Tafsir of Al-Ahqaf 46:28

"So why did those not help them"—meaning: Why did they not prevent the destruction into which they fell? "whom they had taken"—that is, their gods whom they had taken "besides Allah as a Qurban (means of approach)"—the pronoun we have implied as the referent is the first object of ittakhadhu (they had taken), and alihatan (gods) is the second object. Qurban acts as a hal (state) in the sense of "seeking proximity through them," meaning they took them as gods besides Allah while they were [considered] means of drawing closer to Allah the Almighty, as they used to say: "We do not worship them except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position," and "These are our intercessors with Allah." The statement contains sarcasm toward them.

Al-Hufi permitted Qurban to be the maf’ul li-ajlihi (causative object). He, along with Ibn ‘Atiyyah, Makki, and Abu al-Baqa’, also permitted it to be the second object of ittakhadhu, making alihatan (gods) an appositional substitution (badal) for it. Al-Zamakhshari stated in al-Kashshaf that this is incorrect because the meaning would be corrupted. It is reported from him in his clarification that it is invalid to say, "They sought proximity to Him by them besides Allah," because Allah the Exalted is not something to be "approached" [as a deity is approached by a sacrifice], and he intended—as noted in al-Kashf—that if it is made the second object, the meaning would be: "Why did they not help them? They took them as a Qurban (offering) instead of Allah, or while bypassing Him as a Qurban unto them," which is a corrupt meaning. It was objected to by suggesting duna (besides/below) be taken in the sense of quddama (before/in front of), as has been said regarding the verse: "And call your witnesses besides [in front of] Allah." Furthermore, since it has been said that Qurban is a maf’ul lahu (causative object), it is not restricted to the "one through whom one seeks proximity," and it is permissible to apply it to the "one to whom proximity is sought." In that case, the discourse becomes coherent.

The response to the first objection is that it is not damaging, because despite the rarity of using duna in the sense of quddama, it does not serve as a locative for the act of "taking," because the idols are not "in front of Allah the Exalted," for proximity is sought in front of Him and for Him, the Almighty. Their taking them as Qurban is not [the act of] seeking proximity through them, because its meaning is to venerate them with worship so that they might intercede before Allah and draw them [the worshippers] near to Him, the Almighty. Thus, the time of "taking" is not the time of "seeking proximity" at all; therefore, if it remains as a hal (state), the previously mentioned problem remains.

It is not permissible for it to be a derivative acting as a noun, because Qurban is a frozen noun (ism jamid) meaning "that through which one seeks proximity," so it cannot function as an agent, like al-qarurah (a flask), even if it contains the sense of qarar (settling/containing), though there is some debate regarding this. The response to the second [objection] is that Al-Zamakhshari, after interpreting Qurban as that through which one seeks proximity, mentioned this impossibility on the grounds that the following verse, "Nay, they have gone astray from them..." points to the corruption of that interpretation, loud and clear.

Some have said regarding the impossibility of Qurban being the second object and alihatan being an appositional substitute: although the appositive is what is intended, except in the case of a "slip of the tongue" substitute (badal al-ghalat), the meaning must be correct without it. Yet, there is no correctness in their saying: "They took them besides Allah as Qurban," meaning "that through which one seeks proximity," because Allah the Exalted is not the one to be "approached" [via idols], rather it is to Him that one seeks proximity. Thus, it is invalid [to claim] that they took them as Qurban while bypassing Allah in that regard. Some have inclined toward the view that it is permissible to say: "Allah the Exalted is the one to be approached," meaning He is pleased with [the act] and [the act] is a means of seeking mediation to Him, the Almighty. Al-Tibi stated that Al-Zamakhshari did not intend by "corruption of the meaning" anything other than the contradiction of the intended meaning, since their intent in taking the idols as gods, according to their own claims—as the verses have articulated—was nothing but to draw closer to Allah the Exalted. So ponder this.

Qurban is [also] read with a damma on the ra (Qurban).

"Nay, they have gone astray from them"—meaning: they have vanished from them. This also contains sarcasm toward them; it is as if the failure of their help is due to their disappearance, or they have been lost to them, meaning their loss from them has become completely manifest. The help they were hoping for has become impossible—the same impossibility of help from the one who is absent to the one being helped. This—their gods going astray from them—is "their falsehood"—that is, the effect of their falsehood, meaning their deviation from the Truth, their taking them as gods, and the result of their polytheism, "and what they used to invent."

[This is]—meaning: and the effect of their invention and their lying about Allah the Exalted, or the effect of what they used to invent about Allah, the Almighty. It is said: "That" refers to the taking of idols as gods, meaning: that act of taking, the effect of which is their gods going astray from them, is their lying and inventing, or [it refers to] that which they used to invent. This is not as strong, even if it does not necessitate estimating an added word (mudaf).

Ibn Abbas read in one narration, ifkihim, with a fatha on the hamza. Ifk and afk are two verbal nouns, like hadhar and hidhar. It was read by Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Sabah ibn al-‘Ala’ al-Ansari, Abu ‘Iyad, ‘Ikrimah, Hanzala ibn al-Nu’man ibn Murra, and Mujahid—and it is also a narration from Ibn Abbas—as afakahum, with three fathas, on the basis that afaka is a past tense verb. In this case, the reference is to "the taking," meaning: that act of taking diverted them from the Truth.

"And what they used to [invent]"—it is said it is a conjunction to "that," or to the implied pronoun, and it is made sound due to the separation. Or, it is a subject whose predicate is omitted, meaning: "likewise." The sentence is then conjoined to the sentence preceding it.

Abu ‘Iyad and ‘Ikrimah also [read it] the same way, except that they doubled the fa for emphasis (takthir). Ibn al-Zubayr also, and Ibn Abbas—as mentioned by Ibn Khalawayh—[read it] afakahum with elongation (madd). It is possible that it is the agent, so the hamza is radical, or it is the af’ala form, and the hamza is for transitivity, meaning: "He caused them to be diverted." It is also permitted that the hamza is for "finding [to be]," like ahmadtuhu (I found him praiseworthy), or that it is af’ala in the meaning of the simple verb (fa’ala). It is related in al-Bahr that it was read ufkahum with a fatha on the hamza and fa and a damma on the kaf, which is a dialect for ifk.

Ibn Abbas, according to what was narrated by Qutrub and Abu al-Fadl al-Razi, read afikuhum, an active participle from afaka, meaning: "And that act of taking is what diverted them from the Truth." It was also read: wa dhalika ifkum ma kanu yaftarun (And that is the falsehood of what they used to invent), the meaning being: that is some of what they invent of falsehood, meaning some of their invented lies. Thus, ifk is in the sense of fabrication, so do not be inattentive.