Al-Baqarah: (29) He it is Who created...

Verse 29

He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth, then turned to the heaven, and fashioned them into seven heavens, and He is the Knower of all things.

This is the second great favor mentioned, encompassing all accountable beings. This arrangement is excellent, as benefiting from the earth and heavens is only possible after life has been granted. Thus, God first mentioned life, then followed it with the mention of the heavens and the earth.

The term {created} (خلق) has already been explained in the verse: {Worship your Lord Who created you...}.

The phrase {for you} (لكم) indicates that what is mentioned after "created" is for our benefit in both worldly and religious matters.

• In this world: To sustain our bodies and strengthen us for acts of obedience.
• In religion: To use these things as evidence and for contemplation.

By saying {all that is in the earth} (ما فى الارض جميعا), all benefits are gathered: those related to animals, plants, minerals, and mountains, as well as various crafts and matters deduced by the intelligent. The Almighty clarified that all this was created so that we might benefit from it, as He says: {And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth...}.

It is as if the Almighty is saying: How can you disbelieve in God when He gave you life after you were dead? How can you disbelieve in God when He created for you all that is in the earth? Or, how can you disbelieve in God's power over resurrection when He revived you after death, and because He created for you all that is in the earth, how can He be incapable of bringing you back?

The Almighty detailed these benefits in other Surahs, such as: {Indeed, We poured down water abundantly} and at the beginning of Surah An'am: {And the cattle He created for you...} (An-Nahl: 5) and so on.

Herein lie several issues:

Issue 1: Divine Purpose (Gharad)

Our scholars (Ashabuna) state that the Almighty does not perform an action for a specific purpose (غرض). If He did, it would imply that He is perfected by that purpose, and one perfected by something external is inherently deficient, which is impossible for God.

• Objection: If it is argued that His action is motivated by a purpose that benefits others, not Himself, we ask: Is it better for that purpose to return to the other party or to return to God?
  • If it is better for it to return to God, then He has benefited from the action, leading to the previously mentioned impossibility.
  • If it is better for it to return to the other party, then achieving that purpose for the other party is not a purpose for God, and thus it does not influence His action.
• Second Argument: Whoever acts for a purpose is incapable of achieving that purpose except through that action, and inability is impossible for God.
• Third Argument: If God acted for a purpose, and that purpose was eternal (قديم), then the action must also be eternal. If the purpose was created (محدث), then the action for that purpose would require another purpose, leading to an infinite regress (تسلسل), which is impossible.
• Fourth Argument: If God acted for a purpose, that purpose would be to look after the interests of the accountable beings. If His agency depended on this, He would not have done what is harmful to them, yet He commanded those He knew would not believe.

They also discussed the Lām (the preposition 'for' or 'in order to') in {created for you all that is in the earth} and in {except to worship Me}. They suggest that since God performs actions that, if done by others, would be for a purpose, God uses the term "purpose" (غرض) due to this similarity.

Issue 2: Universality of Creation for Mankind

The proponents of permissiveness (أهل الإباحة) argue from {created for you all that is in the earth} that God created everything for everyone, meaning no one has a special right to anything. This is weak, because the Almighty matched the general (الكل) with the general (الكل), which implies a correspondence of individual to individual (الفرد بالفرد). Specific designation (التعيين) is derived from separate evidence. Our jurists (may God have mercy on them) used this verse to argue that the default ruling regarding benefits is permissibility, as explained in Usul al-Fiqh.

Issue 3: Eating Earth/Clay

It is argued that this verse implies the prohibition of eating clay, because God created what is in the earth for us, not the earth itself. However, one can argue that what is called "in the earth" includes the earth itself, thus encompassing both locations. Minerals are certainly included, as are veins of the earth and things analogous to them. Furthermore, specifying something does not negate the ruling for what is excluded.

Issue 4: Need and God's Action

{created for you all that is in the earth} implies that God is not in need of anything. If He were, He would have created these things for Himself, not for others.

Herein lie several issues:

Issue 1: The Meaning of Istawa (Turned/Ascended)

In Arabic, Istiwā' can mean to be upright, the opposite of crookedness. Since this is a quality of bodies, God must be exalted above it. Moreover, the verse itself indicates its falsehood if taken literally:

The phrase {then turned} (ثم استوى) implies sequence (tarakhi). If this meant physical elevation in space, that elevation would have existed from the beginning. If it existed from the beginning, it could not have been subsequent to the creation of what is in the earth. Since the verse implies sequence, interpretation (التأويل) is necessary.

The interpretation is that Istiwā' means straightness or rectification. It is said: Istawa al-'ūd (the stick became straight/upright). It is also used metaphorically for direct intention, like an arrow shot straight towards a target without turning aside. By analogy, {then turned to the heaven} means He created the heaven after the earth, without a time gap between them, and without intending anything else after creating the earth.

