Tafsir of Az-Zukhruf 43:84

"And He is the One who is in the heaven [as] God, and in the earth [as] God."

The two prepositional phrases are connected to ilah (God), as it is an adjective in the sense of ma‘bud (worshipped), derived from alaha (to worship). It is the predicate of a deleted subject—meaning: "He is God." This [deleted subject] refers back to the relative pronoun (alladhi). It was omitted due to the length of the silah (conjunctive clause) and the attachment of the predicate to it, as well as the conjunction upon it.

Many have said: The prepositional phrase is connected to ilah based on the meaning of ma‘budiyyah bi-l-haqq (worship in truth) which it implies, given that this is restricted to the One who is worshipped in truth. This is like the connection of a prepositional phrase to a noun of excellence (or a noun famously associated with an attribute), such as your saying: "He is Hatim in Tayy, Hatim in Taghlib." Based on this, the recitation of ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas‘ud], Ubayy, al-Hakam bin Abi al-‘As, Bilal bin Abi Burdah, Ibn Ya‘mur, Jabir, Ibn Zayd, ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, Abu Shaykh al-Hana’i, Humayd, Ibn Miqsam, and Ibn al-Sumayqa‘—which is: "wa huwa alladhi fi al-sama’i Allahu wa fi al-ardi Allahu"—is explained; the prepositional phrase is connected to the Glorious Name based on the attribute for which He is famous.

Some have considered the meaning of "entitlement to worship," reasoning that actual worship does not necessitate [the existence of the deity]. It is permitted that the prepositional phrase be the silah of the relative pronoun, and ilah be the predicate of a deleted subject as well, provided that the sentence is an explanation of the silah, and that His being—Exalted is He—in the heaven is by way of divinity, not in the sense of physical settlement.

It is preferred that ilah in this interpretation be the predicate of a deleted subject, rather than being a second predicate for the aforementioned subject, or a substitute for the relative pronoun or its pronoun. This is based on the permissibility of substituting an indefinite, non-described noun for a definite noun when it provides a meaning not previously gained, as is the case here; it is permissible and elegant, according to what Abu ‘Ali stated in al-Hujjah, because the clarification here is more complete and significant. Thus, it is preferred, along with the omission it entails. Consequently, there is no alien separator between the two conjoined phrases.

It is not permissible for the prepositional phrase to be a fronted predicate and ilah to be a delayed subject, because that would necessitate the sentence being devoid of a referent and would corrupt the meaning. The verse contains a negation of celestial and terrestrial deities and an affirmation of divinity exclusively to Him—Exalted and Majestic is He—due to the definiteness of both sides of the predication, and the relative pronoun in such a structure is like that which is defined by the definite article.

Because of the concern for both His divinity in the heaven and His divinity on earth, it is said: "wa huwa alladhi fi al-sama’i ilahun wa fi al-ardi ilahun" and it is not said: "He is the One who is in the heaven and on earth [as] God," nor "He is the One who is in the heaven and earth [as] God." Regarding the matter of repetition, it is said that it does not apply here because the rule [of avoiding repetition] is general, like most rules of the Arabic language.

Some of the learned have stated: It is permissible to apply the rule here, as differentiation between two things is more general than it being in essence, attribute, or consideration; and what is intended here is the latter. There is no doubt that the path of worship of the inhabitants of heaven is different from the path of worship of the inhabitants of earth, as testified by the tracing of the reports. If ilah means "worshipped," the meaning of the verse is that He—Exalted is He—is worshipped in heaven in one way and worshipped on earth in another.

If it means "the One who is bewildered regarding," then the bewilderment regarding the inhabitants of heaven is different from the bewilderment regarding the inhabitants of earth. Therefore, their conditions are inevitably different from the conditions of the inhabitants of earth. Among this is the difference in their knowledge; for if the knowledge of the inhabitants of earth is necessary, most of it is based on the senses, and if it is speculative, it is acquired through contemplation. When the path of contemplation and sense perception is blocked, they are unable and bewildered. This is not the case for the inhabitants of heaven, due to their transcendence over acquisition and sensation; thus, their bewilderment is of another kind. Or we may say: Bewilderment in grasping His essence—Exalted is He—and His attributes stems from witnessing the traces of His greatness and the perfection of His power. There is no doubt that these traces in the heaven are greater than the traces on earth. Based on this, it is permissible for ilah to mean "the One who is bewildered regarding," and it would be a metaphor for "Great of Status" by way of mentioning the necessary implication while intending the implicative; the meaning would be that He is of Great Status in the heaven in one way, and of Great Status on earth in another. This is not devoid of some [objections], as is not hidden.

"And He is the All-Wise, the All-Knowing."

This is like the evidence for the negation and the exclusivity mentioned, for he who is not characterized by the perfection of wisdom and knowledge is not worthy of divinity.