Tafsir of Qaf 50:15

(Were We wearied by the first creation?) This is an introductory statement confirming the validity of the Resurrection, the conditions of those who deny it among the destroyed nations having been recounted. 'Iya' (being weary) regarding a matter means to be incapable of it, not to be fatigued by it. Al-Kisa'i said: "You say a'yaytu (I was fatigued) from exhaustion, and ayitu (I was incapable) from a lack of resourcefulness and inability to perform a matter." This is the well-known and clearer distinction, although many do not differentiate between the two.

The interrogative hamza is for denial, and the fa is for linking to a suppressed premise indicated by the intent and commencement of the action. It is as if it were said: "Did We intend the first creation—which is origination—and then fail in it, such that Our inability to perform the Resurrection might be imagined?" The Imam permitted the possibility that the "first creation" refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth, and this is supported by His, the Exalted's, saying: {Have they not seen that Allah, who created the heavens and the earth and was not wearied by their creation...} (Al-Ahqaf: 33). This is further bolstered by His, the Exalted's, subsequent saying: {And indeed We created man...}, as you can see. Al-Hasan narrated that the "first creation" refers to Adam, peace be upon him, but this is not a strong interpretation.

Ibn Abi 'Abla, al-Walid ibn Muslim, al-Qurusi (from Abu Ja'far), al-Simsar (from Shaybah), and Abu Bahr (from Nafi') recited it as afayyina with a doubled ya. This is explained by the dialect of those who assimilate the ya into the ya in the past tense, saying ayya instead of aya and hayya instead of haya. When they assimilated it, they attached the pronoun of the First Person plural (the Majestic) without breaking the assimilation, saying 'ayyina. This is a dialect of some of the tribe of Bakr ibn Wa'il, similar to radadtu becoming rattu and radadna becoming radna, where they do not break the assimilation. According to this dialect, the doubled ya is given a fatha. If na were an accusative pronoun, all Arabs would use assimilation, such as in the phrase raddana Zayd.

(Nay, but they are in confusion concerning a new creation)

This is a conjunction to a suppressed premise indicated by what preceded it. It is as if it were said: "They acknowledge the first [creation] and do not deny Our power over it, so there is no basis for their denial of the second. Nay, but they are in confusion and ambiguity regarding a renewed creation." The term "creation" was left indefinite and described as "new"—rather than saying "the second creation"—to draw attention to the locus of their ambiguity and their habitual dismissal of it by using the word "new," indicating that it is a momentous creation whose affair must be deemed significant, and it has a consequence—what a consequence!

The magnification here does not refer to the creation in its essence—such that it would be said it is easier than the first creation—but rather to that which relates to the status of the obligated person (mukallaf) and what he encounters thereafter, which is the very truth of the matter. Some investigators have said: It was left indefinite because, due to their disbelief in it, it was a momentous affair. It is also permissible that the indefiniteness is for ambiguity, pointing to the fact that it is a creation in a manner unknown to people.

The Great Sheikh—may his secret be sanctified—cited this verse as evidence for the renewal of substances (jawahir), similar to the renewal that al-Ash'ari asserts regarding accidents (a'rad). Thus, according to the Sheikh, neither of them remains for two moments. It is understood from his words—may his secret be sanctified—that this is based upon the doctrine of Oneness (al-wahda) and that He, the Exalted, is in a state every day. By my life, the verse is far removed from what he says.