Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:51

After He, the Exalted, explained that all existing things are submissive and obedient to Him, He followed this by narrating His prohibition—glory be to Him—to those accountable regarding the association of partners (shirk), saying, "And Allah said..."

It is connected to His saying, "And to Allah prostrates," and it is permissible for it to be connected to, "And We sent down the Reminder to you." It is also said that it is connected to, "what Allah has created," following the style of [the proverb]: "I fed them hay and cold water," meaning: Have they not seen what Allah has created, and have they not listened to what Allah has said? The affectation therein is not hidden.

The manifestation of the actor and the specification of the word of majesty (Allah) is to announce that He, the Exalted, is the uniquely determined Deity. The object of the prohibition is the association of partners with Him, not the absolute taking of two gods, such that cessation of it would be realized by abandoning either one of them. The [identity of those] addressed is not mentioned for the sake of generality; that is, Allah said to all those accountable, by way of the Messengers—peace be upon them: "Do not take two gods."

The well-known position is that "two" (ithnayn) is an adjective for "gods" (ilahayn), and likewise "one" (wahid) in His saying, "He is but one God," is an adjective for "God." They were brought for clarification and exposition, not for emphasis, although [it is argued that] it occurs. The explanation of this is that the word "gods" carries the meaning of the genus—that is, deity—and the meaning of number—that is, duality. Likewise, the word "god" carries the meaning of the genus and unity. The purpose of the discourse in the first is to prohibit the taking of two in deity, not to prohibit the taking of the genus of god; and in the second, it is the affirmation of one in deity, not the affirmation of its genus. Thus, qualifying "gods" with "two" and "god" with "one" is an elucidation and interpretation of this purpose. For the singular may be intended to mean the genus, such as, "Excellent is the man, Zayd," and similarly the dual, like the saying: "For the fire is kindled by the two sticks, and war begins with talk."

To this went the author of al-Kashshaf. What is understood from it [the position] that it is emphasis means that it is confirmed and established from the follower; thus, it is a linguistic emphasis, not an artificial emphasis in terms of relationship or inclusion. How could it be otherwise, when artificial emphasis is only through the confirmation of the follower by itself, or by what agrees with it in meaning, or by specific words? What has been said—that his [al-Zamakhshari’s] doctrine is that it is artificial emphasis—is nothing, as there is no evidence in his speech for it.

Al-Kisa'i included the verse in the chapter of ‘Atf al-Bayan (expository apposition), explicitly stating it is of this type. Some imagined from this that he was saying it is an artificial ‘atf al-bayan, which is what al-Qutb chose in his commentary on al-Miftah, denying it is an adjective. He argued that the definition, "The adjective is a follower that indicates a meaning in its follower," is as reported from Ibn al-Hajib. "Two" and "one" were not mentioned to indicate the duality and unity that are in their follower so as to be adjectives; rather, they were mentioned to indicate that the intent of their follower is directed toward one of its two parts—that is, duality and unity—to the exclusion of the other part, which is the genus. Thus, each of them is a follower, not an adjective, clarifying its follower; therefore, it is an ‘atf al-bayan, not an adjective.

The second scholar [of the later period] said: There is nothing in al-Sakkaki’s speech that indicates it is an artificial ‘atf al-bayan, for it is possible he meant it is of the category of clarification and exposition, even if it is an artificial adjective, and his mentioning it in that discussion is like the mention of "every man is a knower" and "every human is an animal" in the discussion of emphasis; such is his habit.

The first scholar responded that if it were meant that it was mentioned only to indicate a meaning in its follower, the definition would not be true of anything of the adjective, because it is invariably for specification, emphasis, praise, or the like. And if it were meant that it was mentioned to indicate this meaning, and the purpose of its indication is something else—like specification, emphasis, etc.—then it is permissible for "two" and "one" to be mentioned to indicate duality and unity, and the purpose of this is to clarify and interpret the intent, just as "the last" in "yesterday the last" is mentioned to indicate the meaning of "lastness," and the purpose of it is emphasis. Indeed, the matter is such upon investigation. Do you not see that al-Sakkaki made some adjectives "disclosing" (kashif) and some "positional," and did not depart by this from adjectival status?

