Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:54

{Surah Al-A'raf: 54}

"Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days..."

This is the commencement of the clarification regarding the origin of natural disposition (fitrah), following the clarification regarding the afterlife of the disbelievers. It is also possible that when He, Glory be to Him, mentioned the state of the disbelievers and pointed to their worship of others, He argued against them using His own acts of power and creations, thereby guiding them to the fact that there is no deity worthy of worship but Him. Thus, He said, addressing the general public: "Indeed, your Lord is Allah" — meaning your Creator and Owner — "who created the heavens" — the seven — "and the earth" — along with what is therein, as is indicated by the content of Surat al-Sajdah, the verification of which will come, if Allah wills — "in six days" — meaning in six periods, similar to His saying: "And who turns his back to them on that day" (referring to a period of time), or in the measure of six days, like His saying: "They will have their provision therein, morning and evening" (as it is customary that a "day" is from sunrise to sunset, and the sun did not exist at that time).

Yes, the Throne (al-Arsh), which is the boundary according to the famous opinion, was present at that time, as some verses indicate, and it is not eternal as claimed by those who have strayed from the straight path. However, that does not help in realizing the customary day. A group of scholars held the view of interpreting the "day" as the customary one and assuming an implied word, and they claimed — this being the opinion of Abdullah ibn Salam, Ka'b al-Ahbar, al-Dahhak, and Mujahid, and chosen by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari — that the beginning of creation was on Sunday and that nothing was created on Saturday, taking "Saturday" (al-Sabt) to mean "cutting" (al-qat') because creation was cut off (completed) on that day, and it was named as such because creation was gathered and completed on Friday. Ibn Abi Hatim and others narrated from Ibn Abbas that those days were named in the order of Abjad, Hawwaz, Hutti, Kalmun, Sa'fas, Qarashat. Muhammad ibn Ishaq and others said: The beginning of creation was on Saturday, and it was named Sabt (Saturday) because the creation of the earth was "cut" (finished) on it, as al-Anbari said, or because the matter was "cut" and initiated on it, as it is said.

Evidence for this is what Muslim recorded from the hadith of Abu Hurairah, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) took my hand and said: 'Allah the Exalted created the soil on Saturday, and created the mountains therein on Sunday, and created the trees on Monday, and created the disliked things on Tuesday, and created the light on Wednesday, and created the beasts therein on Thursday, and created Adam after the afternoon (Asr) of Friday, at the end of the creation, in the last hour of the hours of Friday, between the afternoon and the night.'"

It is not hidden that this report contradicts the noble verse; therefore, it is either not authentic, despite being narrated by Muslim, or it is interpreted figuratively. I believe that the first day in which creation occurred is called Sunday, the second is Monday, and so on, and the day in which creation was gathered is Friday—so understand this.

Others held the view of interpreting it linguistically without any implied word, saying: "The measure of each day was a thousand years." This is narrated from Zayd ibn Arqam. In it, His creation of things gradually — as narrated from Ibn Jubayr — is a teaching to the creation of steadfastness and deliberation in affairs, as in the hadith: "Deliberation is from Allah the Exalted, and haste is from Satan." Many have said that in creating them gradually, despite His power to bring them into existence all at once, there is evidence of choice and a consideration for the observant.

It was objected to by saying that it is possible for the Agent to be a necessitating cause, and the existence of the effect being conditioned by factors that occur time after time. Also, that this depends on the proof that the creation of the angels preceded the creation of the heavens and the earth, which is not verified.

