Tafsir of Az-Zalzala 99:5

The ba in His saying, Exalted is He, bi-anna Rabbaka awha laha (that your Lord has inspired it) is for causation. That is, it speaks because of your Lord’s inspiration to it and His command—glory be to Him—for it to speak. The lam is in the sense of ila (to), meaning "He inspired to it," because it is well-known that wahy (inspiration) is made transitive by ila, as in His saying, "And your Lord inspired to the bee." However, it may be made transitive by lam, as in the statement of al-Ajjaj describing the earth: "He inspired to it (awha laha) the stability, so it became stable." He tied it down with the firm mountains. Perhaps this was chosen to observe the rhyme. It is also permitted that the lam is for causal explanation or benefit, because by the earth speaking of the deeds of the disobedient, it obtains vindication against them, exposing them by mentioning their vile acts, and it is also the one inspired to.

Wahy can be inspiration or it can be a message, such that He—glory be to Him—sends to it a messenger from the angels for that purpose. At-Tabari and a group said that "speaking" is a metaphor or a loose figurative expression for the absolute indication of its state. The inspiration is what it indicates by, and the Mighty and Majestic creates within it states that serve as an indication in place of speech by the tongue, so that one who says, "What is the matter with it?" looks at those states and knows why it was shaken and why it cast out the dead, and that this is what the Prophets, peace be upon them, warned of. And what it knows is its news.

It is also said that the inspiration, on the assumption that the speech is literal, is a metaphor for the creation of a condition through which He—glory be to Him—makes it speak, such as the creation of life and the power of speech and reporting, as you heard earlier. Yahya ibn Salam said: "It will speak of what it brought forth from its burdens." This is witnessed by what is in the Hadith of Ibn Majah in his Sunan: "The earth will say on the Day of Resurrection, 'O Lord, this is what you entrusted to me.'" From Ibn Mas’ud: "It will speak of the establishment of the Hour when a man says, 'What is the matter with it?' So it will inform him that the matter of the world has passed and the matter of the Hereafter has come, and that will be an answer for them when they ask."

Az-Zamakhshari said: "It is permissible for the meaning to be 'It speaks by reporting that your Lord inspired to it its news,' on the basis that its speaking by 'that your Lord inspired to it' is a report of its news, just as you say, 'You advised me with every piece of advice, in that you advised me regarding the religion.' Its news, according to him, is that 'your Lord inspired to it,' and the ba is for abstraction, like the ba in your saying, 'If you meet so-and-so, you will certainly meet in him a man who is the ultimate in knowledge.'"

The apparent meaning would be "it speaks of its news" (in the singular), and likewise in the two viewpoints prior to this, but it was pluralized for emphasis, as indicated by the example. Similar to this is the saying of the poet: "It granted me every wish..." (with an addition).

It is not hidden how remote this is. Abu Hayyan went to extremes in criticizing it, saying: "It is trash (‘afash) which the Quran should be exempt from." By ‘afash, he meant what soils a house, such as sweepings—a word used in that sense by the common people of the Maghreb. It is not as he said. It is also permitted that "that your Lord..." etc., be a substitute (badal) for "its news," as if it were said: "On that day, it will speak that your Lord inspired to it," because you say, "I told him such-and-such," and "I told him of such-and-such." Thus, it is valid to substitute "that your Lord..." for "its news," even though one is in the genitive case and the other is in the accusative, because it takes its place in some usages. This is not prohibited, contrary to Abu Hayyan—like "I sought forgiveness for the great sin" (istaghfartu ad-dhanba al-‘azima), where ad-dhanba is in the accusative and al-‘azima is in the genitive as an adjective for it, based on the saying "I sought forgiveness from the sin (min ad-dhanb)." The substitute is what is intended, so it is in the power of another agent, unlike the adjective. Yes, it is indeed contrary to the apparent meaning.

After all this, what is appropriate is to turn away from the transmitted, especially if it is authentic from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.

A point remains here: they disagreed regarding the likes of "to tell" (haddatha), whether it is transitive to one object or more. Az-Zamakhshari and others, and it is reported from Sibawayh, held the latter view, and it is for them joined to the verbs of the heart, so it takes two objects—like "I told Zayd the news"—or three—like "I told him Amr was standing." Its news, according to this, is the second object, and the first object is omitted, as we have indicated, and it was not mentioned because no purpose is served by its mention, since the purpose is to horrify by the Day on which inanimate objects will speak, regardless of who is being addressed.

Sheikh Ibn al-Hajib said that it is only transitive to one, and what comes after it is there because of the necessity of the absolute object (maf‘ul mutlaq). Thus, "Amr was standing" in the statement "I told Zayd Amr was standing" is accusative because it occupies the position of a verbal noun, not because it is a second or third object. It is not asked: "How is it valid for what is not a verb in meaning—that is, 'Amr was standing'—to be a verbal noun?" It is not a verbal noun in the sense that it is "standing," but in the sense that it is a "specific speech." The way that validated the reporting about the speech when you say "Zayd's speech is Amr is standing" is the same way that validated its position as a verbal noun. Thus, its news is in the position of the object, and the object is omitted for the reason mentioned. In fact, some of them said that if you say "I told him a speech or news," there is no dispute that it is an absolute object. The apparent meaning is that the news in his view is likewise. This was refuted in al-Kashf by the fact that what the Sheikh mentioned is not accepted, for he did not distinguish between the speech (tahdith) and the news (hadith). The first is the absolute object—how could it not be, when it is governed by the ba? You say "I told him the news" (haddathtu-hu al-khabar) and "with the news" (bi-l-khabar). It is known that that which the ba has entered cannot be an absolute object. It might be said that the Sheikh not distinguishing is a matter of prohibition, and how could such a thing be hidden from one like him? But he is of the opinion that the effect of the verbal noun and its object has taken its place in what was mentioned, just as its instrument took its place in the likes of "I struck him with a whip." Perhaps what he established is in other than what the ba has entered.

At-Tibi said: It is possible to say that "to tell" and its sisters are transitive to one object in reality, and making them transitive to three or two is a metaphor or an inclusion of the meaning of "to inform." He found support for this in statements he reported from al-Mufassal and from the author of al-Aqlid. So ponder this. Ibn Mas’ud read it as tunbi’u akhbaruha ("its news will announce"), and Sa’id ibn Jubayr [read it] as tunbi’u (announcing) with the takhfif (lightening).