Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:38

His saying, Exalted is He: "And there is no creature on earth" is an incipit (isti'naf) statement, brought—as Al-Tabarsi and others have stated—to demonstrate the perfection of His power, Majestic is His Majesty, the excellence of His administration and wisdom, and the all-encompassing nature of His knowledge, Glorified and Exalted is He. Thus, it is like evidence that He, Exalted is He, is capable of sending down [the revelation/the sign], but He does not send it down only to preserve profound wisdoms. It has been said: It is evidence that He, Glorified and Exalted is He, is capable of resurrection and gathering; the first is more appropriate.

The [particle] min (from) is added to specify comprehensiveness (istighraq). A dabbah (creature) is what moves upon the earth among animals, and its origin is from dabba-yadibbu-dabiban, meaning to walk with a close-stepped gait. The prepositional phrase (fi al-ard) is connected to a hidden [predicate], or it is genitive or nominative, acting as an adjective for dabbah. It is described as such to increase the generality, as if it were said: "There is no individual among the individuals of creatures that settles in any region of the earth, upon its face or within its depths." The same applies to the description in His saying, Exalted is He: "nor a bird that flies with its two wings," which also serves to increase the generality; meaning, "nor any individual among the individuals of birds that flies in any region of the sky with its two wings."

It has been said that [the mention of wings] is to exclude the metaphor of speed; for flying has been used for that [speed], as in the saying: "A people who, when evil bares its teeth at them, fly toward it in groups and singly." Likewise, "bird" (ta'ir) is used for deeds and destiny metaphorically, as in His saying, Exalted is He: "And every human being—We have fastened his bird (fate) to his neck." The possibility of metaphor here makes the literal interpretation—as a confirmation of the metaphor—far-fetched, and it should not be considered without evidence.

Some later scholars have chosen the view that the purpose of the description is to portray that strange appearance which indicates the perfection of power and might. It was objected to the two aforementioned views that if it were said, "nor any bird in the sky," it would have been more concise and more evident in expressing those two matters, while also maintaining correspondence between the two clauses by mentioning the upper direction in one and the lower direction in the other. It was countered, as Al-Shihab said, that if it were said, "in the sky flying with its two wings," it would not include most birds, as they do not settle in the sky. Furthermore, the intent of portraiture does not contradict the exclusion of metaphor, as there is no obstacle to intending both together, as is clear.

Since the purpose of mentioning these two things is to demonstrate the perfection of His power, Majestic is His Majesty, by explaining what they recognize and witness of these two species, and the all-encompassing nature of His power and knowledge regarding them, others were not intended by the explanation. Thus, the objection that the likes of sea creatures are excluded from them—and the response that they are included in the first category because "earth" therein means the lower direction—is something that does not deserve attention.

Ibn Abi ‘Ablah recited "nor a bird" (wa la ta'irun) in the nominative, as a conjunction to the place of the prepositional phrase, as if it were said: "There is no creature and no bird..." "...except communities like you"—meaning, distinct groups similar to you in that their conditions are preserved, their affairs are attended to, their interests are guarded, proceeding according to the path of rectitude, and organized within the thread of Divine decrees and Lordly administrations. The plural "communities" (umam) is used in consideration of the meaning of collectivity derived from the generality, as chosen by more than one. This implies the permissibility of saying, "There is no man standing" (la rajulun qa'imun); and the analogy, as has been said, does not forbid it, except that it did not appear except with separation. The Master, the Pillar, stated that the indefinite noun here is carried upon the totality as a totality. Perhaps his intent is that the aforementioned indefinite noun, in terms of informing about it, is carried upon the totality, not that the totality is what is meant by it. Thus, the objection that His saying, Exalted is He, "except communities" refuses that the indefiniteness in what preceded be for individuality—as indicated—is invalid, because the individual is not a group. Likewise, it refuses that it be for generic nature, because the individual is not groups, and this is apparent.

As for what was said—that the type includes species and every species is a community, or that the community is every group in a time—it is refuted by describing the "communities" as "like you," for the address "you" is for individuals of the human species. Therefore, it is appropriate to liken species to species in that they are both preserved in their conditions, not to liken a species to a type, or a group at a time to a type.

