" as the descent at the beginning of creation—as you have heard—despite it being something for which I have not found any authentic report, is contrary to the apparent meaning of the verse, because the address in "Do you not see" is general, and generality does not apply to the seeing of that [primordial event]. It would seem to necessitate making the address specific to the Master of those addressed [the Prophet, peace be upon him], and the meaning would be: "Do you not know this through revelation?" Even then, the state of the verse remains as mentioned.

Close to what was said is what az-Zamakhshari recounted in the verse from some, that every water on the earth descends from the sky to the Rock (as-Sakhra), then Allah the Almighty divides it among the regions. However, this is undermined by the apparent meaning of what Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas, that he said regarding the verse: "There is no water on the earth except what Allah the Almighty sent down from the sky, but there are veins in the earth that change it. So whoever wishes for the salty to return to sweet, let him distill it." He narrated the same from Sa'id ibn Jubayr and ash-Sha'bi. If this report is authentic and we deem it to have the status of a marfu' (ascribed to the Prophet), then what concern is it of ours if we speak according to its literal meaning? The intellect does not reject it, and Allah the Almighty is capable of all things.

It is permitted that "springs" (yanabi') is the plural of yanbu', meaning "the springing source." Since it is applied to the source, it is also applied to what was mentioned [the springs/channels]. In this case, it would be in the accusative case as a state (hal), and the meaning would be: "He caused it to penetrate as waters springing in the earth." This is not free from obscurity, because if this were intended, the apparent wording would be "from the earth." According to the common view, "springs" is in the accusative because of the removal of the preposition (as we have indicated). The possibility that it is in the accusative as an infinitive (masdar)—meaning "He caused it to penetrate a penetration into springs" (i.e., channels), whereby the infinitive was elided and what was in the place of the adjective stood in its stead—or that the original was "He caused it to penetrate the flowing of springs" (i.e., springing waters), and the possessor (mudaf) was elided and the possessor-to (mudaf ilayh) stood in its stead, is far-fetched, as is not hidden.

"Then He brings forth thereby" (i.e., by means of it, observing wisdom, not because the bringing forth is contingent upon it in reality. The sha'ira [poets] say: meaning He brings forth at its presence without it having any role in any way except by accompaniment) "crops of various colors" (i.e., its types and kinds, such as wheat, barley, and others; or its qualities perceived by sight, such as greenness, redness, and others; or its qualities absolutely, from colors, tastes, and others, as has been said. The "crop" includes edible plants and others). "Then" is for delay in rank or time, and the present tense verb is for bringing the image to mind. "Then it withers" (i.e., it dries up). The literal meaning of the words of the linguists is that this is the real meaning of hayajan. It is understood from the words of some exegetes that yahiju means "to erupt/rise," and its usage to mean "to wither" is from the metaphors of the Easterners, for when the crop withers and its drying is complete, it is on the verge of erupting and leaving its roots. "Then you see it yellowing" (after its greenness and freshness; it is also recited as musfaran), "then He makes it" (i.e., the crop) "chaff" (i.e., broken, fragmented bits), "as if it had not flourished yesterday." Because this state is from the powerful effects, it is linked to Allah the Almighty's making, just like the bringing forth. Abu Bishr recited "then He makes it" in the accusative; the author of al-Kamil said this is weak, and he did not explain the reason for the accusative, as if it were the elision of an (to), like in the saying: "I, and the killing of Sulayk, then I ransom him." The reason for its weakness here is not hidden. "Indeed, in that" (a pointer to what was mentioned in detail; the "that" [dhalika] contains a sense of distance to signal the remoteness of its standing in strangeness and indication of what was intended to be explained) "is a reminder" (a great remembrance) "for those of understanding."

For those possessing minds pure from the impurities of defect, and an alerting for them to the reality of the situation; they remember through it the state of worldly life and the speed of its passing, so they are not deceived by its splendor nor seduced by its temptations. Or, they conclude that He who is capable of sending down water from the sky and managing it in the most perfect way is capable of causing rivers to flow from beneath those chambers. It seems the first is more appropriate, so that what precedes is an encouragement for the Hereafter, and this is a warning against the world. It has been said the meaning is: "Indeed, in that is a reminder and an alert that it must have a Wise Creator, and that it exists according to a decree and management, not from cessation and neglect, far removed from what the context requires." Furthermore, it is more appropriate for that [interpretation] that the effects be mentioned not ascribed to Him, the Almighty. Since they are mentioned ascribed to Him, the Almighty, the apparent meaning is that the object of the remembrance and alert is His affairs—the Almighty—or the affairs of His effects, as indicated, not His existence, the Almighty.