Tafsir of Al-`Ankabut 29:20

Surah Al-Ankabut (29): Verse 20

The preceding verse alluded to intuitive knowledge (al-ʿilm al-ḥissī), which is attained without seeking it.

Therefore, the verse states, "Or have they not seen?" (aw lam yaraw), using an interrogative form to express the improbability of its absence. In this verse, it is said: If this intuitive knowledge is not attained, then reflect upon the regions of the earth (sīrū fī al-arḍ) so that you may attain knowledge through intellectual reasoning (al-ʿilm al-fikrī). This is because human perception operates on different levels: some grasp things without teaching or proof; others only understand through explanation; and some do not understand at all. Thus, the command is: If you are not of the first group, then travel through the earth—meaning, let your intellect travel through the earth and direct your mind toward events external to yourselves—to learn about the origin of creation.

In this verse, there are several issues:

In the first verse, the term used was ru'yah (seeing), while here it is naẓar (looking). What is the wisdom behind this?

We say that intuitive knowledge is more complete than intellectual knowledge, as explained previously. Similarly, ru'yah is more complete than naẓar, because naẓar leads to ru'yah (one says, "I looked and then I saw"). That which leads to something is secondary to the thing itself. Therefore, in the first instance (referring to intuitive knowledge), it was said: "Have you not attained ru'yah? Then look (fanẓurū) in the earth so that ru'yah may be attained for you."

This verse uses the imperative form (command), whereas the first verse used the interrogative form. Why?

If intuitive knowledge (al-ʿilm al-ḥissī) is attained, commanding it is commanding something already present (a redundant command). If it is not attained, it cannot be attained except through seeking (al-ṭalab), because seeking makes the knowledge intellectual (fikrī). Commanding something unattainable would be imposing an unbearable burden (taklīf mā lā yuṭāq). However, intellectual knowledge is within human capacity (maqdūr), so the command to seek it is appropriate.

In the first verse, God's name was explicitly mentioned at the beginning: "How does Allah originate creation?" (kayfa yubdiʾu Allāh). Here, it is omitted at the beginning but explicitly mentioned at the return/repetition: "Then Allah originates..." (thumma Allāhu yunshiʾu).

The wisdom is as follows:

1. In the first verse: Since God's name had not preceded an action to which the origination could be attributed, it was necessary to state: "Or have they not seen how Allah originates creation?" Then, He said, "Then He returns it" (thumma yuʿīduhu), similar to saying, "Zayd struck Amr, then he struck Bakr"—there is no need to repeat Zayd's name, as it is understood from the first mention.
2. In the second verse: The origination was already attributed to God (implicitly through the context of the discussion), so it was sufficient to omit the name at the beginning. This is like saying, "Do you not know how Zayd left? Listen to how he left," without repeating Zayd's name.
3. The explicit mention at the second origination: The name is explicitly mentioned when initiating the second creation (al-inshāʾ a second time) with "Then Allah originates..." even though saying, "Then He originates the second creation" would have sufficed. This is due to a profound wisdom: Once the proof for the possibility of resurrection is established through reflection on the horizons (the external world), mentioning the Name of the One who is designated by that Name, along with His attributes of perfection and majesty, confirms the permissibility of the return. Thus, God is mentioned explicitly, allowing the human mind to grasp His perfect power, comprehensive knowledge, and irresistible will, leading to an acknowledgment of the validity of the initial creation and the possibility of the return.

Why did He not say, "Then Allah returns it" (thumma Allāhu yuʿīduhu)?

For two reasons:

1. In the first verse, God was explicitly mentioned nearby: "How does Allah originate creation?" Only the word creation separated the mention of God from the subsequent action. Here, God was not mentioned at the beginning of this specific command, so He was made explicit.
2. The proof for the possibility of the return is fully established here, as the proofs are comprehensive, encompassing both the horizons and the selves (al-āfāq wa al-anfus), as stated: "We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves." (41:53). The first verse alluded to the internal, psychological proof inherent in the self. This second verse alludes to the proof from the horizons by saying, "Travel through the earth." Since both proofs are complete here, He emphasized it by mentioning His Name. Since the first proof was confirmed by the second proof, He did not need to say, "Then Allah returns it."

In the first verse, the future tense was used: "Or have they not seen how Allah originates..." (kayfa yubdiʾu). Here, the past tense is used: "Then look how He began..." (fanẓurū kayfa badaʾa), not "how He originates" (kayfa yabdaʾu).

The first proof is the psychological proof (al-dalīl al-nafsī), which necessitates intuitive knowledge and always confirms the beginning of creation. Therefore, it is stated: If you do not have knowledge that God always originates creation, then look at the created things so that you may gain knowledge that God did begin creation. The required outcome is achieved by this, as He who began creation will originate the subsequent creation.

Here it says, "Indeed, Allah is over all things competent" (qadīr), while the first verse said, "Indeed, that is easy for Allah" (yasīr). This has two benefits:

1. The first proof (the psychological one) necessitates complete intuitive knowledge. However, when the proof from the horizons is added, comprehensive knowledge is attained. By reflecting on oneself, one knows oneself and one's need for God. By reflecting on the horizons, one knows the need of others for Him and their existence from Him. Thus, one's knowledge is perfected that everything is from God. Therefore, upon completing the mention of both proofs, He says: "Indeed, Allah is over all things competent (qadīr)." When referring to the single proof (the internal one), He said: "Indeed, that [resurrection] is easy for Allah (yasīr)."
2. We established that the first knowledge is more complete, even if the second is more comprehensive. The fact that an action is easy (yasīr) for the doer is a higher degree than it being merely possible (maqdūr) for him. For example, one might say of someone carrying 100 man (a unit of weight) that he is capable of it, but one would say that carrying ten man is easy for him. Therefore, God says: If you do not attain complete knowledge that these matters are easy for God, then travel through the earth so that you may learn that it is possible (maqdūr). The mere possibility is sufficient proof for the permissibility of the return.

"He punishes whom He wills and has mercy upon whom He wills, and to Him you will be returned. And you will not cause failure [to Him] on earth nor in the heaven. And you have not besides Allah any protector or helper."