Tafsir of Ash-Shura 42:11

(The Originator of the heavens and the earth) is another predicate for "that is" (dhalikum), or a predicate for a deleted subject—meaning: "He is the Originator"—or an attribute of "my Lord," or a substitute for it, while the subject for which "He made for you" is the predicate. Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) recited it in the genitive case, as a substitute for the pronoun in "to Him" or "upon Him," or as an attribute of the Exalted Name in the Almighty’s saying: "To Allah," with the intervening text being a parenthetical sentence between the attribute and the described.

The meaning of Fatir (Originator) has preceded. "Made" means created. "(Of your own selves)" means of your own kind. "(Pairs)" means mates. The fronting of the prepositional phrase before the direct object is for the same reason mentioned more than once. "(And of the cattle pairs)" means: And He created for the cattle, of their own kind, pairs, just as He created for you, of your own selves, pairs. Thus, there is an implied sentence indicated by the context. Or it means: And He created for you, from the cattle, kinds or males and females.

"(He multiplies you therein)" means: He increases you. It is said, "Allah increased the creation" (dhara'a), meaning He scattered and multiplied them. Dhar' and dhar are brothers. "(Therein)" means in what was mentioned of the management, which is that He, Exalted is He, made for people and cattle pairs between whom there is procreation; the increase occurs within this making, as it is the source of it. It is permissible that "in" is for causation. In "(He multiplies you)," the rational addressees were prioritized over the irrational ones; thus, there is one prioritization that encompasses two aspects of prioritization. This is because when the cattle are included in the address to the rational, there is a prioritization of both reason and address together. This prioritization—the prioritization for the sake of address and reason—is among the rules with two causes, and they are here the address and the reason. This is what Jar Allah (Al-Zamakhshari) meant, and there is no harm in it, because the cause is not absolute. Ibn al-Munir claimed that the correct view is that they are two distinct, non-overlapping rules: the first is its coming in the form of the pronoun of the rational, whether addressed or absent; the second is its coming after that in the form of the address. Thus, the first is for the prioritization of reason, and the second for the prioritization of address. This is of no substance and is not needed. The statement of the author of Al-Miftah allows for the consideration of two prioritizations: one, the prioritization of the addressed over the absent; and two, the prioritization of the rational over the irrational. Al-Tibi said that the context rejects this because it would lead to the assumption that the original is "He multiplies you, and He multiplies it (the cattle), and He multiplies you (feminine), and He multiplies it," while the original is only "He multiplies you and He multiplies it." This is because the "kum" in "He multiplies you" is the very same "kum" in "He made for you from yourselves pairs," but here it is in the third person. Therefore, there is only one prioritization in "He multiplies you."

Furthermore, it should not be said that Tadhri'ah (multiplication) is a rule caused by two causes in the verse: the first is making people pairs, and the second is making cattle pairs. It is possible that this is what Jar Allah meant, for the "rule" is the absolute scattering, and its cause is the aggregate. If every part of it is made a cause, then every "scattering" is also a rule; so where is the single rule with the multiple cause? Understand this.

From Ibn Abbas: the meaning of "(He multiplies you therein)" is "He makes for you therein a livelihood by which you live." Similar to this is the statement of Ibn Zayd: "He provides for you therein." The obvious interpretation is that the pronoun refers to the making of pairs from cattle. Mujahid said: "It means He creates you generation after generation and century after century." It is immediately understood from this that the pronoun refers to the "making" understood from "He made for you from your own selves pairs." It is permissible that it is as in the first view, and it is understood from it that Dhar' (scattering/creating) is more specific than Khalq (creating). Ibn Atiyyah explicitly stated: "The word dhara' adds to the word khalq another meaning not present in khalq, which is the succession of generations over the passage of time." Al-Utbi said: "The pronoun in 'therein' refers to the womb because it is in the position of the mentioned." The intent is: He creates you in the wombs of females. In a narration from Ibn Zayd, it is that "He created from the heavens and the earth," which is as you see, and the same applies to what preceded it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

"(There is nothing like unto Him)" is a negation of resemblance from every aspect. Included in that is the negation that there is anything that is His like, matching Him, Exalted is He. This is the way this verse connects to what preceded it. Or, the meaning is: There is nothing like Him in the matters among which is the aforementioned management, so it also connects to what preceded it. The intent of "like Him" is His Self, Exalted is He. So there is no difference in meaning between "there is nothing like His Self" and "there is nothing like unto Him," except that the second is a metonymy containing hyperbole, which is that resemblance is negated from one who has a likeness and attribute, so how could it be negated from Himself? This does not necessitate the existence of a likeness, for the assumption is sufficient for hyperbole. Such is common in the speech of the Arabs, such as the saying of Aws ibn Hajar: "There is nothing like the youth Zuhair in creation that equals him in virtues." And the saying of another: "And the slain, like the trunks of palm trees, are covered by them with a pouring rain." And the saying of another: "Sa'd ibn Zayd, if you see their virtue, there is no one among the people like them." Ibn Qutaybah and others have mentioned that the Arabs place the "like" in the position of the "self," saying: "Your like does not act miserly," meaning "You do not act miserly," by way of metonymy. You have heard its benefit. In Al-Kashf, it is stated that it is a demonstration of the merit of establishing that desired judgment and grounding it. This is for two reasons: First, it is an inclusive assumption that necessitates that; if you say "your like does not act miserly," it indicates that the cause of not being miserly exists, contrary to saying "you do not act miserly." Second, if he is placed among a group who do not act miserly, it is more indicative of the absence of miserliness because he is counted among them.

