Tafsir of Fussilat 41:10

"...on what many have chosen, it is a conjunction to (the creation of the earth)." It is included in the ruling of the connection (al-sila). There is no defect in the separation between them by the two mentioned sentences, because the first is united with His saying, "Do you disbelieve," in the capacity of being a reiteration of it, and the second is parenthetical, confirming the content of the speech. Thus, the separation by them is as if there were no separation at all. There is eloquence in this regarding the meaning, for it indicates that the conjoined element—namely, the creation of the earth—is sufficient for Him, the Almighty, to be the Lord of the worlds, and that no rival should be set up for Him; so how much more so when these conjoined elements are added to it?

It has been objected that "unity" does not remove it from being an intrusive separation that confuses the mind and causes complexity. Therefore, the truth and the closest [interpretation] is that the waw (and) is parenthetical, and both sentences are parenthetical, so that the objection is repelled by the objection. Or, it is considered the beginning of speech, based on the principle that it begins with a waw. Or, it is said: it is conjoined to an omitted element, such as "He created." The author of al-Kashshaf chose this latter view, stating: "The most sound of what is mentioned regarding it is that it is conjoined to an omitted element after (Lord of the worlds), meaning: He created it and placed therein firmly set mountains." It is as if He presented His saying, "He created the earth in two days," firstly as a rebuttal to them in their disbelief, then mentioned it a second time to complete the story and confirm the denial. The status of His saying, "That is the Lord of the worlds," is not that of a parenthesis, so that the sentence would be considered a conjunction to the connection (al-sila), while apologizing for the interpolation of "do you set up" as a conjunction to "you disbelieve" by its unity with what precedes it, according to the style of: "And [they] barred from the way of Allah and disbelieved in Him and [in] the Sacred Mosque." This is because it is intended in itself in this context and is a pillar of the denial, just like His saying, "Who created the earth," and it is emphatic, as is not hidden from one of insight.

"The firmly set mountains" (al-rawasi) are the mountains, from rasa when it is fixed. The meaning of "placing them" is bringing them into existence in actuality. In al-Irshad, it is said the meaning is the decreeing of the placement, not the placement in actuality. His saying, "above it," relates to "placing" or to an omitted element as an adjective for "firmly set mountains," meaning: existing above it, and the pronoun refers to the earth. In this, there is istikhdam (a rhetorical device) according to what is said regarding the intent behind it, because the mountains are above the known earth, not above all the lower bodies and simple elements. The benefit of "above it" is the indication that they were placed raised upon it, not beneath it like pillars, nor planted within it like nails, so that their benefits might be exposed to its inhabitants, and so that there may appear to the observers what is within them of points for reflection and fields for contemplation. By my life, there are such formative wisdoms in their elevation that intellects are stunned by them. The verse does not forbid that there be mountains submerged in the water of the earth, as is not hidden. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

"And He blessed therein"—meaning, He increased its goodness. In al-Irshad, it is stated: He, the Almighty, decreed that its goodness should be increased by increasing therein the various types of plants and various types of animals, among which is man. "And He determined therein its sustenance"—meaning, He clarified their quantity and measures. It says in al-Irshad: He decreed in actuality that there be found in what is to come for its inhabitants, from the various types, the sustenance suitable for them according to a specific measure necessitated by wisdom. The speech is upon the assumption of an omitted addition (mudaf). It is said: There is no need for that, and the genitive construction is for the slightest connection. The speech of al-Suddi points to this, as he said: "He attributed the sustenance to it because it is therein and from it they emerged." Mujahid interpreted "sustenance" as rain and water. In another narration from him—and to this went Ikrima and al-Dahhak—it is what each region was distinguished with of clothing, food, and plants, so that people would be in need of one another; this is what is required for the cultivation of the earth and the order of the world. Some support this with the reading of others: "And He divided therein its sustenance."

"In four days"—related to the occurrence of the mentioned matters, not to the decreeing of them, according to what is in Irshad al-Aql al-Salim. The speech is upon the assumption of an omitted addition, meaning: He decreed their occurrence in a completion of four days. Al-Zajjaj used to relate it to "He determined," as is the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa regarding a qualifier when it occurs after conjoined items, such as "I honored Zayd, beat Amr, and saw Khalid in the house." Al-Shafi'i says: The qualifier that follows sentences returns to all of them, because the principle is the participation of the conjoined and the conjoined-to in the related matters. Thus, the qualifier here returns to the placing of the mountains and what follows it. This is what rushes to my understanding. It is necessary to assume the omitted addition that you have heard; al-Zajjaj explicitly stated its assumption, while al-Zamakhshari did not assume it, making the prepositional phrase relate to an omitted element that occurred as a predicate for an omitted subject, meaning: "All of that—from the creation of the earth and what follows it—is occurring in four days," on the basis that it is a fadhla (a summary). That is, an isolated speech brought for the totality of what was mentioned in detail, taken from the fadhla of accounting and their saying: "The sum is such-and-such" after the settlement of the totals. In what we are dealing with, he joined a group of numbers to another group. Making it a summary does not prevent the conjunction of "and He placed therein firmly set mountains" to an omitted element, because the thematic connection is sufficient.