The response was that we choose the second option and say: The intent of the scholar in his saying, "mentioned to indicate a meaning in its follower," is that the purpose of its mention is to indicate the attainment of the meaning in the follower, so as to achieve thereby specification, clarification, praise, or dispraise. The mention of "two" and "one" is not to indicate the attainment of duality and unity in the described, but to determine the intended part of their components. Thus, they are not adjectives. The mention of "the last" is to indicate the attainment of "lastness" in "yesterday," then one achieves through that emphasis. So too with the "disclosing adjective," unlike the case at hand. Contemplate this, for it is profound.

The first scholar did not permit apposition (badal), saying: As for it not being an appositive, it is clear because it cannot stand in the place of the one replaced. The second scholar questioned this, saying: We do not concede that the appositive must be able to stand in the place of the one replaced. Al-Zamakhshari made "the jinn" in the verse, "And they made the jinn partners to Allah," an appositive of "partners," and it is known there is no meaning to our saying, "And they made the jinn to Allah." Then he said: Rather, it is not far-fetched to say the first [view] is that it is an appositive, because it is the object of the relationship, since the prohibition is against taking two from the deity, according to what has passed in the explanation.

It was retorted that al-Radi has mentioned that since the appositive does not have a meaning in the follower such that it would need the follower as the adjective needs it, nor is its meaning understood from the follower as it is understood in emphasis, it is permissible to consider it independent in wording—that is, fit to take the place of the follower. It is not hidden that the validity of its standing in this sense does not require that the meaning of the speech be complete without it, so that what was raised [as an objection] would be valid.

It is said: The mention of "two" is to indicate the contradiction of duality to deity, and the mention of "unity" is to alert that it is among the necessities of deity. Some have counted this as part of the concomitants of the indication that what was mentioned is in the context of prohibition and affirmation; this is clear, even if what has been said about it has been said.

Some have claimed that "take" (tattakhidhu) is transitive to two objects, and "two" (ithnayn) is its first object and "gods" (ilahayn) is its second, and the estimation is: Do not take two as gods. It is said: The first is the first object and the second is the second. It is also said: "Gods" is the first object, and "two" remains as an adjective and emphasis, and the second object is omitted, meaning: "worshipped beings." The [weakness] in that is not hidden.

The affirmation of unity for Him—with the named definite being not multiple—means He has no partner in His attributes and His deity; thus, the predication is not redundant, and there is no need to make the pronoun refer to the "worshipped in truth" understood from the word of majesty by way of istikhdam (employment), as has been said. The verification of this will come, if Allah wills, in Surat al-Ikhlas.

In expressing with the pronoun placed for the absent [third person], there is an iltifat (shift) from address to absence according to the opinion of al-Sakkaki, who is satisfied with the style shifted from being the true discourse, even if the mention has not preceded in the way of direct address. As for His saying, "And as for Me, fear Me" (51), there is a shift from absence to address according to the view of the majority as well. The point of this—after the general point, which is alerting and refreshing attention—is the exaggeration in frightening and intimidation. For frightening one who is present and addressed is more intense than frightening one who is absent, especially after describing Him with unity and deity, which entails greatness and complete power to retaliate.

The fa in "fa-iyyaya" (As for Me) occurs in the answer to an implied condition, and "iyyaya" is the object of an omitted verb that is implied later, indicated by "fear Me" (farhabun)—that is, "If you fear anything, then fear Me." The statement of Ibn Atiyyah, that "iyyaya" is in the accusative case by an implied verb with the estimation "fear Me, so fear Me," is a lapse from the grammatical rule: when the operator is a detached pronoun and the verb is transitive to one object—which is the pronoun—it is obligatory for the verb to be delayed, such as "You alone we worship" (Iyyaka na'budu), and it is not permissible for it to be advanced except in poetic necessity, such as his saying: "To you, until I reached you." The connection of the explained [verb] mentioned to the explained [verb] omitted by the fa is because the intent is fear after fear. It is also said: Because the explained [verb] should be mentioned after the explainer. The separation of the pronoun and its advancement for the sake of restriction is not hidden—that is, "Fear Me, not anyone else, for I am that One God who is capable of retaliation."