The answer is that the first objection is based on negligence regarding His saying "despite the power to bring them into existence at once." Its explanation is that if the Agent is choosing, as the people of the truth say, the existence of the effect depends on the attachment of His will to it; it is then a part of the complete cause, so it is possible for the effect to be delayed from the Agent because the attachment of the will is absent; thus, the eternity of the Agent does not necessitate the eternity of the effect. But if the Agent is a necessitating cause, necessitating by its very essence, then existence overflows onto whatever has achieved its readiness. If the effect is fully ready in its essence, like sulfur in relation to fire, its existence is necessary and its delay is impossible; otherwise, it would necessitate delay from the complete cause. Thus, the eternity of the Agent necessitates the eternity of the effect, and celestial bodies are of this type according to the philosophers. If its readiness depends on a renewed matter, it is impossible to bring it into existence until it occurs, like damp firewood, for it will not burn until it dries; the daily occurrences are of this type according to them. This is why they posited an intermediary realm between the worlds of eternity and occurrence to facilitate the linking of occurrences to eternal principles. In the case where the Agent is a necessitating cause and the existence of the effect is conditioned by successive factors, sudden creation is impossible. Thus, the possibility of the existence of these things — which indicates that there is no dependence on anything else at all — brought about suddenly, along with the gradual creation which necessitates the delay of the effect from the Agent, is incompatible with the necessity that necessitates the impossibility of delay in that case. It necessitates the choice that justifies that delay, as you have known. Furthermore, the gradual bringing into existence of things is an expression of [separate] acts of bringing into existence, each relating to a thing; it indicates the attachment of knowledge, will, and power to each of them in detail, unlike the sudden bringing into existence, which is a single act of bringing into existence relating to the whole, indicating the attachment of what was mentioned to the whole as a whole, in summary. Understand this from the difference between stamping a seal onto paper and writing those words [manually]; in the second case, you imagine it word by word, even letter by letter, and you will it as such, then you place it on the paper, unlike the first case, and this is apparent.

Thus, the observant derive lessons from gradual creation and understand the inclusiveness of His Knowledge, Will, and Power to things in detail, saying: "Exalted is He from whose knowledge not even the weight of an atom in the earth or in the heaven escapes." Furthermore, they said: "We do not do anything unless we conceive it first, then believe that there is a benefit in it, then a passionate state occurs to us, then a psychological inclination which is the will, then the propelling power is sent to the moving power of the limbs towards its realization, and thus that thing comes to be." Each of these matters has a role in the existence of that thing. Then they said: "Just as these matters are necessary for the issuance of voluntary actions in us, they are likewise necessary for the issuance of voluntary actions of the Necessary Existent, from such things that are not impossible for Him." They thus established for Him, the Exalted, knowledge, will, power, and a purpose for His actions. They argued for this based on His being a Choosing Agent. Since gradual creation is indicative of the choice that indicates what was mentioned, it is true that there is a consideration for the observant in it.

The essence of this is that the "observant" means the owners of insight and discernment among the rational. Thus, what was mentioned does not depend on what was said regarding the creation of the angels preceding the earth and heavens. Moreover, those who said the Throne and the Footstool were created before the earth and heavens also say the angels were created before them; indeed, it has been said that some people claimed the creation of a type of angel preceded the Throne and the Footstool, and they called them the Muhaimin (the Dominant ones).

You know that this does not benefit us because the Muhaimin, according to this speaker, have no awareness of heaven or earth; rather, they are absorbed in Him, the Exalted, and that is not verified, as the objector also says. It has been said: If a thing occurs suddenly, it might cross the mind that it happened by coincidence; if it happens bit by bit for the sake of benefit and wisdom, it is more eloquent in power and stronger in indication. It has also been said: Hastening in creation is more eloquent in power, and deliberation is more eloquent in wisdom; so Allah the Exalted wanted to manifest His wisdom in the creation of things through deliberation, just as He manifested His power in the creation of things through "Be" (Kun).

"...Then He rose over the Throne" — which is, according to the famous opinion, the body encompassing all other bodies, and it is the Falakk al-Aflak (the Sphere of Spheres). It was named as such either because of its elevation or by analogy to the king's throne, for it is called an Arsh (throne), from which is His saying: "And he raised his parents upon the throne" (12:100), because affairs and management descend from it. It is used as a metonym for honor, authority, and kingdom; it is said: "So-and-so's throne has fallen," meaning his honor and kingdom have vanished. They cited the verse: "When the Banu Marwan's thrones fall, and they perish as Iyad and Himyar perished." And: "If they kill you, then you have caused their thrones to fall..."

