Tafsir of Al-`Ankabut 29:59-60

Surah Al-'Ankabut (The Spider): Verses 59-60

Those who have been patient and upon their Lord rely.

It mentions two matters: patience (ṣabr) and reliance (tawakkul). This is because time exists in the past, present, and future. The past cannot be rectified, and the servant is not commanded regarding it. What remains are the present and the future.

• The appropriate response for the present is patience concerning the harm one endures immediately.
• The appropriate response for the future is reliance concerning what one needs subsequently.

Know that patience and reliance are attributes that are only achieved through knowledge of God and knowledge of what is other than God.

1. Whoever knows what is other than God knows that it is transient, making patience easy, as patience concerning the transient is simple.
2. Whoever knows God knows that He is Everlasting and will bring sustenance. If something is missed, one relies upon the Living, the Everlasting.

The mention of patience and reliance here is appropriate because the preceding statement, "in My servants" (referring to those who worship), was to clarify that there is no impediment to worship, and whoever is harmed in a place should leave it.

Thus, people are divided into two categories:

1. The capable of leaving: They rely upon their Lord, abandoning homelands and separating from brethren.
2. The incapable: They are patient in enduring harm and steadfast in worshipping God Almighty.

And how many a creature there is that does not carry its provision; God provides for it and for you. And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

After mentioning those who are patient and rely upon their Lord, God mentions what aids reliance: clarifying the state of the beasts that store nothing for tomorrow, yet receive their abundant provision every day.

In this verse, there are several issues:

Issue 1: The Pronunciation of Ka'ayyin (وكأين)

There are four linguistic forms for this word:

1. Ka'ayyin (as written).
2. Ka'a'in (on the pattern of rā'in).
3. Kay (on the pattern of ray'in).
4. Kay (on the pattern of da'in).

However, only Ka'ayyin and Ka'a'in (read by Ibn Kathir) are established readings.

Issue 2: The Structure of Ka'ayyin

Ka'ayyin is a compound word formed from the particle of similitude Kāf (ك) and Ayy (أي), which is used like Man (من) or Mā (ما). When compounded, the resulting word takes the meaning of Kam (كم - how many).

It is written with a Nūn (ن) to distinguish the compound form from the non-compound form. The word Kay (كأي) can be used non-compounded, such as in the saying: "I saw a man who is not like any man (lā ka'ayyi rajulin)," where the mudāf ilayh (the possessed noun) is omitted. In this case, Kay is not compounded.

When Kay is compounded (meaning Kam), it is written with the Nūn for distinction, similar to how Ma'adī Yakrib and Ba'labakk are written connectedly for differentiation, and how Thamma (ثمة) is written with a Hā' (ة) to distinguish it from Thamma (ثمت).

Issue 3: Usage of Ka'ayyin vs. Kam

Ka'ayyin (meaning Kam) is rarely used with the preposition Min (من), whereas Kam is frequently used without it. One says Kam rajulin (How many men?) and Kam min rajulin (How many of men?).

This difference stems from the distinction mentioned above: when Kay is non-compounded, it is impermissible to follow it with Min (e.g., one cannot say: "I saw a man who is not like any of the men (lā ka'ayyi min rajulin)." But when the compound form (Ka'ayyin) means Kam, using Min is permissible. This distinction was maintained to differentiate the two usages.

Regarding the phrase "does not carry its provision" (lā taḥmilu rizqahā):

• It is said this means due to its weakness.
• Or, it refers to creatures like lice, fleas, and worms.
• Or, it means it does not store (lā tadkhir).

The statement "God provides for it and for you" (Allāhu yarzuquhā wa iyyākum) is established by analogy (qiyās): there is no doubt that its provision comes only from God, and similarly, He provides for you, so rely upon Him.

If someone argues that God provides for beasts through secondary causes—such as plants in the desert—and the animal seeks them out and grazes—we respond that the proof for God being the ultimate provider rests on three aspects concerning the provision, the recipient, and the combination of both:

1. Regarding the Provision: If God did not create the plants, the animal would have no sustenance.
2. Regarding the Recipient (the animal): Nourishment is not merely swallowing; the ingested matter must adhere to the organs to become bone, flesh, and fat. This only happens through God's wisdom, as He created attractive, adhesive, digestive, expulsive, and other forces within it, all by God's sheer power and will. Thus, He is the Provider.
3. Regarding Both: If God did not guide the animal to its food through scent, it would not be nourished. Have you not seen that some animals do not recognize a type of food until it is placed in their mouths forcefully so they taste it, after which they eat it? For instance, a camel may not recognize fermented feed (khamīr) or barley until it is made to taste it two or three times, then it recognizes and eats it.

If someone argues: How can the analogy hold for humans regarding reliance, when an animal's provision is not threatened if it eats some today and leaves the rest for tomorrow, untouched by anyone? Whereas if a human does not take today, nothing remains for tomorrow. Furthermore, human needs are numerous, requiring various types of clothing and diverse foods, unlike animals. Also, animal sustenance is readily available, while human sustenance requires effort like planting, harvesting, grinding, and baking; if one does not gather it before the need arises, one will not find it when needed.

We respond: We do not say that gathering/storing invalidates reliance. Rather, the farmer or harvester can be reliant, while the one praying (rāki') or prostrating (sājid) can be non-reliant.

• The one who sows relies upon God, believing that if God wills, He can provide sustenance without the crop, and if He wills, He will withhold sustenance from that crop. He acts while his heart is with God—this is true reliance (tawakkul).
• The one who prays while his heart is focused on what is in the hands of Zayd and Amr is not reliant.

As for the claim that human needs are numerous: Human means of acquisition (makāsib) are also numerous. Humans acquire through:

• Their hands (like a tailor or weaver).
• Their feet (like a messenger).
• Their eyes (like a guard).
• Their tongue (like a singer or caller).
• Their intellect (like an engineer or merchant).
• Their knowledge (like a physician or jurist).
• Their physical strength (like a porter or carrier).

Animals have no such means of acquisition. Therefore, the loaf of bread a human needs tomorrow or the day after is unlikely to be withheld by God, given these means of acquisition. Thus, the human is more deserving of reliance (on God to bless these means).

Furthermore, God created humans such that their provision and its means come to them. God made humans the owners of worldly affairs, arranging them to enter their possession whether they wish it or not. Even the offspring of livestock and the fruits of trees enter ownership even if the owner of the blessings and trees does not desire it. When one generation dies, this transfers to another generation by force, whether they wish it or not. This is fundamentally not the case for animals; if their provision does not come to them, it does not arrive. Therefore, if a human relies [on God], they are closer to reason than the reliance of an animal.

Finally, "And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing":

• All-Hearing (Samī') when you seek provision; He hears and responds.
• All-Knowing (Alīm) when you remain silent; your need and the measure of your need are not hidden from Him.

And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon?" they would surely say, "God." So how are they deluded?