Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:101

Meaning: The One who brought them into existence and created them without an instrument, without matter, without time, and without place. This was stated by al-Raghib. Just as it is applied to the active participle (the originator), it is also applied as a passive participle; from this, it is said "a created novelty" (badī‘). Similarly, al-bid‘ (with a kasrah on the ba) is used for both.

It is said: It is an annexation of an adjective (sifat mushabbaha) to the agent for the sake of lightness, after having been in the accusative case, by way of analogy to the active participle, as is well known. That is: "The originator of His heavens and His earth," from bada‘a (to originate), when something is upon a marvelous pattern, a superior form, and an exquisite beauty. Or, it is an annexation to a locative noun (zarf), as in their saying, "So-and-so is thabat al-ghadr," meaning "firm in the ghadr." The ghadr—with a ghayn (with a dot), a dal, and a ra (without dots)—is a place full of stones and fissures. They say this when a man is firm in battle or speech.

The intent of "Originator of the heavens and the earth" is that He, Exalted is He, has no peer in them. The meaning of this, according to some researchers, is that His origination of them has no peer because they are the greatest of manifest created things; thus, the objection that the negation of a peer in them does not necessitate a negation of a peer absolutely does not apply. There is no need for the forced interpretation that it is expressed as a refutation of the polytheists according to their assumption that there exists nothing outside of them. Many have chosen the first interpretation, the meaning of which is that He, the Exalted, is the originator of both the upper and lower realms of the world without matter, an agent in the absolute sense, transcendent and entirely free from being affected or acted upon. A parent is an element of the child, and is affected by the transfer of its matter from itself; how, then, could He have a child?

It is recited as badī‘an in the accusative, as a praise, and in the genitive, as an appositive to the Majestic Name or to the genitive pronoun in subḥānahu (His glory), according to the opinion of those who permit it. Its nominative status in the famous reading is based on three possibilities, as Abu al-Baqa’ said: First, that it is the predicate of an omitted subject. Second, that it is the agent of ta‘ālā (the Exalted), where it is made manifest in a position where it could have been implied, to provide the reason for the ruling, with the locative noun placed between it and the verb for the sake of emphasizing the explanation. Third, that it is the subject, its predicate being His saying: "How can He have a child?"

According to the first two views, it is an independent sentence, introduced like the one before it to explain the impossibility of what they have attributed to Him, Exalted is He, and to establish His transcendence above it. His saying: "And He has no companion (consort)," is a circumstantial clause emphasizing the aforementioned impossibility; for necessarily, a child cannot exist without a mother at all, even if it were possible for it to exist without a father. That is: How and from where could He have a child while He has no companion from whom the child could be?

Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i recited lam yakun (using the masculine verb), and this is permissible—even though the raised noun is feminine—due to the separation between them, as in his saying: A miserable mother has brought forth the Akhyatal, upon the base of her buttocks is a hard knot and a spot.

Ibn Jinni said: Verbs are feminized for the sake of their feminine agent because they function as one word, given that neither can dispense with the other. If they are separated, it is permissible to make the verb masculine; and in the category of kāna, this is easier, because if you were to delete it, what follows would stand independently.

It is said: The name of yakun is the pronoun referring to Him, the Exalted, and the predicate is the locative phrase, while ṣāḥibah is raised because it is the agent, as it relies upon the subject, and the locative phrase is the fronted predicate, and ṣāḥibah is the subject. In this case, it is possible for the name to be the "pronoun of the affair" (ḍamīr al-sha’n), because the sentence is then suitable to act as an explanation for the pronoun—unlike the first case, where, as explained in its place, it is not explained except by an explicit sentence. The objection—that if the core of the explanatory sentence is feminine, the implied pronoun is the "pronoun of the story" (ḍamīr al-qiṣṣah), not the "pronoun of the affair," and the question thus returns—is invalid, as is the lack of necessity, even if some have imagined otherwise.

His saying: "And He created everything," is an initiation (isti’nāf) to verify the impossibility mentioned, or another circumstantial clause confirming it. That is: How could He have a child when He has created everything—all existence, among which is the very thing they call a child? How then can it be imagined that the created thing is a child to its Creator?

It is understood from al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr that whoever claims that God—Exalted is His Majesty—has a child: If he means that He, Exalted is He, brought it into existence by way of origination without a preceding drop of fluid, for example, the refutation is that His creation of the heavens and the earth is likewise; thus, it would necessitate them being His children, which is false by consensus. If he means what is known regarding birth among animals, the refutation is, firstly, that He has no companion, which is a necessary condition in the known manner of birth; and secondly, that obtaining a child by that means is only valid for one who is not capable of creation, bringing into existence, and fashioning all at once. As for Him who is the Creator of all possibilities and is capable of all generated things—when He wills a thing, He says to it "Be," and it is—then it is impossible for Him to bring a person into existence by way of birth. If he means a third concept, it is unimaginable.

"And He is of everything"—that is, of whatever can be known, be it created or not, as indicated by the abandonment of the pronoun in favor of the explicit noun—"All-Knowing." (101) He is excessive in knowledge, eternally and everlastingly, as indicated by the shift to the nominal sentence. Given this, it cannot be otherwise: either the child is eternal or originated. It is not permissible for it to be eternal, because the eternal must be Necessary of Existence by His own essence, and whatever is such is independent of others; thus, it is impossible for it to be a child to another. Therefore, it must be originated. There is no doubt that He, the Exalted, is All-Knowing of everything. So, either He knows that obtaining a child entails perfection or benefit, or He knows that it does not. If the first were true, then no time could be postulated without the motive for creating this child having existed before it, which would necessitate it being eternal, and that is impossible. If the second were true, it must never have been brought into existence at any time.

The Imam—upon him be mercy—established the refutation through this sentence from another angle as well. Some have made this sentence, together with what precedes it, comprise a single aspect of the refutation. The sentence is either circumstantial or an initiation. Some have limited themselves to the latter, saying: It is an initiation confirming the content of the preceding evidence, which is decisive in the falsehood of their heinous statement, which they dared to make without knowledge. The manifest meaning of this is that the verse contains decisive proofs for the falsehood of what the fabricators claimed. As for the Imam’s statement, where he said after establishing the aspects: "If the first and the last were to gather to mention regarding this issue a statement equivalent to it"—meaning in strength and perfection to what the verse indicates—"they would be incapable of it."

Al-Shihab claimed that what is understood from this are persuasive (iqnā‘iyyah) proofs. Perhaps the most appropriate stance is to say that some of it is decisive (qaṭ‘ī) and some is persuasive. Reflect upon this.