Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:108

(Say, "It is only revealed to me that your God is One God.")

A group of scholars maintained that the verse contains two restrictions, based on the principle that annama (with an opened alif) serves this function just as innama (with a broken alif) does. The first [restriction] serves to restrict the attribute to the subject, while the second restricts the subject to the attribute. Thus, the latter restricts Allah Almighty to Oneness, while the former restricts the Revelation to [the message of] Oneness. The meaning is: "Nothing is revealed to me except the exclusivity of Allah Almighty to Oneness."

It was acknowledged, however, that how could the Revelation be restricted to Oneness when many other matters were revealed to him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—such as legal obligations and historical narratives? Two responses were provided: First, that the meaning of restricting it to that is that it is the fundamental root to which all else refers, or that other matters are not considered in its presence; thus, it is a claim-based restriction (qasr iddi’ai). Second, that it is a restriction of inversion (qasr qalb) in relation to the polytheism issued by the disbelievers. The same argument applies to the second restriction.

Abu Hayyan denied that annama (with an opened alif) indicates restriction, arguing that it is interpreted as a verbal noun and a singular noun, and is not like the innama (with a broken alif) which is interpreted as ma (what/that) and illa (except). He stated: "We know of no disagreement regarding its failure to indicate that; the disagreement only exists regarding whether innama (with a broken alif) indicates it." You know that al-Zamakhshari and most exegetes went on to hold that it does indicate it, and the truth lies with that group. It is supported here by the fact that it is in the position of the broken-alif form, as it occurs after "revealed" (yuha), which carries the meaning of "said," and it is effectively the content of the utterance of "Say" (qul). There is no doubt that it implies emphasis; thus, when the context requires restriction, as is the case here, that [the meaning of restriction] is added to the emphasis. However, it is not so by [inherent] structure, as is the case with the broken-alif form. Indeed, there are instances that do not permit this, such as His saying: (And David thought that We had tried him). Therefore, al-Zamakhshari interpreted it as "We tested him, without doubt," while still affirming the restriction here. Yes, in directing the restriction here to what you heard—that it is a restriction of Allah Almighty to Oneness—[you may recall] what was heard at the end of Surah al-Kahf, so remember that.

It is permissible for ma in annama yuha to be a relative pronoun, though this contradicts the apparent meaning, and allowing it for what follows is very far-fetched, necessitating an artifice that is not hidden.

(So, are you Muslims?)

That is, are you submissive to what is revealed to me regarding Oneness? It is an interrogative that implies a command to submit. Some interpreted Islam here by its implication: the sincerity of worship to Him, the Almighty. What we have pointed out is better.

The fa (So) is used to indicate that what precedes it is the cause of what follows it. They said: It contains evidence that the attribute of Oneness may be reached through audition (al-sam’), unlike the proof of the Necessary Existence, for its path is the intellect, lest it lead to circular reasoning. In Sharh al-Maqasid, it is stated: "The mission of the Prophets—peace be upon them—and their truthfulness does not depend on [prior knowledge of] Oneness. Therefore, it is permissible to rely on scriptural proofs, such as the consensus of the Prophets—peace be upon them—on the call to Oneness and the negation of partners, and the definitive texts from the Book of Allah Almighty regarding that." As for the claim that "plurality necessitates possibility [of existence] according to the known proofs of Oneness, and unless one knows that Allah Almighty is the Necessary Existent, outside of all possibilities, the proof of mission and messengership cannot be established"—this is nothing, because the furthest extent is that the necessity of existence necessitates unity, not that knowledge of existence necessitates knowledge of unity, let alone being a prerequisite for it. The cause of the error is the failure to distinguish between the existence of a thing and the knowledge of that existence.

The branching of the interrogative here is explicit in the validity of establishing Oneness by what was mentioned. The statement of the author of al-Kashf—that the verse is not fit to be evidence for that because what is revealed to him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is revealed as a demonstration and not based on the laws of rhetoric, and perhaps its revelation was accompanied by rational proof—is nothing, for it is apparent that the branching is based on the [content of the] revelation itself, and that its descent being accompanied by rational proof and the branching being based on that consideration is not apparent.