Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:112

"And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy..."

This is an inaugural statement intended to console the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding the enmity of Quraysh he witnesses, and the fabrications and actions they have built upon it. The "Thus" refers to what is understood from the preceding discourse. The Kaf (in Kadhālika) is in the accusative position, acting as an adjective for an implied verbal noun that emphasizes what follows. The fronting of the prepositional phrase is for the purpose of Qasr (exclusivity), which serves to provide emphasis. ‘Adūwwan (enemy) is used in the sense of a‘dā’ (enemies), just as in the line of poetry: "If I do not benefit my friend with my affection, then my enemy cannot harm them with my hatred." That is, just as We made enemies for you—while you were apart from them, they do not believe, they seek ruinous plots against you, and they strive to invalidate your mission—so too did We make for every prophet who preceded you enemies who did the same to them as your enemies have done to you; it is not a making that is lesser than the latter. Imam Ali interpreted it this way, treating it as a conjunction linked to the meaning of the preceding discourse, though it is perhaps not the technical conjunction of grammar. It is also permissible that it is linked to His saying, the Exalted: "And thus We have adorned for every nation their deeds," meaning: "Just as We did that, We made for every prophet..." but there is remoteness in this view.

Regardless, the verse is manifest in supporting the view of the Ahl al-Sunnah that He, the Exalted, is the Creator of evil just as He is the Creator of good. To interpret it as meaning "Just as We left you alone with your enemies, so too did We do with the prophets before you—We did not prevent them from enmity because it contains the trial that is the cause for the manifestation of steadfastness, patience, and the abundance of reward and compensation"—is contrary to the apparent meaning. Similar to this is the view of Abu Bakr al-Asamm, who claimed this "making" is by way of causality: He sent the prophets and distinguished them with miracles, so those who envied them did so, and that became the cause of the fierce enmity. Similar to this is the saying of al-Mutanabbi: "For you are the one who turned them into envy."

It is also said: The meaning is, "Just as We commanded you to show enmity toward your people among the polytheists, so too did We command the prophets before you to show enmity toward their likes," or "Just as We informed you of the enmity of the polytheists and decreed that, so We informed the prophets of the enmity of their enemies and decreed that." All of this is baseless, and such are most of the interpretations of the Mu'tazilah.

"...devils of mankind and jinn..."

That is, the rebellious ones of both types, as is narrated from al-Hasan, Qatadah, and Mujahid, on the basis that the genitive construction (Idafa) is Bayaniyyah (explicative). It is also said it is the addition of the description to the described, meaning the human and jinn devils. Another view is that it denotes possession (Lam), meaning the devils belonging to mankind and jinn. In the Tafsir of al-Kalbi from Ibn Abbas, there is that which supports this; for it is narrated from him that he said: "Iblis (the curse of Allah be upon him) divided his army into two groups: he sent one group to mankind and another to the jinn." In another narration from him, the jinn are the Jānn and they are not the devils; the devils are the offspring of Iblis, and they do not die except with him, while the jinn die and among them are believers and disbelievers. It (Shayatin) is in the accusative position as a substitution for "enemy." The verb "made" can take one object or two; it is the first object, and the second was fronted before it to hasten the clarification of the enmity. The Lam (in Li-kulli), under both interpretations, is either linked to "making" or to an omitted word acting as a state (Hal) for "enemy," fronted due to its obscurity. It is also permissible for it to be linked to it [the enemy] and fronted for importance, or that Shayatin is in the accusative by an implied verb.

His saying, the Exalted: "...inspiring one another with decorative speech..."

This is an initiated statement intended to clarify the nature of their enmity, or it is a state (Hal) from "devils," or an adjective for "enemy." The pronoun is pluralized due to the meaning, as in the previous verse. The origin of Wahy (inspiration/revelation), as al-Raghib said, is rapid signaling. Because of the inclusion of speed, it is called "secret" (wahy). It occurs through speech by way of allusion and insinuation, and it may be through a sound stripped of composition, by the signal of limbs, or also by writing. The meaning here is: the jinn devils whisper and suggest to the human devils, or some of each group suggest to the other.

"...decorative speech..."

That is, the embellished/gilded speech of falsehood. The origin of Zukhruf is the embellished ornament; from this, gold is called Zukhruf. Some say the origin of the meaning of Zukhruf is gold, and whenever something is beautiful to the eyes, it is called Zukhrufah. It is sometimes reserved for falsehood.

"...in deception."

This is a causal object (Maf'ul lahu), meaning "in order to deceive them," or a verbal noun in the position of a state (Hal), meaning "deceiving," or a verbal noun for an omitted verb that acts as a state from the agent of "inspires," meaning "they deceive with deception." Al-Zamakhshari interpreted "deception" as guile and taking one by surprise. Al-Raghib attributed to him that he said: "It is said, 'He deceived him with deception,' as if he folded him upon an ghirrah (unawareness/inattention)," which is his first folding.

"But had your Lord willed, they would not have done it..."

This is a return, as has been said, to clarifying the affairs occurring between him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his people, which is understood from the narrative of what occurred between the prophets and their nations, as the shift in person indicates. The mention of the attribute of Lordship, along with the attribution to His pronoun (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), expresses complete tenderness in consolation. The object pronoun in "done it" returns to their enmity toward him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the inspiration of some of them to others with the decorative, false statements regarding his mission—given that this is understood from what preceded, and the matter of the individuals is simple. It is said it refers to what was mentioned of the enmity of the prophets and the inspiration of the decorations, which is broader than being only about his affair and the affairs of his brother prophets. In this, His saying, the Exalted: "So leave them and what they fabricate" is like an explicit statement that they are the disbelievers contemporary to him. It is also said it returns to the inspiration, the decoration, or the deception. Whether this is taken generally or specifically, there are two possibilities, the first of which is more obvious. The object of the will is omitted, meaning: the non-occurrence of what was mentioned. There is no problem in making the specific non-occurrence the object of the will; some estimated it as "their belief."

It has been objected that the constant rule is that the object of the will, when it occurs as a condition, is the content of the consequent (Jaza'), as is in the science of Rhetoric (Ma'ani), and here it is "they would not have done it." This was followed by the argument that here the Will was mentioned previously, linked to something (i.e., belief) as indicated, then it was mentioned within the conditional space without a link. Thus, it is apparent that it is permissible to estimate its link as the content of the consequent, or to estimate that to which the action of the will was previously linked. There is no harm in observing either of the two, according to what the situation requires. What is mentioned in Ma'ani is only where the action of the will is not repeated and there is no evidence other than the consequent. So, understand that, for it is subtle.

In my view, it is better to consider the content of the consequent absolutely. The Exalted said here: "But had your Lord willed, they would not have done it," and in the coming verse: "But had Allah willed, they would not have done it." He varied between the two names in the two places for the reason some mentioned: that which is before this verse—the enmity toward him like the other prophets, which, if He had willed, He would have prevented them from, so they would not reach any harm—requires His mention, Glorified is He, by this title [Lord] to indicate that He is the One who nurtures him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) under His protection. The reason He, the Exalted, did not do that is due to a matter required by His wisdom. As for the other verse, disbelief/polytheism is mentioned before it, so it was appropriate to mention Him, Blessed is His Name, by the title of Divinity, which requires no partners. It is as if it were said here: "If what they did of the rulings of your enmity—from the kinds of evils—was by the will of your Lord, Glorified is He, in whose protection you have always been, then leave them and their fabrications, or what they fabricate of various kinds of plots, and do not care about them; for they have severe punishments in that, and you have commendable ends, as His will, the Exalted, is absolutely based upon profound wisdom."