Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:74

This is a shift to direct address to signal the significance of the prohibition. The [consecutive] particle fa (so) indicates the placement of this prohibition as a consequence of the blessings enumerated for them, which flow from Him, the Exalted, and the fact that their deities are incapable of possessing any provision for them, let alone anything beyond that.

Al-amthal (similarities) is the plural of mathal (like/likeness), as in ‘alam. The intended meaning of darb (striking/attributing) is to make. It is as if it were said: "Do not make for Allah, the Exalted, similarities and equivalents." The verse is thus like His saying: "So do not attribute to Allah equals." This is what the apparent statement of Ibn Abbas suggests, for Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim have reported from him—may Allah be pleased with him—regarding this verse: "He, the Glorified, says: Do not make any god with Me, for there is no god but Me."

Many scholars have made al-amthal the plural of mathal (with the fatha on the tha). The intent behind "striking a likeness" for Allah, the Glorified, is polytheism and anthropomorphism, conveyed through a representational metaphor. It is stated in al-Kashf that Allah, the Exalted, treats the polytheist who likens Him to His creation as one who "strikes a likeness." For the forsaken person who draws comparisons likens one attribute to another and one essence to another, just as one who strikes a likeness does. It is as if it were said: "Do not associate partners with Allah, the Glorified." The transition from the literal meaning to the metaphorical one serves to generalize the prohibition to include both attributes and essence. Furthermore, using the word "similarities" for One who has no likeness at all serves as a great rebuke for their wicked deeds. Included within this is the implication that the Names of Allah are fixed by divine revelation (tawqifiyyah). This is the most apparent interpretation, given the implication of the fa and the fact that no prior mention of them striking a likeness was made. This is the interpretation favored by al-Zamakhshari, and the statement of the scholar [Ibn Abbas] does not reject it.

This provides the rationale for the prohibition. It means: He, the Exalted, knows the essence of what you are doing and its magnitude, and He, the Glorified, will punish you for it with the greatest punishment, while you do not know its essence or the essence of His punishment. Thus, it originated from you, and you became emboldened toward it.

It has been suggested that the intended meaning is a prohibition against drawing analogies of Allah, the Exalted, to others, making "striking a likeness" a metaphor for analogy, for an analogy is the appending of one thing to another, and it is, in analytical terms, a comparison of a composite to a composite. The difference between this and the previous view is slight, and the rationale remains applicable.

Al-Zamakhshari and others allowed that the meaning might be the prohibition of striking likenesses for Allah, the Glorified, in the literal sense. The meaning would be: "Do not strike for Allah the likenesses that some of you strike for others; for Allah, the Exalted, knows how likenesses are struck, while you do not know." The direction of the rationale is apparent here.

In all these interpretations, the prepositional phrase "for Allah" is linked to "strike." Ibn al-Munir hypothesized that it links to "likenesses" in the case where the intent is representation for the sake of polytheism and anthropomorphism. He then said: "It is as if it were said: Do not represent Allah, the Exalted, and do not liken Him." He then argued for linking it to "strike" in this view, saying: "It is as if it were said: Do not strike likenesses for Allah, the Exalted." Indeed, striking a likeness is only employed by one who knows to one who does not know, in order to clarify for him what was hidden from him. Allah, the Exalted, is the One who knows, while you do not know; therefore, the ignorant representing the All-Knowing is the inversion of the truth. This [view of Ibn al-Munir] holds no weight, and the meaning he mentioned, assuming it links to the verb, is contrary to what the context requires, even if the rationale would be more apparent.

Hence, the meticulous scholar in al-Kashf said—after stating that it is a prohibition against striking likenesses literally—that it seems the intent is to exaggerate the warning against them deviating regarding His names and attributes. For if striking a likeness and metaphors are not permitted, then mere vague semblance is sufficient [to avoid], and the general application of such a sign is sufficient. Thus, the impermissibility of applying names without prior instruction from Him, the Exalted, and the establishing of attributes [without permission] is even more [prohibited] and more so.