Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:108

(And do not revile those whom they invoke other than Allah): That is, do not insult them, nor mention them with that which is ugly. The intended meaning of the relative pronoun [“those”] is either the polytheists, in the sense that you should not revile them because of their worship of their deities—for instance, by saying, “Woe to you and to what you worship”—or it refers to their deities. In the latter case, the verse is explicit in prohibiting their revilement, and the pronominal referent [implied in the relative clause] is then elliptical; that is: “those whom you invoke.” Expressing them with [the relative pronoun for rational beings] is based on the polytheists' claim that they are possessors of knowledge, or it is by way of granting dominance to the rational ones among them, such as the angels, the Messiah, and Ezra (peace be upon them). It is also said that reviling the deities is [essentially] reviling them, just as one says, “Beating the beast is a slap to the rider.”

(Lest they revile Allah in hostility): That is, transgressing from truth to falsehood. Its grammatical case is that of a state [hal] meant to emphasize [the action]. Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be a verbal noun [maf’ul lahu], or a source [masdar] functioning as the verb itself. Yassubu [they revile] is in the subjunctive mood as a response to the prohibition; others say it is in the jussive mood by way of conjunction, similar to the saying: “Do not prolong it, lest you tear it.” The meaning of their reviling Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, is their speech leading to Him, just as they insult the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who command it. It has been interpreted that “without knowledge” means that they revile Allah, the Exalted, without knowing that they are reviling Him. Otherwise, those people acknowledged Allah, the Exalted, and His greatness, and [believed] that they only worshiped their deities so that they might be intercessors for them before Him—so how could they revile Him? It is also possible that what is meant is their explicit reviling of His Exalted Name, and there is no contradiction in this, based on the fact that anger and rage may drive them to it. Do you not see that a Muslim might be driven by the intensity of his rage to speak words of disbelief? Among what we have witnessed is that some ignorant commoners heard a persistent Rafidi revile the two Shaykhs (may Allah be pleased with them) in his presence, and this enraged him greatly, so he reviled Ali (may Allah’s countenance be honored). When asked about it, he said, “I intended only to enrage them, and I saw nothing that would enrage them more than that.” He was then made to repent from this great ignorance.

Al-Raghib said: Their reviling of Allah, the Exalted, is not that they revile Him—Glorified be He—explicitly, but rather that they persist in mentioning Him, the Exalted, and continue in that through argumentation, and they go to extremes in describing Him, the Exalted, with that which He is far removed from. Persistence in disbelief and obstinacy may also be considered a form of revilement, a “deed-based” revilement. The poet said: “And it was not the fault of the Banu Malik that a boy among them reviled [the enemy], so he was reviled with a white, notched, sharp [sword] that cleaves bones and scrapes the nerves.” He was pointing to what the other said: “And we revile through actions, not through speech.”

It is also said: The meaning of reviling Allah is the reviling of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and a parallel to this, from one perspective, is the saying of the Almighty: (Those who pledge allegiance to you are in fact pledging allegiance to Allah). Ya’qub read it as ‘udwan [instead of ‘udwan]. It is said: ‘Ada fulan ya’du ‘adwan wa ‘idwanan. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from al-Suddi who said: When death approached Abu Talib, the Quraysh said, “Let us go and enter upon this man, and let us command him to forbid his nephew from us, for we are ashamed to kill him after his death, lest the Arabs say: ‘He used to protect him, but when he died, they killed him.’” So Abu Sufyan, Abu Jahl, al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, Umayyah and Ubayy (sons of Khalaf), ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, and al-Aswad ibn al-Bakhtari went to Abu Talib and said, “You are our elder and our leader, and Muhammad has harmed us and harmed our deities; we would like for you to call him and forbid him from mentioning our deities, and we shall leave him and his deity alone.” He called him, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) came. Abu Talib said to him, “These are your people and your cousins.” The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “What is it that you want?” They said, “We want you to leave us and our deities, and we shall leave you and your deity.” Abu Talib said, “Your people have been fair to you, so accept from them.” The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Tell me, if I give you this, will you give me a word which, if you speak it, you would rule the Arabs and the non-Arabs would submit to you?” Abu Jahl said, “Yes, we will give it to you—by your father and ten times its like! What is it?” He said, “Say: There is no god but Allah.” They refused and were disgusted. Abu Talib said, “Say something else, O son of my brother, for your people have become alarmed by this.” He (peace be upon him) said, “O uncle, I am not one to say anything else; even if they were to put the sun in my hand, I would not say anything else.” They said, “You must stop insulting our deities, or we shall insult you and we shall insult the one who commands you.” Then Allah, the Exalted, revealed this verse.

