Ar-Ra'd (The Thunder): (16) Say, "Who is the Lord..."

Know that when the Almighty established that everyone in the heavens and the earth prostrates to Him (in the sense of submission), He returned to refute the idolaters, saying: {Say, "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?" Say, "Allah."}

Since this answer is one that the one questioned must affirm and acknowledge without denial, He commanded the Prophet (peace be upon him) to be the one to state this answer, indicating that they absolutely do not deny it.

When it was established that He, the Exalted, is the Lord of all beings, He commanded: {Say to them, "Then why have you taken protectors other than Allah?"} These protectors are inanimate objects that possess no power to bring benefit or repel harm to themselves. Since they are incapable of securing benefit for themselves or warding off harm from themselves, it is all the more true that they are incapable of securing benefit for others or repelling harm from others. If they are incapable of that, then worshipping them is sheer absurdity and folly.

After mentioning this clear proof, He indicated that the ignorant of such a proof are like the blind, and the knowledgeable of it are like the seeing. Ignorance of such a proof is like darkness, and knowledge of it is like light. Just as everyone knows by necessity that the blind person is not equal to the seeing person, and darkness is not equal to light, so too does everyone know by necessity that the ignorant of this proof is not equal to the knowledgeable of it.

Hamzah, Al-Kisā’ī, Abū Bakr, and ‘Amr (from ‘Āṣim) recited {يَسْتَوِي} (yastawī - equal) with the yā’ (Y), because it precedes a plural noun. The rest recited it with the tā’ (T), which Abū ‘Ubaydah preferred.

Then, He reinforced this clarification by saying: {Or have they appointed for Him partners who created like His creation, so that the creation seemed alike to them?} Meaning, these things they claim are partners to Allah have no creation resembling Allah's creation such that they could claim they share with Allah in creation, and thus must share with Him in divinity. Rather, these polytheists know by necessity that these idols have never produced any action, nor creation, nor effect. If this is the case, then their judgment that they are partners to Allah in divinity is sheer folly and ignorance.

In this verse, there are several issues:

Know that our scholars used this verse as proof regarding the issue of the creation of actions in several ways:

First: The Mu‘tazilah claimed that living beings create movements and stillnesses similar to the movements and stillnesses that Allah creates. If this were the case, they would have appointed for Allah partners who created like His creation. It is known that Allah mentioned this verse in a context of censure and denial. Therefore, this verse indicates that the servant does not create his own action.

The Judge [Al-Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Jabbār] stated: Even if we say the servant acts and brings about [an event], we do not use the term that he creates. Even if we did use it, we would not say his creation is like Allah's creation, because one of us acts by the power of Allah, and he only acts to bring benefit or repel harm. Allah, the Exalted, is pure from all of that. Thus, even if the servant were considered a creator, his creation would not be like the creation of Allah, the Exalted.

Furthermore, this implication is binding upon the Jabriyyah (fatalists), because they say that the very thing which is Allah's creation is the servant's acquisition and action. This is the essence of polytheism, as the Deity and the servant in the creation of those actions are like two partners where neither has ownership except that the other has a right in it.

Moreover, Allah mentioned this statement as a fault of the disbelievers and a condemnation of their path. If the servant's action were creation [in the absolute sense], this censure would have no benefit, because the disbelievers could argue: If Allah, the Exalted, created this disbelief in us, why does He blame us for it and attribute ignorance and deficiency to us, when it occurred in us not by our action or choice?

The Answer to the First Point: The term creation (khalq) either means bringing something from non-existence to existence, or it means apportionment/determination (taqdīr). In either case, even if the servant is the bringer-about (muḥdith), his action must be contingent/created (ḥādith).

As for the statement: "Even if the servant is a creator, his creation is not like Allah's creation." We say: Creation means bringing into existence, forming, and bringing forth from non-existence to existence. It is known that the movement resulting from the servant's power is a simile (mithāl) for the movement resulting from Allah's power. Thus, one created thing becomes a simile for the second created thing. In this case, it is correct to say that what is created by the servant is a simile for what is created by Allah. Indeed, there is no doubt that there is a difference in all other considerations, but the existence of difference in all aspects does not invalidate the existence of similarity in this aspect, and this degree is sufficient for the argument.

As for the statement: "This is binding on the Jabriyyah who say the servant's action is created by Allah." We say: This is not binding. This verse indicates that the creation of the servant cannot be a simile for the creation of Allah. We do not affirm any creation for the servant at all, so how can this be binding upon us?

