Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:30

"And they set up" is a conjunction connected to "they substituted" or to whatever else is conjoined with it, all falling within the scope of the connection and the ruling of astonishment. That is, they established in their belief and judgment "for Allah"—the Unique, the Self-Sufficient Master, who has no equal, the One, the Subjugator—"rivals," meaning peers in naming or in worship.

Al-Raghib said: A nidd (rival) of a thing is its partner in essence, which is a type of similarity, for an "equal" (mithl) is said of any kind of partnership. Thus, every nidd is an equal, but not every equal is a nidd. Perhaps what is relied upon here is what we have indicated.

"(To lead others astray) from His way"—the straight path, which is monotheism. It is said: The requirements of the noble arrangement demand that their ingratitude for the favor of Allah the Exalted be mentioned first, then their disbelief in His Essence (Glory be to Him) by taking rivals, and then their leading their people astray, which leads to their settling into the Abode of Perdition. Perhaps the change in order serves to repeat and intensify the astonishment, signaling that each of these vices is a cause for amazement. Had the arrangement followed the sequence of existence, the astonishment might only have been understood from the whole; there are precedents for this in the Glorious Book.

Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr, and Ruways (on behalf of Ya’qub) read liyudillu (to lead astray) with a fatḥa on the yā’. It is apparent that the lām in both recitations is similar to the lām in the verse: "Then the family of Pharaoh picked him up, that he might become for them an enemy and a cause of grief." This is because, since leading astray or going astray is the outcome of the aforementioned setting up of rivals, it is likened to an intended purpose and a motivating cause, and thus its particle is used for it by way of metaphorical substitution (isti‘āra taba‘iyya). More than one scholar has stated this.

It has been objected that the state of going astray being the result of setting up rivals to Allah is not apparent, for it is either identical to it or a consequence inseparable from it, unless it refers to judging it as such or its persistence. This was countered by the argument that they are polytheists who do not believe it is "going astray," but rather claim it is "guidance"; thus, it is a consequence of their belief in its opposite. Moreover, the "result" intended is that which follows a thing, whether it is a logical consequence or otherwise. There is, however, contemplation regarding this.

"Say" to those astray who are being wondered at: "Enjoy" what you are upon of desires, among which is replacing the favor of Allah with disbelief and causing people to follow in going astray. Making this an object of "enjoyment" is a likeness to known objects of desire, for they take pleasure in these things just as they take pleasure in those. Expressing this as a command, as Al-Zamakhshari said, signals that because they are immersed in what they are upon—knowing nothing else and desiring nothing else—they are "commanded" to do so by a compelling commander they cannot disobey and against whom they possess no authority over themselves: namely, the commander of desire.

Based on this, the statement of the Exalted, "for your destination is the Fire," is the answer to a conditional clause that the discourse relies upon, as indicated by his saying: The meaning is that "if you persist in what you are upon of obeying the command of desire, then your destination is the Fire." It is also permissible for the command to be a metaphor for abandonment and forsaking, and that the "commander" is profoundly displeased. An example of this is when you see a man determined to do something, and in your view, this matter is erroneous and leads to great harm; you exert yourself in advising him and trying to dissuade him from his opinion, but when you see only refusal and persistence, you become indignant and say, "You and your business; do as you wish!" You do not intend the literal command here, but it is as if you are saying, "Since you have refused to accept advice, you are worthy of being told to do as you wish," so that it may become clear to you, once you have acted, the soundness of the advisor's opinion and the corruption of your own.

The author of Al-Kashf said: The two perspectives are both equal in providing a threat, but the manner in which they lead to it differs. The first is like when one of your servants obeys someone whose ways you detest, and you say, "Obey that person!" This is correct; it stems from a detested command and the servant's obedience, or his agreement with something he desires. This latter category is where we currently stand. The second is apparent.

It is apparent from this that the threat in both modes is understood from the imperative form. It is understood from the speech of some of the eminent scholars that the first mode is conditional, while the second is imperative, and what follows it is an explanation for it. Perhaps rigorous examination supports what was decreed by the apparent meaning in Al-Kashf. Many have mentioned that this is like a doctor telling a patient to practice dietary restriction, but he does not: "Eat whatever you want, for your destination is death." For the intent, as the author of Al-Fara’id said, is the threat to cause him to desist and accept what he is being told.

Al-Tayyibi made what was established in the example the intended meaning of Al-Zamakhshari’s statement that "in 'enjoy' there is a signal that because they are immersed..." etc. You know that this is apparent in the second mode, so understand.

Masīr (destination) is a verbal noun from ṣāra (to return), meaning to return. It is the subject (ism) of inna, and "to the Fire" is in the place of the predicate. It should not be said that it is connected to masīr (being derived from ṣāra meaning to transition), and thus taking the preposition ilā—for that invites the argument that the predicate of inna is omitted, and such omission in this structure is rare. The common usage is when the noun is indefinite and the predicate is a prepositional phrase. Al-Hufi permitted this connection, as in his view, the predicate is omitted—meaning, "your destination to the Fire is inevitable or occurring."