Tafsir of Fussilat 41:11

(Then He directed Himself to the heaven): That is, He intended it and turned towards it, without this implying an intention to affect anything else. This is derived from the expression: "He directed himself (istawa) to such-and-such a place," meaning he turned towards it and did not turn to anything else.

Al-Raghib mentioned that when al-istiwa is connected with the particle ala (on/over), it carries the meaning of al-istila (mastery/conquest), as in His saying, the Almighty: "The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established (istawa)." However, when it is connected with the particle ila (to/towards), it carries the meaning of terminating at a thing, either by essence or by governance. The verse "Then He directed Himself to the heaven" falls under the latter category. The discourse of the predecessors (al-salaf) regarding al-istiwa is well-known, and we have previously mentioned a portion of it.

The apparent meaning of some scholars' statements suggests that there is an elliptical genitive; that is: "Then He directed Himself to the creation of the heaven."

(And it was smoke): This is a dark matter. Perhaps it refers to the substance from which the heaven was composed. I do not subscribe to the theory of indivisible particles (atoms) due to the strength of the evidence negating them, and no forbidden consequence necessarily follows from that, as is not hidden from the intelligent and fair-minded.

It is said: Before the creation of the heavens and the earth, His Throne—the Almighty—was upon the water. Then God—the Almighty—caused a heat in the water, from which froth and smoke rose. The froth remained on the surface of the water, and God—the Almighty—created dryness in it, from which He created the earth. As for the smoke, it rose and ascended, and from it, God—the Almighty—created the heavens.

It is also said: There was a red hyacinth, and the Almighty gazed at it with the eye of majesty, so it melted and became water, which then frothed, and smoke rose from it, and thus what happened, happened. Regardless of which version is true, this smoke is not derived from the "fire" that is one of the [four] elements, for that fire is a derivative of the earth and was not present at that time, according to one view, as you will know, God willing. Even according to the view of its existence, no one has held that this [smoke] was formed from that fire. The truth, to which no attention should be paid to anything else, is that the sphere of fire which the ancient philosophers claimed, and which many people have agreed with them upon, does not exist, nor is the occurrence of shooting stars dependent upon its existence, as is evident to anyone with a sharp mind.

(And said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion"): That is, [come] with what you have been created with of benefits. The meaning is not the arrival of their essences or their creation, but the arrival of what is within them of the aforementioned [benefits], in the sense of bringing them forth. The command is for the purpose of subjugation (taskhir). It is said that, based on this, the sequence must follow the rendering of the heavens into seven, or the content of the summary of the clauses mentioned after the fa (then); otherwise, the command to "come" in this sense is consequent to the creation of the earth and the heaven.

Some have said: The discourse involves transposition (precedence and postponement), and the original is: "Then He directed Himself to the heaven, and it was smoke, and He ordained them seven heavens... then He said to it and to the earth, 'Come...'" This is more far-fetched than what has been said before, and it contradicts the apparent structure.

Or, the command may refer to bringing them into being and originating them in a specific manner and at a determined time for each of you. Thus, the intent is the arrival of their own essences and their creation. The command here is for the purpose of bringing into existence, provided that the "creating," "rendering," "blessing," and "ordaining" are understood in the sense we narrated from Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim. This would then be an initiation into explaining the manner of creation after having explained the manner of ordination. Perhaps the specification of the explanation regarding what relates to the earth and what is in it is because explaining the Almighty's concern for the affairs of those being addressed, and arranging the foundations of their livelihoods before their creation, is what compels them toward faith and deters them from disbelief and transgression.

The istiwa (direction) was specified with the heaven, even though the command consequent to it is directed at both, as a sufficient reference to the ordination of the earth and the ordination of what is within it. It is as if it were said: "Then it was said to it and to the earth, whose existence and the existence of what is in it had already been ordained, 'Come into being and existence.'" This interpretation is the one presented by the author of al-Irshad and mentioned by others as a possibility.

The command is made an expression of the attachment of His will—the Almighty—to their existence as an actual attachment by way of representation, without there being a commander and a commanded, as was said regarding His saying: "Be." His saying: "(Willingly or by compulsion)" is a representation of the inevitability of the effect of His power upon them and the impossibility of their refusal, not an affirmation of "willingness" and "compulsion" as inherent qualities of them. They are verbal nouns acting as a state (hal), meaning "in a state of being willing or unwilling."

His saying: (They said, "We have come willingly") means: "We are submissive." This is a representation of the perfection of their being affected by the Divine power and their attainment of what they were commanded to do, and a portrayal of their existence—as they are—proceeding according to the requirements of absolute wisdom. For "willingness" is built upon that, and "compulsion" is suggestive of the opposite. It is said: "(Willing - ta'i'in) uses the masculine plural form, despite it being specific to rational beings, in consideration of their being in the position of address and response. There is no ground for the feminine [form] when they are speaking of themselves, because the feminine [in the original Arabic structure] would have been merely grammatical." And His saying...