As for the statement: "If the servant's action were creation by Allah, the censure of the disbelievers would not be appropriate based on this doctrine." We say: The essence of this argument reverts to the fact that since praise and blame occur, the servant must be independent in action. This is refuted because the Almighty blamed Abū Lahab for his disbelief, even though He knew He would die upon disbelief. We have mentioned that the opposite of what is known is impossible to occur. This is the establishment of this view regarding this verse.

Second: The second way this verse is used as proof is through the statement: {Say, "Allah is the Creator of all things,"} and there is no doubt that the servant's action is a thing (shay’), so its creator must be Allah. Their objection to this is what was previously mentioned.

Third: The third way this verse is used as proof is through the statement: {And He is the One, the Subduer} (Ar-Ra‘d 13:16). It cannot be said that He is One in every sense. Since the preceding mention was about creation (khāliqiyyah), it must mean He is One in creation, and the Subduer of everything besides Him. In that case, it also serves as proof for the correctness of our position.

Jahm [Ibn Safwān] claimed that the name Shay’ (Thing) is not applied to Allah, the Exalted. Know that this dispute is merely about terminology—whether this name applies to Him or not. He claimed this name does not apply to Allah and argued: If He were a thing, He would necessarily be the creator of Himself, based on the verse: {Allah is the Creator of all things}. Since this is impossible, the name Shay’ must not apply to Him.

He argued against the counter-claim that this is a general statement that has exceptions: A general statement that is specified is only appropriate if the exception is lesser and inferior to the rest, such as if one says, "I ate this pomegranate," while some seeds fell out that he did not eat. Here, the Essence of Allah, the Exalted, is the highest and noblest of all beings. How can a general term that encompasses Him be used when the ruling is specified for Him?

The Second Proof: They relied on the verse: {There is nothing like unto Him} (Ash-Shūrā 42:11). The meaning is: "There is nothing like His likeness." It is known that every reality is like its own likeness. Therefore, the Creator, the Exalted, is like His own likeness, yet the Almighty indicated that His likeness is nothing (shay’). This is an explicit statement that He is not named by the term Shay’.

The Third Proof: The verse: {And to Allah belong the Best Names, so invoke Him by them} (Al-A‘rāf 7:180). This verse indicates that it is not permissible to invoke Allah except by the Best Names. The term Shay’ encompasses the most base of beings, so this term cannot suggest a good meaning. Therefore, this term must not be among the Best Names, and thus it is not permissible to invoke Allah by this term.

Our companions [the Ash‘arites/Māturīdites] used the verse: {Say, "What is the greatest testimony?" Say, "Allah is witness between me and you"} (Al-An‘ām 6:19) to affirm the application of this name to Him.

The Opponent’s Reply: He replied that the statement {Say, "What is the greatest testimony?"} is a question left unanswered, and {Say, "Allah is witness between me and you"} is a new, independent statement unrelated to what preceded it.

The Mu‘tazilah used this verse to argue that Allah is Knower by His Essence, not by knowledge, and Powerful by His Essence, not by power.

They argued: If knowledge, power, and life were to exist for Allah, these attributes would either come into existence by Allah's creation or not by His creation. The first is false, as it leads to an infinite regress (tasalsul). The second is false because the verse {Allah is the Creator of all things} encompasses the Essence and the attributes. We ruled that specification applies to Allah's Essence, so the original ruling must remain for everything other than the Essence: that He is the Creator of everything other than His Essence. If Allah had knowledge and power, it would necessitate that He is the creator of them, which is impossible.

Furthermore, they used this verse regarding the creation of the Qur'an. They said: The verse indicates that He is the Creator of all things, and the Qur'an is not Allah Himself, so it must be created and fall under this generality.

The Answer: The most that can be said is that the formulation is general, but we specify it concerning Allah's attributes due to rational proofs.

{He sends down from the sky water, and valleys flow according to their capacity, and the flood carries a rising foam. And from what they heat in the fire to seek adornment or equipment, there is a foam like it. Thus does Allah present the truth and the falsehood. As for the foam, it vanishes into nothingness, but as for what benefits the people, it remains on the earth. Thus does Allah present examples. For those who responded to their Lord is the best [outcome], but those who did not respond to Him—if they had all that is on earth and the like thereof with it, they would [eagerly] offer it for ransom. Those will have the worst reckoning, and their refuge will be Hell, and wretched is the resting place. Is he who knows that what has been revealed to you from your Lord is the truth like one who is blind? Only those who possess intellect remember.} (Ar-Ra‘d 13:17-19)