Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:71

(And they worship other than Allah): This is a narrative recounting some of the absurdities of the polytheists and their states, which indicate the complete feebleness of their intellects and the flimsiness of their opinions. Their affair is built upon something that has no foundation in auditory (revealed) or rational evidence, and they turn away from the clear authority (sultan) that has been brought to them, which is the foundation of religion. That is, they worship—transgressing beyond the worship of Allah—(that for which He has not sent down) i.e., authorized the worship of, (any authority) i.e., proof. The use of the indefinite form is to signify insignificance, and this is a reference to the auditory evidence derived from revelation.

His saying, the Almighty: (and that which they have no knowledge of) is a reference to rational evidence; meaning, they have no knowledge regarding the permissibility of their worship, neither from the necessity of the intellect nor from its deductive processes. The conclusion is: they worship, besides Allah, that which has no evidence from the perspective of revelation nor from the perspective of reason for the permissibility of its worship.

The auditory evidence is mentioned first because the reliance in most acts of worship is upon it. Furthermore, holding fast to it in this context is more likely to provide salvation—if any blame occurs—than holding fast to rational evidence. If you doubt this, examine yourself when someone blames you for an action; you will find yourself leaning towards the response: "I did so-and-so because you informed me of your approval for me to do it," more than you lean towards the response: "I did it because rational evidence exists—which is such-and-such—that you approve of it." Denying this is merely obstinacy.

It may be said: That which points to auditory evidence was placed first here because it is a reference to an auditory proof indicating the permissibility of that worship, sent down from Him, the Almighty, and is unrestricted; whereas that which points to rational evidence contains a reference to a rational proof specific to them. The gist is that the ordering—placing one before the other—is due to [the difference between] absolute and restricted, even if they are not regarding the same thing. So understand.

The scholar al-Tayyibi said: The specification of the auditory evidence as "authority" (sultan) and "sending down" (tanzil), and the contrasting of its counterpart with "knowledge," is clear evidence that the auditory proof is the decisive argument; it possesses the power and the predominance. Upon its appearance, opinions dissolve and syllogisms vanish. He who reverses this loses the path, is deprived of success, and remains unsteady in the quagmires of doubt. If you wish, look at the indefinite form in (sultan and knowledge) and compare them to the poet’s saying: "He has a chamberlain for every matter that disgraces him, but he has no chamberlain for one who seeks favor," so that you may learn the difference—to the end of what he said. From this, one learns the reason for the ordering, along with another possibility regarding the nunnation of "sultan" besides what we have mentioned.

Its apparent meaning is that auditory evidence provides certainty absolutely, and that it is prior to rational evidence. The position of the Mu'tazilah and the majority of the Ash'arites is that it does not provide absolute certainty because such a claim depends on matters that are all speculative; thus, its demonstration is also speculative, for the branch cannot exceed the root in strength. The truth is that it provides certainty in legal matters, unlike in rational matters, through observed or consecutively transmitted (mutawatir) indicators that point to the negation of [opposing] possibilities.

The learned Al-Rumi mentioned in his annotations on Sharh al-Mawaqif, after a discussion, that the truth is that it may provide certainty in rational matters as well. As for it being prior to rational evidence, that which our scholars hold is the opposite: whenever rational evidence conflicts with auditory evidence, it is necessary to interpret the auditory evidence into a meaning that does not conflict with the rational proof, since it is impossible to act upon both or upon their opposites. Prioritizing the auditory over the rational is the invalidation of the root by the branch, and in that is the invalidation of the branch itself; if the proving of a thing leads to its invalidation, it is as if it were contradicting itself and thus void.

However, the apparent speech of Muhyiddin Ibn al-Arabi—may his secret be sanctified—in places of his Futuhat, is the statement that it is prior. From that is his saying in the three hundred and fifty-eighth chapter, in verse: "Every knowledge the Law testifies for, it is knowledge; so hold fast to it. And if the intellect contradicts it, say: 'Keep to your own level, and do not place your feet where you have no footing.'"

And his saying in the four hundred and seventy-second chapter: "Upon the auditory we relied, and thus we became the people of discernment; and there is no knowledge in that which is not based upon the auditory," among other such statements. This, like most of his speech, is beyond the level of the intellect.

(And for the wrongdoers): i.e., and for them. However, he shifted to the explicit noun (the wrongdoers) to record their injustice against them, while simultaneously providing the rationale for the judgment through it. It is also permissible that there is no shift, and the meaning is inclusive of them and others, with them being the primary subjects of the warning. The (min) in His saying, the Almighty: (is no helper) is for emphasis (lit: sifah al-khatib). The intent is the negation that there should be, because of their injustice, anyone who assists them in this world by supporting their sect, establishing their opinion, and repelling that which contradicts it; nor in the Hereafter by repelling the punishment from them.