Al-Raghib mentioned that the Throne is something humans do not know except by name, and it is not as the imaginations of the common people go, for if it were like that, it would be a carrier of Him (the Exalted is He above that). And it is not as some people said that it is the highest sphere and the Footstool is the sphere of the stars, and there is doubt in that. People vary in their discussion of this verse and its like; among them are those who interpreted the Throne by the famous meaning and interpreted "rising" (istiwa) as "settling" (istiqrar). This is narrated from al-Kalbi and Muqatil, and al-Baihaqi recorded it in his book Al-Asma' wa al-Sifat with many narrations from a group of the predecessors, all of which he weakened. What is narrated from Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, that he was asked "How did He rise?" and he bowed his head for a long time until he was covered in sweat, then he raised his head and said: "The istiwa is not unknown, the kayf (modality) is not comprehensible, belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is an innovation," then he said to the questioner: "I do not think you are anything but a misguided person," then he ordered him to be removed — this is not a definitive text for this school, because it is possible that his saying "not unknown" means it is established and its establishment is known, not that its meaning is "settling" is not unknown; and from his saying "the modality is not comprehensible," that the mind cannot grasp the modality of anything that is an attribute of Allah the Exalted because He is exalted above that, so the restraint of "how" is paralyzed.

This is supported by what came in another narration from Abdullah ibn Wahb, that Malik was asked about the istiwa, and he bowed his head, was seized by sweat, and said: "The Most Merciful rose over the Throne" as He described Himself; it is not said to Him "how," and "how" is lifted from Him, to the end of what he said. Furthermore, if this is done while negating the [inappropriate] consequences, the matter is easy, but if it is with the affirmation of them — refuge is sought with Allah the Exalted — then it is misguidance, and what misguidance, and ignorance, and what ignorance of the Supreme King!

I know what some of the Gnostics, who were drinkers from the stream of knowledge, said on the tongue of the state of the Throne, directing the address to the Prophet (ﷺ) on the Night of Ascension when his sun (peace and blessings be upon him) shone upon the Higher Assembly, and every light and lamp diminished beside it, as the Imam al-Qastalani reported, alluding to the misguidance of those like the second group. The wording, with deletions, is: When the Prophet (ﷺ) reached the Throne, he held onto its edges, and it called out to him with the tongue of its state: "O Muhammad, you are in the purity of your time, safe from His wrath..." until it said: "O Muhammad, you are the Messenger as a mercy to the worlds, and I must have a share of this mercy, and my share, O my beloved, is that you bear witness to my innocence of what the people of falsehood attributed to me, and the people of arrogance fabricated against me, claiming that I encompass He who has no likeness, and that I surround He who has no modality! O Muhammad, He who has no limit to His Essence and no count to His attributes, how could He be in need of me and carried by me? If 'The Most Merciful' is His name, and 'Istiwa' is His attribute, and His attribute is connected to His Essence, how can it be connected to me or separated from me? O Muhammad, by His Glory, I am not near Him by contact, nor far from Him by separation, nor am I capable of carrying Him! He brought me into existence out of His mercy and grace, and if He had obliterated me, it would have been a truth from Him and justice. O Muhammad, I am the object carried by His power and the work of His wisdom."

The Mu'tazilah and a group of theologians held that the Throne is in its known meaning and istiwa means "conquered" (istawla). They argued for this with the line: "Bishr conquered ('istawa') Iraq without sword or blood being spilled." They specified the Throne by informing of the conquest over it because it is the greatest of creations. This school was refuted by saying that the Arabs do not know istawa to mean istawla; rather, one says "So-and-so conquered such-and-such" if he was not in its kingdom and then conquered it, whereas Allah the Exalted has always been the Owner of all things and the One who conquers them. This was attributed to the Ash'ari school, and Ibn al-Qayyim went to great lengths to refute them, then said: "The 'lam' of the Ash'arites is like the 'nun' of the Jews, and it is not from the upright religion in my view."

Al-Farra' and the Judge chosen the opinion that the meaning is "then He intended the creation of the Throne," but the fact that istiwa is followed by the preposition 'ala (over) makes this unlikely. There is an opinion that the creation of the Throne was after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and it is as you see. Al-Qaffal went to the view that the intention is the penetration of power, the flow of will, and the stability of the kingdom, but he expressed this in a manner that people were accustomed to from their kings, which settled in their hearts. It was said: This is supported by His saying, the Exalted, in Surat Yunus: "Then He rose over the Throne, managing the affair" (10:3), for "managing the affair" acts as an interpretation of His saying "rose over the Throne."

It was mentioned that al-Qaffal interprets the Throne as "kingdom" and says what he says. It was objected that Allah the Exalted has always been stable in His kingdom, rising over it before the creation of the heavens and the earth, and this necessitates that He, the Exalted, was not so — Exalted is Allah far above that. The answer given is that Allah the Exalted was, before the creation of the heavens and the earth, its Owner, but it is not correct to say: "Zayd is satiated except after he ate food." So, if the Throne is interpreted as the "kingdom," it is correct to say that He, the Exalted, only stabilized His kingdom after the creation of the heavens and the earth.