It is said that "like" means attribute, and "thing" is an expression for it. Al-Raghib mentioned this, then said: "The meaning is: there is nothing like His attribute, a warning that although He, Exalted is He, is described with much of what humans are described with, those attributes are not His in the way they are used for humans." Al-Tabari and others went to the view that "like" is added for emphasis, like the kaf in His saying: "They were yesterday a hope, then became like chaff eaten." Abu Hayyan countered this by saying it is not sound, because "like" (mithl) is a noun, and nouns are not added, unlike the kaf, which is a particle and thus suitable for addition. It was attributed to Al-Zajjaj, Ibn Jinni, and the majority that the kaf is added for emphasis. Ibn al-Munir refuted this by saying that the kaf serves to emphasize the resemblance, not to emphasize the negation; and the negation of absolute resemblance is more eloquent than the negation of emphasized resemblance, so the verse is not like the two hemistichs of the verses. The same is said regarding what was narrated from Al-Tabari and those with him. It was answered that it serves to emphasize the resemblance—whether in negation, it is negation, or in affirmation, it is affirmation. Yes, the first is the correct path.

"Like" (mithl), Al-Raghib said, is the most general of the words placed for resemblance. The "peer" (nidd) is said of what participates in essence; the "likeness" (shibh) is what participates in quality only; the "equal" (musawi) is what participates in quantity only; the "form" (shakl) is what participates in size and area only; and the "like" (mithl) is general to all of that. For this reason, when Allah, the Exalted, wanted to negate resemblance from every aspect, He, Glory be to Him, singled it out for mention.

The Imam Al-Razi mentioned that "the two likes" (al-mithlan) according to the theologians are those in which each performs the role of the other in its reality and essence. He interpreted "the like" in the verse as that: i.e., nothing equals Allah, the Exalted, in the reality of the Self. He said: "It is not valid that the meaning be 'there is nothing like His attributes,' because servants are described as being knowing and powerful, just as Allah, the Exalted, is described as such; and likewise, they are described as being 'known' and 'remembered' while Allah is described as such." He spoke at length in this place, and I have reservations about it.

In the explanation of Jawharat al-Tawhid, know that the early Mu'tazilites, like Al-Jubba'i and his son Abu Hashim, held that resemblance is the participation in the most specific attributes of the self; thus, the resemblance of Zayd to Amr, for example, is their participation in rationality only. The researchers among the Maturidis held that resemblance is participation in the essential attributes, such as animality and rationality for Zayd and Amr.

From the necessity of participation in the essential attribute are two things: first, participation in what is obligatory, permissible, and impossible; second, that each of them can take the place of the other. Although the two likes participate in essential attributes, they must differ in another aspect to realize multiplicity and distinction, so that "resemblance" becomes valid. Al-Ash'ari attributed that it is required for resemblance to be equal in every aspect. He was countered that there is no multiplicity then, so there is no resemblance, and that the linguists are in agreement on the correctness of our saying: "Zayd is like Amr in jurisprudence" if he equals him in it and takes his place, even if he differs in many other traits. In the Hadith: "Wheat for wheat, like for like," meaning equality in measurement, not in weight, number of grains, or their attributes. It is possible to answer that what is meant is equality in the aspect where the resemblance lies, such that if Zayd and Amr participated in jurisprudence and there was equality between them in it such that one could stand in the place of the other, it would be correct to say they are "two likes" in that regard, and otherwise not. Thus, he does not contradict any school with what you see.

Furthermore, He, Exalted is He, has no like in His Self or His attributes, so no self can take the place of His Self, and no attribute can take the place of His attribute. The "attribute" refers to the true, existential attribute. From here, you know what is in the Imam’s saying: "It is not valid that the meaning be 'there is nothing like His attributes' because servants are described as being knowing and powerful," for the meaning is that there is no attribute like His attribute. It is known and evident that servants and their power are not like the Knowledge and Power of Allah, the Exalted; that is, they do not take their place. As for His being "remembered" and the like, that is not among the attributes considered to exist within His Self, as is not hidden.

Jahm ibn Safwan claimed that the intent of this verse is to declare that He is not named by the name "thing," because every "thing" would be a "like of its like." Thus, the Almighty’s saying: "There is nothing like unto Him" means "there is nothing like His like," and that necessitates that He is not named by the name "thing." He did not make "the like" a metonymy for the Self as you heard, nor did he judge the kaf to be added. Even so, and closing one's eyes to what is in his statement, his intent does not support it, for we can make "there is nothing like Him" a negation of the "like" by way of metonymy, but in another way: which is the negation of the "thing" by the negation of its necessary consequence, for the negation of the necessary consequence necessitates the negation of the necessitated. It is like saying: "Zayd's brother has no brother"; the "brother of Zayd" is the necessitated, and "brother" is the necessary consequence, because Zayd's brother must have a brother who is Zayd. So I negated this necessary consequence, and the intent is the negation of its necessitated, meaning "Zayd has no brother," because if he had a brother, that brother would have a brother who is Zayd. So it is negated that there is a "like" for the like of Allah, and the intent is the negation of His "like," Exalted is He, because if He had a like, he would be a "like of his like."

"(And He is the All-Hearing)"—the One who perceives with a perfect perception, not by way of imagination or fantasy, all that is audible, and not by way of the influence of a sense organ or the arrival of air.

"(The All-Seeing)"—the One who perceives with a perfect perception all things seen, or all existents, not by way of imagination or fantasy, and not by way of the influence of a sense organ or the arrival of rays. Hearing and seeing are two attributes other than Knowledge, as is the obvious view, though some reduce them to the attribute of Knowledge. The complete discussion on that is in the discourse. He, Exalted is He, put the negation of the "like" before the affirmation of Hearing and Seeing because it is more important in itself and in view of the context.