Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:185

Since the matter of Prophethood is contingent upon [the affirmation of] Divine Oneness, He—glorified be He—mentioned that which serves as evidence for it, saying: "Have they not considered the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth?"

This is formulated as a denial and a rebuke for their neglect of reflection upon the creative signs, following what He had already censured them for. The hamza here is like the hamza in the preceding verse, and the waw is for conjunction with an implied element, as previously noted, or with the sentence negated by "lam."

Al-Malakut is the magnificent sovereignty. The meaning is: Have they lied, and have they not pondered upon what they were reminded of? Have they not observed with contemplation and deduction that which indicates the perfection of the Maker’s power, the unity of the Originator, and the greatness of the Sovereign, so that the truth of what that noble Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—invites them to might become clear to them? It is as if the expression "considering" (nazar) is used here rather than "reflection" (tafakkur), which was used previously, to indicate that the evidence here is clearer than what preceded it.

His saying—glorified and exalted be He—"and whatever Allah has created of things," may be a conjunction to "sovereignty." Its specification to the heavens and the earth is due to the complete manifestation of the greatness of sovereignty within them. It may also be a conjunction to the genitive particle (mudaf ilayhi), thus extending to everything, with the generalization occurring because everything shares in the greatness of sovereignty in reality. "Of things" (min shay’) is an explication for "what" (ma). In this, there is an alert that the indication of Divine Oneness is not limited to the heavens and the earth; rather, every atom of the atoms of the world is a proof of His Oneness. "In everything, there is a sign indicating that He is One." This is a matter agreed upon by the rational.

Indeed, some have made the mode of indication "origination" (huduth), which is the position held by most of the scholastic theologians (mutakallimun). Others have made its mode "contingency" (imkan), which is the position of the philosophers, and some scholastic theologians have preferred it. The first was weighed as more correct by the pole of his age, Sheikh Khalid al-Mujaddidi—may his secret be sanctified—in his annotations on the glosses of Abd al-Hakim on al-Khayali; refer to them.

His saying, "and that perhaps their term has drawn near," is a conjunction to "sovereignty," and thus it is governed by "considered." However, it is not required in its consideration to be for the purpose of deduction, based on what they have said: that the constraint of the conjoined item does not necessarily have to be observed in the conjoined. Discussion on this has already passed. "An" is the lightened form of the heavy one (anna), its noun is the pronoun of state (damir al-sha'n), and its predicate is "perhaps" (asa) along with its agent, which is "that it has." The predicate of the pronoun of state does not require being a sentence, nor does it need interpretation, as the verifiers have stated; thus, there is no sense in arguing about it. The noun for "to be" (yakuna) is also the pronoun of state, and the predicate is "has drawn near their term." They did not make this a case of mutual contention (tanaazu'), because the contention of "to be" and its predicate is not known, not because this contradicts the root (on account of the pronominalization before the mention), for that is necessary when making the noun the pronoun of state, and there is no harm in either. The matter of repetition in what we have mentioned is easy, so one should not commit to what contradicts the convention for it, contrary to Qutb al-Razi. Abu al-Baqa permitted it to be the "ma" of the masdar (masdariyyah), but this was critiqued on the grounds that it only connects to a conjugated verb, and asa is not such.

The meaning is: Have they not considered the nearness of their terms and the expectation of their arrival, so that they might hasten to seek the truth and turn toward that which saves them before the onslaught and suddenness of death and the descent of punishment? Thus, the term meant is the term of their death. It is also permitted that it refers to the Hour, and the attribution to their pronoun is due to their involvement with it from the perspective of their denial of it and their searching regarding it.

His saying—glorified and exalted be He—"Then in what hadith after it will they believe?" is a severance of the possibility of their belief entirely, and a negation of it in its totality after the establishment of the proof and guidance to consideration. The ba is connected to "will they believe," and the pronoun in "after it" refers to the Qur'an, according to what the majority of exegetes have taken, and this is known from the context. "Hadith" here means "speech" (kalam); thus, there is no evidence in the verse for those who claim the origination of the Qur'an. It has been said: Even if we conceded it were evidence, what is meant by the Qur'an is the utterances, and these are originated, according to the well-known view. The meaning is: If they do not believe in the Qur'an, which is the ultimate in clarification, then in what speech will they believe after it?

It is also said: The pronoun refers to the signs, with an implied noun omitted that is understood from "they lied," and the masculine is used in consideration of them being "Qur'an," or by interpreting them as the aforementioned, or by treating the pronoun like a demonstrative noun. The meaning is: Did they lie about the signs and not ponder upon what requires their validation from his conditions—upon him be blessings and peace—and the conditions of the created things? Then in what hadith will they believe? In this, there is some remoteness.

It is also said: It refers to the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—with the estimation of an implied noun also, meaning: After his hadith, will they believe? And he is the most truthful of people. It is also said: The meaning is "after this hadith." It is also said: "After the term," meaning how will they believe after their term has expired? Al-Zamakhshari made this linked to His saying, "and that perhaps," as a connection of causation, and the pronoun refers to the Qur'an. It is as if it were said: Perhaps their term has drawn near, so why do they not hasten to believe in the Qur'an before death? And what are they waiting for after the clarity of the truth? And in what hadith, more rightful than it, do they wish to believe? The estimation made by the author of al-Kashf is not because it must be estimated for the speech to be correct, but to alert to the meaning of procrastination that is contained within "what" (ayya), and that there is nothing after this clear exposition that is to be awaited.