Some make the attribution metaphorical and assume an agent in the speech, meaning: "His command rose," and the omission of the agent does not harm if what it is attributed to stands in its place. According to this, the istiwa is not an attribute of Him, the Exalted, and this is nothing. Whoever interpreted it as "conquest" refers it to the attribute of power.

Al-Baihaqi reported from Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari that Allah the Exalted performed an act in the Throne which He named istiwa, just as He performed in others an act He named provision, blessing, and others of His acts, the Exalted, because "then" (thumma) for delay only occurs in acts. Professor Abu Bakr ibn Fawrak narrated from some that istawa means "ascended" ('ala), and this is not meant by ascension in terms of distance, containment, or being in a place, established therein, but a meaning is intended that is valid to attribute to Him, the Exalted. According to this, it is among the attributes of the Essence, and the word "then" relates to what is risen over, not to the istiwa itself, or it is for the disparity in rank, and this is a solid opinion.

You know that the famous position of the predecessors in such cases is to delegate the meaning thereof to Allah the Exalted. They say: "He rose over the Throne in the way He, the Exalted, meant it, transcendent of settling and containment," and that the interpretation of istiwa as "conquest" is a rejected interpretation, for the one who says it cannot say "like our conquest"; rather, he must say: "It is a conquest befitting Him, the Majestic and Exalted." So, let him say from the beginning: "It is an istiwa befitting Him, the Glorious and Exalted." The masters of the Sufis, may Allah sanctify their secrets, have chosen this, and it is more knowing, safer, and wiser, contrary to some of them. Perhaps we will return to this discussion, if Allah wills.

"He covers the night with the day" — meaning He, the Exalted, covers the day with the night. Since the covering one gathers from the covered in existence, and that is not conceivable here, they said: The meaning is that He clothes it in its place, so the atmosphere becomes dark after it was bright. The metaphor in the attribution is the attribution of the place of the thing to the thing, and its place is the atmosphere, in the sense that it is the place for the light which is its necessary concomitant, not that it is the place for the day itself, for time has no place. It is allowed that there is a metaphor here, in that the covering of the place of the day and its darkening is made as if it were the covering of the day itself, as if He wrapped it with the wrapping of a veil, or he likens His making it disappear by its arrival upon it to the veil of a garment, due to the concomitance. It is also allowed that the meaning is: He covers the night with the day.

The first view is favored because "covering" in the sense of veiling is more appropriate for the night than for the day, and because it necessitates, in the second case, that the night be the second object and the day the first, and Abu Hayyan mentioned that if a verb takes two objects and one of them is the agent in terms of meaning, it must be the first of them according to them, as is necessary in "I owned Zayd [to be] a slave," and the order of presentation is what clarifies it, for it is the agent in meaning, as is necessary in "Moses struck Isa," unlike "I gave Zayd a dirham," for the determination of the first object does not depend on the presentation. The second view is favored because Humayd ibn Qays read "yughshi al-laylu al-nahara" (the night covers the day) with the opening of the ya and the accusative case for "the night" and the nominative for "the day," and it necessitates that the seeker is the day and the night is appended to it, and reconciling the two recitations is better than contradicting them. Also, because His saying: "And a sign for them is the night; We strip from it the day" (36:37) informs us, as al-Marzuqi said, that the night is before the day, for that from which something is stripped must be before what is stripped. Thus, the day is more worthy of the perception. And because His saying: "He seeks it in haste" (7:54) — meaning carried to speed, for fa'il in the sense of maf'ul is more consistent with this view, for this seeking from the day is more apparent. They have said: "The light of the day is what attacks the darkness of the night." Some of them recited: "As if we and the morning light were hastening the darkness, flying like a raven with dark flight feathers." And some of the later ones said: "And as if the east is a door for the darkness, which has no fear of the morning's attack opening it."

