Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:95

( Indeed, Allah is the cleaver of the grain and the date stone. ) This is the commencement of establishing some of His—Exalted is He—wondrous acts that point to the perfection of His knowledge, His power, His refined craftsmanship, and His wisdom, immediately following the establishment of the proofs of monotheism. In this lies an alerting that the purpose of all rational and transmitted inquiries, and all philosophical objectives, is none other than the knowledge of Allah—Subhanahu—in His essence, His attributes, and His actions.

"The Cleaver" (al-fāliq) means the Originator and Creator, as has been narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—and al-Dahhak. "The grain" (al-ḥabb) is known. "The date stone" (al-nawā) is the plural of nawāt (date pit), as in the Qāmūs and elsewhere; it may be feminine or masculine, and is pluralized as anwā' or nawan, with the nūn vowelled with ḍamma or kasra. The Imam interpreted it as the entity found inside the fruit, which is more general than the date pit and others. It is well-known that when "the stone" (al-nawā) is mentioned absolutely, what is meant is what is in the Qāmūs; if something else is intended, it is qualified, such as "peach stone," "pear stone," and so on.

The root of "cleaving" (al-falq) is splitting. The application of "the Cleaver" to the Creator is in view of the fact that the intellect perceives non-existence as an unbroken darkness with no opening or cleft. Thus, whenever He creates a thing, the mind imagines that He split that non-existence, cleaved it, and brought forth that created being from it. From al-Hasan, Qatadah, and al-Suddī, the meaning is: the splitter of the dry grain and the bringer forth of vegetation from it, and the splitter of the stone and the bringer forth of the palm tree and other trees from it; this is the view of the majority of exegetes, and it is perhaps the most appropriate.

In this is a demonstration of the perfection of power due to the wonders contained within it, the birds of which chirp upon the branches of wisdom and whose rivers overflow in the gardens of generosity. From Mujāhid and Abū Mālik, the meaning of "cleaving" is the split that is in the grains and the stones—that is, that He—Subhanahu—is the Creator of them as such, like your saying: "He narrowed the mouth of the well and widened its bottom." This has been weakened by the fact that it contains no indication of the perfection of power as the former interpretation does.

( He brings the living out of the dead )—that is, He brings forth that which grows, from animals, plants, and trees, out of that which does not grow, such as the sperm-drop, the grain, and the date stone. The sentence is an isti’nāf (commencement/new thought), clarifying what preceded it according to the majority; this is why the conjunction was omitted. It is said: it is a second predicate, and it was not conjoined to signal its independence in demonstrating the greatness of Allah.

( And brings the dead )—such as the sperm-drop and its two counterparts (the grain and the stone)—( out of the living )—such as the animal and its two counterparts. This, according to some, is a conjunction to "The Cleaver" (fāliq), not to "He brings the living" (yukhriju al-ḥayya), etc., because—as you know—this is an explanation of what preceded it, and this [the act of bringing the dead] is not suitable to be an explanation [of the same nature], even if it is valid to conjoin a derived noun to a verb and vice versa.

Ibn al-Munīr chose the view that it is conjoined to "He brings forth" (yukhriju). He said: "Both have appeared frequently in the present tense, and this is evidence that they are twins, coupled together." This makes the categorical view [that it is only an explanation] unlikely. Therefore, the view—and Allah—Exalted is He—knows best—is to say: the original intent was to use the active participle form, following its peers in the verse, but it was shifted from that to the present tense in this description alone, desiring to depict the bringing forth of the living from the dead and to bring it to the mind of the listener; this is only achievable with the present tense, not the active participle or the past tense. Do you not see the saying: ( Do you not see that Allah sent down rain from the sky, so the earth becomes green )—how He shifted from the past tense corresponding to "sent down" for that reason? And his saying: "I met the ghoul... so I take her and strike her," where he shifted to the present tense to depict his bravery and to bring it to the listener's mind—[examples] of which are countless. One only turns to this when the focus is stronger. There is no doubt that bringing the living from the dead is more manifest in power than its opposite; it is also the first of the two states, and consideration begins with it first, then the second category follows it. Thus, the former was worthy of depiction and emphasis in the soul, which is why it is always presented before the second category in mention, according to their order in reality. The conjunction of the noun to the verb was eased and beautified because the active participle is in the meaning of the present tense, and each of them can be measured by the other, so there is no objection to conjoining one to the other.

The Imam said regarding the reason for that difference: "The verbal form indicates that the agent is concerned with the action at every time and occasion, whereas the nominal form does not signify renewal and concern for it hour by hour." This is guided by what Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qāhir mentioned in Dalā’il al-I‘jāz, that His—Subhanahu—saying ( Is there any creator other than Allah who provides for you from the heaven ) mentions provision in the verbal form because it indicates that He—Exalted is He—provides for them bit by bit, hour by hour. His—Mighty and Majestic is He—saying ( And their dog stretching its forelegs at the entrance ) mentions the nominal form to signify remaining in that state. When this is established, it is said: "Since the living is more noble than the dead, it is necessary that the concern with bringing forth the living from the dead be greater than the concern with bringing forth the dead from the living. Thus, the first category was expressed in the verbal form, and the second in the nominal form, alerting that the concern with creating the living from the dead is greater and more perfect than the concern with creating the dead from the living." Then, the conjunction—because the speech contains an increase thereby—does not harm [the claim] that the sentence is an explanation of what preceded it, just as it does not harm the inclusion of the living and the dead in the conjoined sentence for animals and plants.

Regardless, one must posit the generality of the metaphor or combine metaphor and literal meaning, according to the school of those who view its correctness, if we say that "the living" is literal for one who is described with life—a quality that necessitates the validity of perception and power—and "the dead" is literal for one who has been parted from that quality or the like, and that its application to things like vegetation, lush trees, and stones is metaphorical. This is what the Imam's speech implies, for he made what was reported from al-Zajjāj—that the meaning is "He brings forth the lush, soft vegetation from the dry grain, and brings forth the dry grain from the living, growing plant"—of the metaphorical existences, like what is reported from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the meaning is "He brings the believer out of the disbeliever and the disbeliever out of the believer."

( That )—the Capable, the Magnificent in status, the Clear in proof—( is Allah )—the Essence of Necessary Existence, the One solely deserving of worship. ( So how are you deluded? )

( So how are you diverted ) from His worship, and you associate with Him one who has no power over anything? There is no way to do this at all. Al-Ṣāḥib ibn ‘Abbād clung to this as evidence that the action of the servant is not created by Allah—Exalted is He—because if He—Mighty and Majestic is He—had created the delusion in him, it would not befit Him—Exalted is He—to say: ( So how are you deluded? ) We have already provided the answer to that in the most perfect way, so remember it.