Issue 2: Reconciliation with Surah Fussilat

The phrase {He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth, then turned to the heaven} is explained by the verse in Surah Fussilat: {Say, "Do you indeed disbelieve in Him who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds. And He placed therein firm mountains above it and blessed it and determined therein its sustenance in four days, [making them] equal for [all] questioners."} (Fussilat: 9-10).

This means the earth was determined/formed in two days, and its sustenance was determined in two other days (totaling four days). This is like saying: "From Kufa to Madinah is twenty days, and to Makkah is thirty days," meaning the total duration encompasses both. Then, He turned to the heaven in two other days, making the total six days, as stated in {created the heavens and the earth in six days}.

Issue 3: Order of Creation (Earth vs. Heaven)

Some atheists argue that this verse proves the earth was created before the heaven, as does the verse in Fussilat: {Do you indeed disbelieve in Him who created the earth in two days... then turned to the heaven}. They also cite Surah An-Nāzi'āt: {Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? He constructed it. He raised high its ceiling and proportioned it. And He darkened its night and brought out its daylight. And the earth, after that, He spread out.} (An-Nāzi'āt: 27-30), which implies the earth was created after the heaven.

Scholars offer several responses:

1. It is possible the earth was created before the heaven, but it was not spread out (دحاها) until after the heaven was created, as spreading out (تدحية) is the act of expansion.
   • Counter-argument: This is problematic for two reasons: First, the earth is a massive body; its creation cannot be separated from its spreading. If spreading came after the heaven, its creation must also have followed the heaven. Second, {created for you all that is in the earth, then turned to the heaven} implies the creation of the earth and everything in it preceded the heaven. But creating things in the earth requires it to be spread out. Thus, this verse implies its spreading preceded the heaven, creating a contradiction.
   • Response to the Counter-argument: The verse {And the earth, after that, He spread out} implies the heaven preceded the earth, but it does not imply the completion of the heaven preceded the earth's creation. If this is the case, the contradiction vanishes.
   • Counter to the Response: The verse {Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? He constructed it. He raised high its ceiling and proportioned it} implies the heaven's creation and proportioning preceded the earth's spreading. Since spreading the earth is inseparable from the earth's substance, the heaven's substance and proportioning preceded the earth's substance, and the question returns.

2. The Correct Answer: The word {then} (ثم) here is not for sequential order but for enumerating blessings. It is like a man saying to another: "Did I not give you great favors, then I elevated your status, then I defended you against your adversaries?" Some things mentioned later might have occurred earlier. The same applies here. (And God knows best.)

Issue 4: The Pronoun in {and fashioned them}

The pronoun in {fashioned them} (فسواهن) is an ambiguous pronoun (ضمير مبهم), and seven heavens (سبع سموات) is its explanation, similar to saying: "My Lord [spoke to] a man." The benefit of this structure is that when the ambiguous term is clarified afterward, it is more magnificent and greater than if it were stated initially. Ambiguity arouses the soul's desire to know, and the subsequent clarification provides satisfaction after that longing.

It is also said the pronoun refers to the heaven (as a genus). Another view is that it is the plural of samā’ah. The most linguistically sound view is the first one. Their fashioning (تسويتهن) means adjusting their creation, clearing them of crookedness and fissures, and completing their formation.

Issue 5: The Number and Arrangement of the Heavens

The Qur'an indicates the existence of seven heavens. The proponents of the science of figures (astronomers/physicists) state that the closest to us is the sphere of the Moon, above it Mercury, then Venus, then the Sun, then Mars, then Jupiter, then Saturn.

They claim this order can only be known through two means:

1. Occultation (Eclipsing): When a lower planet passes between our sight and a higher planet, they appear as one. The obscuring body is distinguished by its dominant color: Mars' redness, Mercury's yellowness, Venus' whiteness, Jupiter's blueness, and Saturn's dullness. The ancients also observed that the Moon eclipses the six planets, Mercury eclipses Venus, and Venus eclipses Mars. This order suggests the Sun is above the Moon because the Moon eclipses it, but it doesn't determine its position relative to the other planets because the Sun is not eclipsed by any of them (as the others vanish when it rises). They offered two paths here:
   • Some claimed to have seen Venus as a spot on the Sun's disk, which is weak, as others claimed the Sun has a spot just as the Moon has an erasure mark.
   • Parallax (Difference in Viewpoint): This is perceptible for the Moon, Mercury, and Venus, but not for Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. For the Sun, it is very slight. Therefore, the Sun must be intermediate between the two groups. This is the view of the majority. However, Al-Biruni, in his Summary of Al-Farghani's Chapters, stated that parallax is only perceptible for the Moon, invalidating these arguments, leaving the Sun's position doubtful.