Indeed, Al-Sakkaki said in the Miftah: That mentioning "on earth" with "creature" and "flies with its two wings" with "bird" is to clarify that the intent of the word "creature" and the word "bird" is merely the two genera and their confirmation. Upon this, there is no problem with the correctness of the predication, because each of the two genera contains many species, each of which is a community, like the human being. It is as if it were said: "There is no genus of these two genera except that they are communities..." etc. This is like saying, "There is no man among these two men except that he is so-and-so." His intent is that the word "creature" and "bird" carries the meaning of the genus and the unit, so he describes it with an attribute necessary for the genus as such—i.e., without the condition of either one—and the comprehensiveness derived from the particle "min" is with respect to the two genera. By this, the claim of the necessity of interpreting Al-Sakkaki's words and returning them to what Al-Zamakhshari mentioned in this context is repelled. Upon this, the description is not conceived to be beneficial for increasing generality and encompassing, because the genus as such—i.e., without the condition of anything—is one concept, as is evident.

It was also objected to the claim of generality: How can it be valid while the likened-to is necessarily excluded from it? It was answered that the intent is first for the general, and the likened-to is in the status of the excepted, by the evidence of the simile. It is as if it were said: "There is no one among the individuals of these two genera, with their generality, other than you, except they are communities like you." And you may claim the entry of every individual of those addressed by compelling that they have two considerations: a consideration that they are the likened, and a consideration that they are the likened-to. So reflect upon all of that.

"We have not neglected in the Book anything." Tafrit is negligence, and its origin is to be used with fi (in). Here, it is implied to mean "We have not overlooked or abandoned." Thus, "anything" (min shay'in) is in the position of a direct object, and min is redundant for comprehensiveness (istighraq). It is far-fetched to make it partitive—i.e., "We have not neglected in the Book a part of something"—even if some permitted it. The intent of "the Book" is the Quran, and Al-Balkhi and a group have chosen this, for everything needed for the affairs of religion and this world—and even other than that—is mentioned therein, whether in detail or in summary. From Al-Shafi‘i, upon him be mercy: "There does not descend upon anyone a situation in religion except that there is in the Book of Allah Most High the guidance regarding it."

Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud, may Allah Most High be pleased with him, that he said: "Allah Most High has cursed the tattooers, the tattooed, the pluckers of hair, and those who file teeth for beauty, the changers of the creation of Allah Most High." A woman asked him about that, and he said: "Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, cursed? And it is in the Book of Allah Most High." She said to him: "I have read what is between the two boards (the Quran), and I did not find in it what you say." He said: "If you had read it, you would have found it. Have you not read: 'And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it'?" She said: "Yes." He said: "For he, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has forbidden it."

Al-Shafi‘i, may Allah have mercy on him, said once in Mecca: "Ask me about whatever you wish, and I will inform you about it from the Book of Allah Most High." It was said to him: "What do you say regarding a pilgrim in the state of Ihram who kills a hornet?" He answered that he should kill it, and he used evidence similar to the reasoning of Ibn Mas‘ud, may Allah be pleased with him.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from him that he said: "Every science was revealed in this Quran, and everything was explained to us therein, but our knowledge falls short of what was explained to us in the Quran." Abu al-Shaykh recorded in Kitab al-‘Azama from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "If Allah Most High had overlooked anything, He would have overlooked the particle, the mustard seed, and the mosquito." Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, said: "If I lost the hobbling rope of a camel, I would find it in the Book of Allah Most High."

Al-Mursi said: "The Quran gathered the sciences of the first and the last, such that no one encompassed them with true knowledge except the One who spoke it, then the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, except for what Allah Most High reserved for Himself." I have heard from some of them—and the responsibility remains with them—that the Great Sheikh, Muhyiddin ibn Arabi, may Allah Most High sanctify his secret, fell one day from his donkey and his leg was bruised. They came to carry him, but he said: "Wait for me." They waited a little, then he permitted them, and they carried him. It was said to him regarding that, and he said: "I consulted the Book of Allah Most High and I found in it the news of this incident; it was mentioned in Al-Fatiha." This is a matter that our intellects do not reach. Similar to it is the extraction by some of them—also from Al-Fatiha—of the names of the Ottoman Sultans, their conditions, and the duration of their reign to whatever time Allah Most High wills. And there is no wonder in this, for it is the Mother of the Book, and it brings forth every wondrous matter.

