Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:35

(And those who associated partners [with Allah] said: "If Allah had willed, we would not have worshipped anything other than Him...")

This follows His saying, Exalted is He: (Do they await...). Do you not see how He concluded the final disputes in Surah Al-An'am in a similar way, in His saying: (Those who associated partners will say), and likewise in Surah Az-Zukhruf? You will not find them clinging to [the concept of] the divine will except when their argument is defeated. (And they said: "If our Lord had willed, we would not have worshipped [others]..."). It is sufficient to overturn their argument as indicated by His saying: (Say: "To Allah belongs the definitive argument").

In Irshad al-'Aql as-Salim, it is stated that this verse is an exposition of another mode of the disbelief of the people of Makkah; they are the intended ones, and the shift from the pronoun to the noun is to rebuke them for what is contained within the relative clause (al-sillah), censuring them for it from the outset. The meaning is: "If Allah the Exalted had willed the non-worship of anything other than Him, as you say, we would not have worshipped that."

(Neither we nor our forefathers) — whom we follow in our religion — (nor would we have forbidden anything other than Him) — such as the Sa'ibah, the Bahirah, and others. The first "min" (from/other than) is bayaniyyah (explanatory), the second is redundant to emphasize totality, and likewise the third. (And we) is to emphasize the pronoun in (we worshipped), not to justify the conjunction due to the intervening separation, although it does beautify it.

Some have explicitly stated that the implied object of "willed" is "the non-existence of worship." It seems more apparent to include with them the "non-prohibition." This implication has been objected to, arguing that non-existence does not require a "will," as indicated by the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whatever Allah wills occurs, and whatever He does not will, does not occur." He did not say: "Whatever Allah wills occurs, and whatever He wills not to be, does not occur." Rather, the mere absence of the will to exist is sufficient for it. This is the meaning of their saying: "The cause of non-existence is the absence of the cause of existence." Thus, it is more appropriate to estimate the object as something existential, such as monotheism, the declaring of things as lawful, or the compliance with what I (the Messenger) have brought. The matter in this is simple.

The specification of shirk (associating partners) and the prohibition [of things] for negation is because these are the greatest and most well-known of their practices. Their purpose in this, as some researchers have said, is to belie the Messenger (peace be upon him) and attack the mission of the messengership entirely. The outcome of their argument is that what Allah wills must happen, and what He does not will is impossible. Therefore, had He willed that we should worship Him alone, associate no partners with Him, declare lawful what He has declared lawful, and not forbid what we have forbidden—as the messengers claim and convey from Him—then the matter would have been as they claimed: monotheism, the negation of shirk, the declaring of things lawful, and not forbidding anything. Since it was not so, it is proven that He did not will any of that; rather, He willed what we are upon. Thus, it is established that what the Messengers (peace be upon them) say is of their own invention.

Allah the Exalted rejected this, saying: (Likewise did those before them)—meaning, like that heinous act—(those from before them) of the nations, meaning they associated partners with Allah and prohibited what He did not prohibit, and they disputed with their messengers with falsehood to defeat the truth. (Are the messengers [charged] with anything except the clear notification?)

(Are the messengers charged with anything except the clear notification?) That is, their duty is only the notification of the Message, which clarifies the path of truth and demonstrates the rulings of revelation. Among these rulings is the necessity of His will being linked to the guidance of the one who directs his power and choice toward acquiring the truth, according to His saying: (And those who strive for Us—We will surely guide them to Our ways).

As for compelling them to do so and executing their [the disbelievers'] claims upon them, whether they willed it or refused, as is the requirement of their own reasoning, that is not among the duties of the messengers, nor is it part of the wisdom around which the sphere of obligations revolves, such that the lack of its manifestation could be used to argue against the truthfulness of the messengers or the lack of Allah’s will regarding it. For those acts which entail reward and punishment, it is necessary for His will to be linked to their occurrence that the individuals initiate them through their own volition, directing their partial choice toward their attainment; otherwise, reward and punishment would be by coercion. The "fa" (in fahal) here is for causality, as if it were said: "Just as their predecessors did, so they did, and that is false." The state of the Messengers (peace be upon them) is only the delivery of commands and prohibitions, not the forced realization of their content.

It seems to me that you (the author) have not absolved yourself of over-burdening [the text], and this contains a refutation of Az-Zamakhshari. He adopted an excessive stance in this place and turned from the path of guidance into a pitfall of misguidance. He stated that these polytheists did what they did of evil deeds and then attributed their actions to Allah, saying: "If Allah had willed..." and so on. This is the very doctrine of the Mujbirah (Determinists). He said: "Likewise did their predecessors, and when they were warned of the ugliness of their actions, they attributed it to their Lord. So, are the messengers [charged] with anything except to declare the truth and [explain] that Allah does not will shirk or disobedience, through clarification and proof, and to make it known that shirk is false and ugly, and that Allah is free from the actions of His servants, and that the servants are the ones who perform them by their own intention, will, and choice, while Allah the Exalted is the One who prompts them to the beautiful, grants them success in it, restrains them from the ugly, and threatens them for it?"—until the end of what he said in that vein. By my life, he interpreted the verses according to his own desire, and they are against him, not for him, if he had only pondered what they contained.

Many researchers and great verifiers have refuted him, demonstrating that the verse is far from being proof for the Mu'tazilah, just as the conditional [statement] does not produce the intended result of those misguided ones. It was previously mentioned that the intent of the polytheists in using the conditional statement is to belie the Messengers (peace be upon them), which is one of two possibilities. The verifier in Al-Kashf said regarding the parallel verse: "Their saying this is either to claim the legitimacy of what they are upon, in rejection of the Messengers, or to acknowledge that they are upon falsehood, while excusing themselves by claiming they are forced. The first is false, because the Will relates to their legitimate actions and others; so whatever Allah willed to happen from them as a legitimate action, it happened, and whatever Allah willed not to happen, it did not happen. There is no doubt that whoever imagines that the fact that an act is by His will contradicts the coming of the Messengers, contrary to the polytheism and misguidance the perpetrator is upon, has belied the entire message, and he is a liar in deducing his intent from this entailment. The appearance of the verse is directed toward this meaning."

"The second [possibility], regarding the realization of the intent—which is the admission of falsehood—is also false, as there is no compulsion, because the Will was linked to them associating partners by their own choice, and Knowledge was linked likewise." The same applies to the prohibition. Thus, it confirms the removal of the excuse, not its substantiation.

He mentioned that the meaning of (Are the messengers [charged] with anything except...) is that the duty of the messengers is to notify and clarify the landmarks of guidance by pointing toward the establishing of the foundations of reflection and providing the proofs of hearing and sight. It is not their duty to debate someone who wishes to defeat the truth with his falsehood; for after that clarification, the truth becomes clear to those who look, and the argumentation of the obstinate is of no benefit.

It is also permissible that their saying was a way to deny the [necessity of] the mission and obligation, clinging to the idea that what Allah wills is necessary and what He does not will is impossible, so what is the benefit of both? Or, it was a denial of the ugliness of the shirk and prohibition [of things] which were condemned in them, arguing that if that were ugly, Allah would not have willed its emergence from us or would have willed the opposite and compelled us to it.

The answer to the first doubt is indicated by His saying: (Are the messengers charged with anything...) to the end. It is as if it were said: "The benefit of the mission is the notification that clarifies the truth, for what Allah wills to exist or not exist is not 'necessary' or 'impossible' as you claim; rather, it may become necessary or impossible through the medium of causes that He has ordained. Among these is the mission, which leads to the guidance of whom Allah wills by way of mediation." As for the second doubt, its answer is indicated in His saying: <<...>>