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that he said: They said, “O Muhammad, you must desist from reviling our deities, or we shall satirize your Lord.” So Allah, the Exalted, forbade them from reviling their idols. In another narration from him, they said this when the saying of the Almighty was revealed: (Indeed, you and what you worship other than Allah are the firewood of Hell). The verse (And do not revile)... etc., was revealed. This has been raised as a difficulty, in that describing their deities as the firewood of Hell and that they neither harm nor benefit is itself a form of revilement; so how could he forbid it here? The answer is that if they intend by the recitation to insult and enrage them, then the prohibition holds, and there is nothing strange in that, just as recitation is forbidden in disliked places. In al-Kashf, it says: The meaning, according to this narration, is that revilement should not occur from you based on what is mentioned in the verse, lest it become a revilement that causes their revilement. Others say that what is in the verse is not considered revilement, because it is a mention of faults for the mere sake of disparagement and humiliation, while what is in the [other] verse was revealed as an argument against their suitability for divinity and worship—though this is a matter for consideration. Similar to this is what was said, that the prohibition in reality is only against turning away from [calling them to the] invitation to [resorting to] revilement. It is as if it were said: Do not depart from inviting the disbelievers and debating them into reviling what they worship other than Allah, for that is not part of argumentation at all, and it leads to the revilement of Allah, the Exalted. The verse is cited as evidence that if an act of obedience leads to a greater act of disobedience, it is mandatory to abandon it, for that which leads to evil is [itself] evil. This is contrary to obedience in a situation containing a disobedience that cannot be averted, and the two are often confused. Thus, Ibn Sirin did not attend a funeral where both men and women were gathered, while al-Hasan differed with him, saying, “If we were to abandon obedience because of [the presence of] disobedience, that would hasten the decline of our religion.”

Al-Shihab transmitted from al-Maqdisi in al-Ramz that the correct view according to our jurists is that one does not abandon what is sought [as an act of worship] due to an accompanying innovation, such as abandoning the acceptance of an invitation because it contains entertainment, or the funeral prayer for one who is being mourned [with wailing]. If one is capable of forbidding [the evil], he forbids it; otherwise, he is patient. This is if he is not being followed [as an example]; otherwise, he does not sit [there], because that would be a disgrace to the religion. What was narrated from Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him), that he was afflicted by such, was before he became an Imam to be followed. It was narrated from Abu Mansur that he said: “How could Allah, the Exalted, forbid us from reviling those who deserve to be reviled, lest He be reviled by those who do not deserve it, when He has commanded us to fight them? And if we fight them, they will kill us, and the killing of a believer without right is a detestable act. Similarly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded the conveyance [of the message] and the recitation to them, even if they were to deny him.” He answered that the reviling of the deities is permissible but not mandatory, while fighting them is mandatory, as is the conveyance [of the message]. What is merely permissible is forbidden if it results in something [evil], whereas what is mandatory is not forbidden for what it results in. Based on this, the difference arises for Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding one who cuts off the hand of someone [who had cut his], as retribution, and the [latter] dies from it; he [the former] is liable for the blood money because the fulfillment of his right was permissible, so he is held accountable for what resulted from it. But if the Imam cuts off the hand of a thief and he dies, he is not liable because it was mandatory for him, so he is not held accountable for what resulted from it. And let not obedience [as discussed] be taken as absolute.

(Just like that): That is, like that strong ornamentation, (We have beautified for every nation) among the nations (their deeds)—of good and evil—by creating that which enables them to do them and by compelling them toward them, whether by grant of success or by abandonment. It is permitted that by "every nation" is meant the nations of disbelief, since the discourse is about them and their deeds, [referring to] their evil and corruption. That which is compared [in the "Just like that"] is the beautification of reviling Allah, the Exalted, for them. The verse is cited as evidence that it is He, the Exalted, who beautified disbelief for the disbeliever just as He beautified faith for the believer. The Mu’tazila denied this—[citing] (And Satan made their deeds fair-seeming to them)—and they interpreted the verse in a way whose weakness is not hidden. (Then to their Lord)—the Possessor of their affair—(is their return)—that is, their homecoming and their final destination through resurrection after death—(and He will inform them)—without delay—(of what they used to do) in the world continuously, whether good or evil; and that is by reward for the former and punishment for the latter. The clause is thus for both promise and threat. Some interpreted "what" [in "of what they used to do"] as the sins beautified for them, and said: This is a threat of requital and punishment, like the saying of a man to the one he is threatening: "I will inform you of what you have done."