Based on this, there is no need to say that "anything" is specified to what is needed of the evidences of monotheism and legal obligations. Abu al-Baqa' said: "Anything" (shay') here is in the position of the verbal noun (masdar), i.e., "We have not neglected [any neglect] in the Book." It is not permissible for it to be a direct object, because farratna (we neglected) does not take a direct object on its own, but rather through a preposition. It was connected with fi to "the Book," so it is not connected with another preposition. Many followed him in this, and they considered what is understood from the Qamus regarding the transitivity of this verb on its own—where he said: farrata al-shay'a (he neglected the thing) and farrata fihi (he was negligent in it)—as his own unique view in contrast to those who have longer reach than him. Furthermore, it is possible that the transitivity mentioned therein is not primary, but metaphorical, or by way of the inclusion (tadammun) previously indicated.

Based on this, there remains no argument, as Abu al-Baqa' said, for those who thought that the Book contains the mention of everything. The speech in that case is similar to His saying, Exalted is He: "They will not harm you at all" (shay'an)—i.e., any harm. It was objected to him that it is not as he mentioned, because when the negation controls the verbal noun, it is negated in the manner of generality, and it necessarily entails the negation of all types of the verbal noun, which implies the negation of all its individuals. But this is nothing, because he intends that the meaning in that case is that all types of negligence are negated from the Quran, which is something beyond doubt, and it does not necessitate that everything must be mentioned in it, as it necessitated in the other view. In any case, the sentence is parenthetical, confirming the content of what preceded, for among the things is that He, Exalted is He, is watchful of the interests of all His creations as is fitting.

From Al-Hasan and Qatada: The intent by "the Book" is the Book that is with Allah Most High, which contains everything that was and will be, and it is the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz). The intent of the parenthetical statement then is to indicate that the conditions of the communities are exhausted there, not limited to this brief amount. From Abu Muslim: The intent is the term/appointed time, i.e., "There is no thing except that We have made for it an appointed time which it will reach." Its remoteness is not hidden.

‘Alqama recited "Ma farratna" (ma faratna) with lightening [of the ra]; it and the stressed version have the same meaning. Abu al-‘Abbas said: The meaning of the lightened faratna is "we delayed," as they said: "Allah Most High delayed (farata) the illness from you," meaning He removed it.

"Then unto their Lord they shall be gathered."

The pronoun refers to the communities absolutely, and the plural form is for dominance (taghlib), meaning: unto the Possessor of their affairs—not unto anyone else—they shall be gathered on the Day of Resurrection, so He will recompense them and provide justice for some of them against others, to the extent that He, Glorified and Exalted is He, will reach in His justice that He will take retribution for the hornless one from the horned one, as it came in a sound Hadith narrated by the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Abu al-Shaykh recorded from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that the gathering of animals is their death. His intent, may Allah be pleased with him, according to what has been said, is that His saying, Glorified and Exalted is He, "unto their Lord they shall be gathered" is a whole borrowed by way of metaphor for death, as stated in the Hadith: "Whoever dies, his resurrection has taken place." Thus, the objection that "gathering" is a resurrection from another place does not apply to him, and connecting it with "unto" is a specification that death was not meant by it, even though in death there is also a transition from the world to the Hereafter. Indeed, what the group mentioned is more in accord with the context of terrifying the situation and making the matter grave.

This is in Risalat al-Ma‘ad by Abu ‘Ali: Those who acknowledge the Sharia among the reincarnationists (Tanasukh) said: This verse is evidence for it, because He, Exalted is He, said: "And there is no creature..." etc. It contains the judgment that non-rational animals are like us, yet they are not like us in act (fi‘l). Thus, it is determined that they are like us in potentiality (quwwa), by the necessity of the truth of this judgment and the lack of an intermediary between act and potentiality. In that case, it is necessary to say the human soul incarnates into something of those animals, and this is the reincarnation required.

It is not hidden that it is corrupt evidence for a corrupt school of thought. Some people have made it evidence that all animals possess rational souls just as individuals of the human species do. To this, the Sufis and some Islamic philosophers have inclined. Al-Sha‘rani mentioned in al-Jawahir wa al-Durar evidence for this other than what was mentioned, among which is that when the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, migrated and the Ansar offered to take the bridle of his camel, he, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Leave her, for she is commanded." The way of reasoning by this is that he, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, informed that the camel is commanded, and the command is not understood except by one who has a rational soul. If it is established that the camel has such a soul, it is established for others, for there is no one who says there is a difference.

Among it is what is witnessed in bees and their craft of wax honeycombs, spiders and their guile for hunting flies, and ants and their storing of food in a way that what they stored does not spoil. Some also offered as evidence for this the ant that spoke to Solomon, peace be upon him, with what Allah Most High related to us from it, which none but those who possess knowledge could be guided to. And the sheep’s fear of a wolf it had not seen act before—for that cannot be except from reasoning, and that is the affair of those with rational souls. The lion’s refraining from devouring its trainer, for example—that is evidence of belief in benefit and knowledge of good, and it is the affair of those with souls.