The hadith that "covering" is more appropriate for the night is, it is said, admitted if the intention of "covering" is its reality, but that is not the intention; rather, the intention is attachment and reaching, and this is more appropriate for the day, as you have known. The mentioned rule is not without debate; furthermore, it is not unlikely, according to what we have established, that the speech is of the category of "I gave Zayd a dirham." The saying that the meaning of the verse is that He, the Exalted, makes the night more "covered" by the day, meaning whitened by the light of dawn, is based on what is in the Sihah [dictionary] that al-aghsha in horses and others is what has its whole head whitened from among its body, like the arkham (vulture), which is almost not advanced upon. He, the Exalted, mentioned one of the two matters and did not mention both, as in His saying: "He causes the night to enter into the day and causes the day to enter into the night" (22:61), because of the knowledge of the other from the mentioned one, because it points to it, or because the wording allows for it, as it is said.

Some researchers said: Night and day here mean every night and day, and it is a continuous replacement through the succession of likes, so it indicates the changing of each of them by the other in the most concise expression, without affectation or violation of the famous rules of Arabic. The clause "covers" (yughshi), according to what Ibn Jinni said, on the recitation of Humayd, is a circumstantial state from the pronoun in His saying: "Then He rose" (thumma istawa), and the referent is omitted, meaning: He covers the night with the day by His command or by His permission. His saying: "He seeks it in haste" is a substitute for "covers" etc., for emphasis. According to the recitation of the group, it is a circumstantial state from "the night," meaning: The night covers the day, seeking it in haste, and "in haste" (hathithan) is a circumstantial state from the pronoun in "seeks it." Others allowed that the clause be a circumstantial state from "the day" upon assuming the recitation of Humayd as well. Abu al-Baqa' allowed the beginning of a new sentence in the first clause. Some said: It is allowed for "in haste" to be a circumstantial state from the agent, meaning "hastening," or from the object, meaning "hastened," or to be an adjective of an omitted source, meaning "a seeking in haste." This seeking was described as such because the succession of night and day, according to the Imam and others, only happens by the movement of the Great Sphere, which is the fastest of movements. If a human were in his fastest stride, in the amount of lifting his foot and placing it, the sphere moves three thousand miles, which is a thousand leagues. It was objected that if the Great Sphere is the Throne, as they said, its movement is not accepted by the majority of the traditionists; rather, they do not even accept the movement of anything from the rest of the spheres — namely the Footstool and the seven heavens. They even claimed that the stars are in the hands of angels who move them wherever Allah the Exalted wills and however He wills. The Great Sheikh, may his secret be sanctified, said that they run in the spheres as fish swim in the water: "Each in a sphere swimming" (21:33).

He interpreted, in what was reported from him, His saying: "He covers the night with the day" as making it a cover for it, the covering of a man over a woman, and said: He, the Exalted, mentioned the "covering" here and the "insertion" in another verse, and this is the spiritual mating, and he made it pervasive in all existents. If this is true, how true and how subtle is their saying: "The night is pregnant"! The matter of the urge for it is apparent to one who has tasted the honey of intercourse. The result of this "covering," for those who hold it, is what is in this world of minerals, plants, and animals — which are the three offspring — or of accidents in general. Near to this is His saying: "The turning of the morning and the passing of the evening have turned the young old and destroyed the great." You know that there is no effective agent in existence in reality except Allah the Exalted. The reason for His mention of this after mentioning the istiwa — according to what is reported from al-Qaffal — is that He, the Majestic and Exalted, when He informed the servants of His istiwa, He informed them of the continuation of the affairs of the creatures in accordance with His will, and He showed them that in what they witness, so that the observation aligns with the news and doubts are removed from all sides. It is not hidden that this may be a good reason for mentioning that and what follows the mention of istiwa, but as for mentioning it specifically there without the subjugation of the sun and the moon, no.

The author of Al-Kashshaf mentioned, in justifying the choice of the author of Al-Kashshaf here, that the one covering is the day, and in [Surat] al-Ra'd it is the night, and his interpretation of "covering" there is "clothing," and here "attaching," in view of the conclusion—what is understood from it is the reason for prioritizing the "covering" over the "subjugation" coming in this verse, and the reverse in the verse of al-Ra'd, where He said: "And the point in that is that the subjugation of the sun and the moon was mentioned there before in the enumeration of the signs. So, when He finished, He mentioned the insertion of the night into the day to correspond to it, and because it is more apparent in the verse that the sun is subjugated and commanded. And here, He brought it in another style, as a prelude to His saying: "Call upon your Lord" (7:55) — meaning from this power and His signs in your affair. So, the aspect of the wording was prioritized over the basis, and also to reconcile the two recitations." Reflect on this and do not be heedless. It was read as yughashshi with emphasis to indicate repetition.

