Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:73

"And they worship, besides Allah" — Abu Hayyan stated: This is a resumption of the report concerning their state in worshipping idols, and within it is an elucidation of His saying, the Exalted: "Do they then believe in falsehood?" Some of the foremost verifiers said: Perhaps it is a conjunction to [the verb] "they disbelieve" (yakfurun), falling under the scope of the reproachful negation; meaning: they disbelieve in the favor of Allah and worship, besides Him—the Exalted—"that which possesses no provision for them from the heavens and the earth, anything."

This means: that which is unable to provide them with anything, neither rain from the heavens nor vegetation from the earth. "Provision" (rizq) is a verbal noun (masdar), and "anything" (shay’an) is in the accusative case as the object thereof. Abu Ali and others held this view. Ibn al-Tarawah objected to this, arguing that rizq is [only] the provided object (marzuq), like ra'i (pasture) and tahn (milling), while the verbal noun is razq (with a fathah on the ra'). It was retorted against him that the form with a kasrah on the ra' is also a verbal noun, like ‘ilm (knowledge), and it has been heard that it may govern an object. It is also said that it is a source-noun (ism masdar), and the Kufans permit it to govern the object; thus, "anything" is an object according to their view.

It was also suggested that it [rizq] is in the meaning of "provided," and "anything" is an appositive (badal) to it—meaning: it possesses no thing for them at all. Al-Samin and Abu Hayyan objected to this, saying it is uninformative, as it is known that provision is a "thing," and an appositive serves one of two purposes: explanation or emphasis, neither of which is present here. The response given is that the tanwin on "anything" signifies diminishment and trivialization; if the tanwin on "provision" is likewise, then it is an emphasis; otherwise, it is an explanation. In that case, it is valid for it to be a partial or total appositive, and there is no difficulty.

It is also permitted that "anything" be an absolute object (maf’ul mutlaq) for the verb "possess" (yamlik), meaning: it possesses no portion of ownership whatsoever. "From the heavens" is either connected to His saying, the Exalted: "does not possess," or to an elided phrase acting as an adjective for "provision," meaning: provision existing from them both. The application of the term "provision" to rain is because it originates therefrom.

"Nor are they able" — It is permitted that this be a conjunction to the relative clause of "that which" (ma), and it is also permitted that it be a resumption to report on the state of the deities. The verb "to be able" (istata’a) is transitive, and its object is elided—it being the pronoun of "possession," meaning: they are not able to possess that, nor is it possible for them. Thus, the speech is a completion of what preceded it, and it contains a degree of progression (taraqqi); therefore, the negation of the ability to possess after the negation of the possession of provision is not redundant.

If the object is taken to be the pronoun of "provision"—as was permitted in al-Kashshaf—then this negation serves as an emphasis to what preceded it. It was objected that it has been established in the science of Rhetoric (Ma’ani) that a conjunction particle does not enter between an emphasized word and the emphasis itself due to the completeness of the connection between them. This was repelled by stating that this is not accepted by the grammarians, nor is it absolute according to the scholars of Ma’ani; do you not see His saying, the Exalted: "Nay, they will come to know. Then nay, they will come to know"? Indeed, it is refuted by the tradition that "establishing [new meaning] is better than emphasizing."

It is permitted—and perhaps this is more appropriate—that the verb be treated as an intransitive verb, the intent being the negation of the ability to possess from them absolutely, along the lines of "he gives and withholds" (i.e., he has the habit of doing so). Thus, the meaning is that they are dead and have no capacity whatsoever, making it a concluding remark (tadhil) to the preceding speech. It contains whatever it contains [of rhetoric] according to the first view, and more.

The shift from the plural pronoun to the singular in "does not possess" is to observe the form of the noun first, and the meaning second, for "that which" (ma) is singular in form but signifies "the deities." Such observation is common in eloquent speech, even if some have denied it due to the ambiguity it necessitates after a clarification, which contradicts eloquence; this is rejected as has been clarified in its proper place. The state of their worshipped objects has also been observed in the expression, as they are truly stones and inanimate objects, so they were expressed with "that which" (ma), which is famously used for non-rational beings. Their state according to their [the worshippers'] belief that they are deities was also observed, so they were expressed with the plural pronoun used for rational beings. This holds if the intent of "that which" is idols. The situation will not be hidden from you if the intent is false deities in general, whether they be angels, humans, stones, or others.

It is also permitted that the plural pronoun refers back to the disbelievers, just as the pronoun in "they worship" does, and that "that which" is taken in its well-known sense, meaning that they [the disbelievers], despite being alive and active in affairs, are unable to possess anything of that, so how then can the inanimate object which has no sense [possess anything]? Thus, the sentence "nor are they able" is parenthetical to emphasize the negation of possession regarding the deities, and the object is elided, as has been indicated. Even if this contradicts the apparent [grammatical connection], it is free from the contradiction of the established rule regarding the return of the pronoun to the meaning after observing the form.