Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:28

The meaning of the hamza in "How" (kayfa): It is like your saying, "Do you disbelieve in Allah (atakfuruna billah)?" while you possess that which repels disbelief and invites to faith. It is a form of denial and astonishment. Its parallel is your saying, "Do you fly without wings? And how do you fly without wings?" If you say: "Do you fly without wings" is a denial of flight because it is impossible without wings, whereas disbelief is not impossible given the aforementioned death and life, I say: It is presented in the form of the impossible because of the strength of the deterrent against disbelief and the summoner to faith.

If you say: The matter of the hamza is clear—that it is for denying the act and signaling its impossibility in itself, or because of the strength of the deterrent against it—then what do you say about "How" (kayfa) when it is a denial of the state in which their disbelief occurs? I say: The state of a thing is dependent upon its essence. If the existence of the essence is impossible, the existence of the state follows it in impossibility. Thus, denying the state of the disbelievers—because it is a follower and adjunct to the essence of disbelief—is a denial of the essence of disbelief and its stability by way of metonymy (kinaya). This is more powerful for denying disbelief and more eloquent.

Its refinement is: When it is denied that there is any state in which their disbelief could exist—and it is known that no existing thing is devoid of a state or attribute when it exists, and it is impossible for it to exist without some attribute—it becomes a denial of its existence by way of demonstration.

The waw in His saying "And you were dead" (wa-kuntum amwatan): It is for the state (hal). If you say: How can it be a state when it is in the past tense? It is not said "I came and the Prince stood" (ji'tu wa-qama al-amiru), but rather "and he has stood" (wa-qad qama), unless qad is implied. I say: The waw does not enter upon "you were dead" alone, but upon the entire sentence from "you were dead" to "you will be returned." It is as if it were said: "How can you disbelieve in Allah, while your story and state is that you were dead—drops in the loins of your fathers—then He made you alive, then He will cause you to die after this life, then He will bring you to life after death, then He will hold you to account?"

If you say: Part of the story is past and part is future, and neither can be a state unless it is an action present at the time of the existence of that for which it is a state. What is the present thing that acts as the state? I say: It is the knowledge of the story. It is as if it were said: "How can you disbelieve while you are aware of this story, from its beginning to its end?"

If you say: The meaning leads to your saying, "In what state do you disbelieve, while you are in a state of knowing this story?" What is the validity of this? I say: We have mentioned that the meaning of the interrogation in "How" is denial, and that the denial of the state implies the denial of the essence by way of metonymy. It is as if it were said: "How astonishing is your disbelief, given your knowledge of this state of yours!"

If you say: If their knowledge that they were dead and He brought them to life, then will cause them to die, is connected, it is not connected to the second life and the return. I say: They have been empowered to know both through the proofs leading to them, so it is equivalent to the attainment of knowledge. Many of them knew and then acted obstinately.

"Dead" (amwat) is the plural of "dead" (mayyit), like "sayings" (aqwal) in the plural of "saying" (qil). If you say: How are they called "dead" while they were inanimate, when "dead" is only said of that in which life is possible? I say: Rather, it is said of that which lacks life, as in His saying: "A dead land" (Qur'an 25:49), "And a sign for them is the dead earth" (Qur'an 36:33), and "Dead, not alive" (Qur'an 16:21). It is also permissible that it is a metaphor, as they share the lack of soul and sensation.

If you say: What is meant by the second life? I say: It is permissible that it means life in the grave, and "the return" means the resurrection. Or, it may mean the resurrection, and "the return" means the arrival at the recompense.

If you say: Why was the first conjunction with fa (then/immediately) and the subsequent ones with thumma (then/after a delay)? I say: Because the first life followed death without delay, whereas death was delayed after the first life. The second life is likewise delayed after death—if it means resurrection, it is a manifest delay. If it means the life of the grave, from it one gains knowledge of its delay, and the return to the recompense is also delayed after the resurrection.

If you say: From where is the combination of disbelief with the story mentioned by Allah denied? Is it because it contains clear signs that deter them from disbelief, or because of immense blessings that ought to be thanked and not disbelieved? I say: It is possible for both, because what He enumerated are signs, and while being signs, they are among the greatest of blessings.

"For you" (lakum): For your sake and for your benefit in your worldly life and your religion. The worldly benefit is manifest. As for the religious benefit, it is in contemplation and the wonders of creation therein, which point to the All-Powerful, Wise Creator, and the reminder of the Hereafter, its rewards, and its punishments. This is because it contains causes of comfort and pleasure—various foods, drinks, fruits, marriages, vehicles, and beautiful sights—and causes of fear and hardship—various detriments like fires, thunderbolts, beasts, vermin, poisons, sorrows, and terrors.

It has been inferred from His saying "He created for you" that things which can be benefited from, and which do not fall under the category of prohibited things in reason, were created in their origin as absolutely permissible for everyone to consume and benefit from.

If you say: Does the saying of one who claims the meaning is "He created for you the earth and what is in it" have any validity? I say: If he means by "the earth" the lower directions rather than the dust (ghabra'), just as "the heaven" is mentioned and the upper directions are meant, it is permissible. For the dust and what is in it are located in the lower directions.

"All of them" (jami'an): It is in the accusative as a state (hal) from the second relative pronoun.

"He directed Himself" (istawa): It means balance and uprightness. It is said "the stick became straight" (istawa) when it stood and balanced. Then it is said "he directed himself toward it" (istawa ilayhi) like a launched arrow, when he intends it with a straight intention without turning to anything else. From this is borrowed His saying: "Then He directed Himself to the heaven" (thumma istawa ila al-sama'), meaning He intended it with His will and power after creating what is on earth, without intending to create anything else in between. The meaning of "heaven" is the directions of height; it is as if it were said: "Then He directed Himself upward."

The pronoun in "He fashioned them" (fasawwahunna) is an ambiguous pronoun, and "seven heavens" is its explanation, like their saying "He hit him, a man." It is said the pronoun refers to "heaven," and "heaven" is in the sense of a genus. It is also said it is the plural of sama'ah. The Arabic way is the first. The meaning of His fashioning them is the balancing of their creation, perfecting it, and clearing it of crookedness and fissures, or completing their creation.

"And He is All-Knowing of everything": Thus, He created them in a balanced, perfected creation without disparity, along with the creation of what is on earth according to the needs of its inhabitants, their benefits, and their interests.

If you say: What you interpreted as the meaning of "directing Himself to the heaven" contradicts "then" (thumma), as it gives the meaning of delay and respite. I say: "Then" here is for the disparity between the two creations and the superiority of the creation of the heavens over the creation of the earth, not for delay in time, like His saying: "Then he was of those who believed" (Qur'an 90:17). Even if it were for the meaning of delay in time, what you objected to would not follow, because the meaning is that when He intended the heaven, He did not bring into existence anything else in between—that is, in the intervals of intending it.

If you say: Does this not contradict His saying: "And the earth after that He spread out" (Qur'an 79:30)? I say: No, because the mass of the earth was created before the creation of the heaven. As for its spreading out, it is later. It is narrated from al-Hasan that Allah created the earth in the place of Jerusalem like the shape of a millstone, with smoke attached to it. Then He raised the smoke and created the heavens from it, held the millstone in its place, and spread the earth from it. That is His saying: "They were a closed-up mass" (Qur'an 21:30), which is the attachment.