More strange than this is the claim of the Sufis—and Al-Sha‘rani reported it from his Sheikh ‘Ali al-Khawwas, may Allah Most High sanctify his secret—that animals are addressed and obligated by Allah Most High, from where the veiled ones do not perceive. Then he said: "And it is supported by His saying, Exalted is He: 'And there is no community but a warner has passed within it,' where He, Glorified is He, mentioned the community and the warner, and they [animals] are among the communities." And he reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that he used to say: "Everything in the communities is within us, even that there is among them an Ibn Abbas like me." He mentioned in al-Ajwiba al-Mardiyya that there are prophets among them. In al-Jawahir, it is permissible for the warner to be from themselves or to be outside them, of their own genus.

His Sheikh narrated from some of them who said: That Allah’s likening of those who went astray among His servants to cattle in His saying, Glorified and Exalted is He, "they are only like cattle," is not for a deficiency in them, but it is to explain the limit of their rank in knowledge of Allah Most High, such that they became bewildered in Him. So the simile is in reality a result of bewilderment, not in the object of bewilderment. For there is no one more bewildered than the scholars of Allah Most High. The highest thing the scholars reach regarding their Lord, Glorified and Exalted is He, is the beginning of the beasts who did not transition from it—meaning from their origin—even if they were transitioned from His affairs by the transitioning of Divine affairs, because they do not remain upon a state. Therefore, those whom Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, described from among these people were "more astray in path than cattle," because they want to exit from the bewilderment by way of their thought and contemplation, and that is not possible for them. The beasts knew that and stopped at it and did not seek to exit from it, and that is due to their intense knowledge of Allah Most High.

Al-Shihab narrated from Ibn al-Munir that whoever goes to the view that beasts and insects are obligated and have messengers from their own genus, he is among the heretics who are not relied upon, like Al-Jahiz and others. Many jurists have ruled upon the disbelief of the one who says that. The recompense that will be on the Day of Resurrection for animals, according to them, is not a recompense of obligation, whereas some have gone to the view that animals will not be gathered on the Day of Resurrection, and they interpreted the apparent texts indicating that, and what was narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, has no basis.

The similarity in the verse does not indicate anything of what was mentioned. The strangest of the strange, according to the literalist Sufis, may Allah sanctify their secrets, is that they made everything in existence alive and perceiving; it understands address and suffers as the animal suffers, and the animal does not exceed the inanimate except in desire. They rely for that upon witnessing (shuhud), and perhaps they use as evidence His saying, Glorified and Exalted is He: "And there is not a thing except that it glorifies Him with His praise, but you do not understand their glorification," and similar verses and reports.

What the majority of scholars have gone to is that the glorification is by state, not by speech. Similar to that is: "My camel complained to me of the length of the nocturnal journey," and "The basin filled up and said, 'It is enough for me'." What issues from some inanimate objects by way of glorification—like the glorification of pebbles in his noble palm, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—is only from the creation of perception at that moment. And what is witnessed of the wondrous crafts of some animals is not—as the leading Sheikh (Avicenna) said—what issues from deduction and analogy, but from inspiration and subjugation. Therefore, it does not differ or vary. The objection with celestial movement does not apply based on our principles. The lion’s not devouring its trainer is not from belief, but there is another psychic state: that every animal naturally loves what gives it pleasure, and the person who feeds it is beloved to it, so that becomes a barrier to devouring it. Perhaps this accident occurs from Divine inspiration, like the love of every animal for its young. Upon this style, the fear, for example, that overcomes some animals is explained.

They have prolonged the speech in this place, and I do not see an obstacle to saying that animals have rational souls, and they vary in perception according to their variation in the individuals of humans. They, despite that, however they may be, do not reach in their perception and conduct the end that the human reaches. The evidences for this are many, and there is nothing contrary to them that is definitive and must be interpreted for its sake. More than one has stated clearly that they know their Lord, Majestic is His Majesty. As for that they have messengers of their own genus, I do not say it, nor do I issue a fatwa for the disbelief of one who says it. As for that inanimate objects are alive and perceiving, it is a matter beyond the stage of my intellect. And Allah Most High is capable of all things, and He is the Knowing, the Acquainted.