2. The Nine Spheres: Astronomers claim there are nine spheres. The seven mentioned above are the planetary spheres. The eighth sphere contains the fixed stars. The ninth is the greatest sphere, which completes one rotation daily (approximately). They prove the existence of the eighth sphere by observing that the fixed stars have slow movements, and stars only move by the motion of their sphere. Since the spheres carrying the moving planets move quickly, there must be another body moving slowly to carry the fixed stars. This proof is weak for several reasons:
   • Why couldn't the stars move by themselves without being embedded in another body? This possibility is only refuted by refuting the chosen view, which is extremely difficult.
   • Even if accepted, why couldn't these stars be embedded in the representations (ممثلات) of the moving planets, which are themselves embedded in their carriers? This negates the need for an eighth sphere.
   • Why couldn't that sphere be below the Moon's sphere, beneath the planetary spheres rather than above them? If it is argued that we see the moving planets eclipse the fixed stars, and the eclipsing body must be below the eclipsed one, we reply that the moving planets only eclipse fixed stars near the celestial equator. Fixed stars near the poles are not eclipsed by the moving planets. Thus, it is possible that the fixed stars near the equator are embedded in the eighth sphere (above Saturn), while those near the poles (which cannot be eclipsed by the moving planets) are embedded in another sphere below the Moon's sphere. This possibility cannot be refuted.

Furthermore, even if you prove nine spheres, what proves the absence of a tenth? Observation only proves up to this point, but the absence of proof for something does not prove its non-existence. Some scholars noted that it has not become clear to them whether the sphere of fixed stars is one sphere or multiple nested spheres. This possibility exists because the evidence for its unity is merely that their motions appear similar, implying they are embedded in one sphere. However, both premises are uncertain:

• First Premise Uncertainty: Their motions might appear identical in observation but differ slightly in reality (e.g., one completes a cycle in 36,000 years, the other in 35,999 years). Such a minute difference is imperceptible over decades or centuries.
• Second Premise Uncertainty: The similarity in the magnitude of their motions does not necessitate that they are all embedded in one sphere; they could be in different spheres sharing the same motion magnitude, similar to the epicycles of most planets, which are said to move like the sphere of fixed stars.

I say this possibility is not exclusive to the sphere of fixed stars; perhaps the body moving with the daily motion is not one body but many, either with slightly different motions imperceptible to our lifespan and observation, or with exactly equal motions, yet equality does not necessitate unity.

Some astronomers assert other spheres beyond these nine. Some posit a sphere above the fixed stars and below the greatest sphere, arguing:

1. Observers of the maximum obliquity (الميل الأعظم) found its measure varied. Older observations showed a greater obliquity. This variation implies that the inclination of the two equators (celestial equator and the ecliptic) fluctuates, which is only possible if there is another sphere between the outermost sphere and the sphere of fixed stars, whose poles revolve around the poles of the outermost sphere, causing the poles of the fixed stars' sphere to sometimes incline toward the North and sometimes toward the South.
2. Astronomers have been greatly confused about the Sun's movement, as detailed in astronomy books. Ptolemy reported that Hipparchus was uncertain whether the Sun's returns were equal or unequal, sometimes stating they were unequal. People offered two explanations for this confusion:
   • One view holds that the Sun's apogee moves, causing variations in its motion near the equinoxes due to varying distance from the apogee.
   • The view of the Indians, Chinese, Babylonians, and most ancient Romans, Egyptians, and Syrians is that the cause is the precession and changing inclination of the ecliptic. Hipparchus reportedly held this view.

This confusion alerts us that human intellects cannot grasp these matters; only the knowledge of the Creator encompasses them. Therefore, we must limit ourselves to textual evidence (الدلائل السمعية). If someone asks if the specification of seven heavens negates the existence of more, we reply that specifying a number does not necessarily negate a greater number.

Issue 6: {and He is the Knower of all things}

This indicates that the Almighty could not create the earth and its wonders, nor the heavens and their marvels, unless He knew them, encompassing their particulars and universals. This proves:

1. The Falsity of Philosophers' View: Those who claim God does not know particulars are wrong. The theologians (المتكلمون) proved God's knowledge of particulars by arguing that God creates these bodies with precision and perfection, and every such creator must know what they create. God mentions creation, then follows it with His knowledge, confirming the theologians' argument aligns with the Qur'an.
2. The Falsity of the Mu'tazila's View: The Almighty shows that one who creates something with specific measure and determination must know it in detail, because creation involves specifying a particular measure over others. This specification requires will (إرادة), otherwise, preference occurs without a preferencer (مرجح). Will is conditioned by knowledge. Thus, the creator of a thing must know it in detail. If a servant created his own actions, he would know them in number, quantity, and quality. Since this knowledge is absent, we know he does not create himself.
3. The Mu'tazila argue that when combining this verse with {And above every possessor of knowledge is one who knows} (وفوق كل ذى علم عليم), it shows God knows by His essence. The response is that {And above every possessor of knowledge is one who knows} is general, while {He sent it down with His knowledge} (أنزله بعلمه) is specific. The specific takes precedence over the general.

And God knows best.

Verse 30: {And [mention] when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority [Khalifah]." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we exalt Your praise and sanctify You?" He said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."}