The statement that a summary requires the explicit mention of both totals—such as saying: "I traveled from Basra to Wasit in two days, and from Wasit to Kufa in two days; the total is four days," and here only one of the amounts was specified—is invalid. This is because knowledge of the two amounts is sufficient in the realization of the summary. Moreover, it is intended that it proceeds in the manner of a summary. The only reason it was not permitted to carry the meaning that the placing of the mountains and what he mentioned after it, or the determining of the sustenance, was in four days, is that it would necessitate that the creation of the earth and what is in it be in six days. And it has been mentioned after it that the creation of the heavens is in two days, so the total would be eight days.

It has been repeated in the Book of Allah the Almighty that the creation of both—meaning the heavens and the earth—is in six days. The four days were qualified by His saying, "equal" (sawa'an), for it is an infinitive emphasizing an implicit word which is an adjective for "days," meaning: "They were equal, a complete equality," as is indicated by the readings of Zayd ibn Ali, al-Hasan, Ibn Abi Ishaq, Amr ibn Ubayd, Isa, and Ya'qub: sawa'in (in the genitive case), for it is explicit in its adjectival nature. By this, the statement that it is a state (hal) from the pronoun in "its sustenance" is weakened, given the scarcity of the state from the genitive in cases other than the three types, and the necessity of the contradiction of the two readings in meaning.

From this, it is known that on the reading of Abu Ja'far in the nominative case, it is made a predicate for an omitted subject, meaning: "They are equal," and the sentence is made an adjective for "days" as well, not a state from the pronoun, to avoid metaphorical interpretation. For it is common in such instances, prevalent in the customs of the Arabs and non-Arabs; you see them saying: "I did it in two days," and they mean in a day and a half, for example, or "I traveled for four days," and they mean three and a half. From this is His saying, "The Hajj is [during] well-known months," for the intent by "months" in it is Shawwal, Dhu al-Qa'dah, and nine from Dhu al-Hijjah and the night of the sacrifice. That is because the excess was made an individual metaphorically, then the name of the complete number was applied to the whole. The meaning here is: in four days, with no decrease in them nor increase. It is as if, for this reason, what is in the Revelation was preferred over saying: "And He placed therein firmly set mountains above it, and blessed therein, and determined therein its sustenance in two days," as was said: "He created the earth in two days." The result is that if that were said, it would be permissible to mean by the first two days and the last two days their majority. And why was it not said: "He created the earth in two complete days, and He placed therein firmly set mountains above it, and blessed therein, and determined therein its sustenance in two complete days," or "He created the earth in two days, and He placed therein firmly set mountains above it, and blessed therein, and determined therein its sustenance in two days, those are four, equal"? [It is because] what He, the Almighty, brought forth is more concise, more eloquent, and has better correspondence to what the Revelation is upon of the deep places of intellects and the challenges of the learned, so that the excellent may be distinguished from the deficient, and the advancing from the retreating, and ranks may rise and rewards be multiplied.

Some of the elders said: In this majestic arrangement, there is a sign—despite the conciseness—that the last two days are connected to the first two days, because of the haste with which one makes them one sentence and their connection in the mention. His saying, "for the seekers" is related to an omitted element that occurred as a predicate for an omitted subject, meaning: "This limitation into four is for those who ask about the duration of the creation of the earth and what is in it." There is no harm in the succession of the omission of two subjects based on what al-Zamakhshari preferred in the prepositional phrase before it. It is said it is related to "determined" mentioned earlier, meaning: "And He determined therein its sustenance for the sake of those seeking it, the needy for it among the consumers." It is said it is related to an omitted element that is a state from "sustenance." All of this does not stand except upon what al-Zajjaj preferred, not what al-Zamakhshari preferred, because the summary—as is known from what preceded—cannot be except after the completion of the two sentences, so it is not permissible for it to be between the second sentence and some of its related components. It is said it is related to "equal," on the basis that it is a state from the pronoun, and the meaning is: equal, prepared for those in need; or related to it upon the reading of the nominative, making it the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: "It—the matter of these creatures and their benefit—is equal, prepared for those among humans who need it." It is as you see.