"And the sun, the moon, and the stars are subjected by His command" — meaning He created them while they are humbled, following His management of them as He wills, not resisting Him, the Majestic and Exalted, as if they are beings that were commanded and thus submitted; so naming that a "command" is by way of analogy and metaphor. It is correct to interpret the "command" as the will, as it has been said—meaning these great bodies and wonderful creations are obedient to His will. Some interpreted the command as the verbal command, and said: He, the Exalted, commanded these bodies to move permanently and continuously in the specific way to where He wills. There is no obstacle to Allah the Exalted giving them perception and understanding of that; some even claimed that they are perceptive in general, and in some reports, there is evidence that some of them have perception other than what was mentioned. The singling out of the sun and the moon by mention, despite their inclusion in the stars, is to show their honor over them due to the additional radiance and light in them, and by their movement in the mansions, the times are known. The sun was prioritized over the moon to maintain correspondence with what preceded—this is among the subtle points—and because it is more sublime than the moon in rank and place, based on what is said that it is in the fourth heaven and the moon is in the first. This is not accepted by the traditionists, like the saying that its light is derived from the light of the sun because of its different shapes in varying ways according to its position from the sun in proximity and distance, along with the eclipse that befalls it, not because of the difference in shapes alone, for that does not necessitate the judgment that the moon's light is derived from the sun definitively; it is possible that half of it is luminous by its essence and half is dark, and it rotates on itself with a movement equal to the movement of its sphere, so when it moves after the new moon slightly, we see it as a crescent, and it increases, so we see it as a full moon, then its dark half tilts bit by bit until it returns to the new moon. In their being "subjected" is evidence that they have no effect by themselves on anything at all.

"All of them" was read by Ibn 'Amir in the nominative case as an inceptive and predicate, and in the accusative as a conjunction to "the heavens" and as a circumstantial state, as we indicated. It is allowed to assume the estimation of "made," and "the sun" as the first object and "subjected" as the second object.

"Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command" — like a postscript to the previous speech, meaning He, the Exalted, is the One who created things, and this includes the heavens and the earth as a primary inclusion, and He is the One who manages them and turns them according to His will, and this includes what was pointed to by His saying: "Subjected by His command." No one else [has that], as the prioritization of the prepositional phrase indicates.

Some interpreted the "command" here also as the will, and others interpreted the command as what is the opposite of the prohibition, and the "creation" as the created one, meaning: To Him, the Exalted, belong the created ones because He created them, and it is His right to command them with what He wills. Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah extracted from this that the speech of Allah, the Exalted, is not created, and said: "Allah the Exalted differentiated between the creation and the command, so whoever gathers them has disbelieved," meaning whoever makes the command, which is His speech, among the things He created has disbelieved, because the created thing only exists by a created thing like itself. So it is in the Tafsir al-Khazin, and it is nothing, as is not hidden. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Sufyan that "creation" is what is below the Throne, and "command" is what is above that. It became common among some to label the realm of the command as the realm of the abstract beings.

"Blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds" — meaning He is sanctified and transcendent above every deficiency, and this includes His transcendence, the Exalted, above any deficiency in creation or in the command as a primary inclusion. In it is a sign that they are according to wisdom and in the ultimate perfection. This is not said of anyone other than Him, the Exalted; rather, it is an attribute special to Him, the Exalted, as in the Qamus. The Imam said: "Blessing (barakah) has two interpretations: one is remaining and stability, and the second is the abundance of excellent effects. If you interpret it as the first, the stable and eternal is Allah the Exalted, and if you interpret it as the second, all goodness and perfections are from Allah the Exalted; so this praise is only befitting to His Presence, the Majestic and Exalted." Al-Zajjaj chose that it is from "blessing" in the sense of abundance of every good, and no imperfect tense, imperative, or active participle has come from it, for example. Al-Baydawi said: The meaning is: He is exalted in oneness and divinity, and magnified in uniqueness and lordship; according to this, it is a conclusion that considered its beginning. Then he verified the verse with what is not free from some disturbance and contradiction to what the predecessors of the nation are upon.