Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:12

(Say) by way of rebuke and reprimand toward them: (To whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth?)—meaning, to whom do all beings belong, by way of creation, ownership, and disposal? And His, the Sublime and Exalted’s, saying: (Say: To Allah) is a confirmation of the answer on their behalf, or a compulsion for them to acknowledge that everything belongs to Him, the Sublime and Exalted. This contains an indication that the answer has reached a level of clarity where no denier can deny it, nor can any repeller deflect it; for commanding the questioner to answer is only appropriate—as the Imam said—in a situation where the answer is such. It is said: It also contains an indication that they were reluctant to answer, despite its obviousness, because they were defeated in argument. Issam al-Milla mentioned that His, the Sublime and Exalted’s, saying: "(Say: To whom)..." means the command to seek this inquiry and turn toward attaining it. And His, the Mighty and Majestic’s, saying: "(Say: To Allah)" means that when you seek it and your consideration leads you to the truth, then acknowledge it and do not deny it. This is guidance toward the path of monotheism in actions, following the guidance toward monotheism in divinity, which is avoiding the state of the deniers.

There is in this an indication of the connection, and there will come, if Allah the Exalted wills, soon what informs one of the sound aspect of that. The prepositional phrase is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: That belongs to Allah the Exalted, or that belongs to Allah—Exalted is His Majesty.

(He has inscribed upon Himself mercy)—an independent sentence falling under the command, proclaiming the all-encompassing nature of His, the Mighty and Majestic’s, mercy for all creation, following the explanation of the all-encompassing nature of His ownership and power—may He be glorified and exalted—over everything, which justifies the inflicting of punishment upon the deniers. It is driven to explain that He, the Exalted, is compassionate toward the servants, does not hasten punishment upon them, and accepts repentance from them. Whatever preceded and whatever followed of the decrees of wrath is nothing but from the poor choice of the servants due to their eternal ill-preparedness, not from the requirements of His Essence, may He be glorified and exalted. And Allah did not wrong them, but they were wronging themselves. The meaning of "inscribing mercy upon Himself," may He be glorified, is rendering it obligatory upon His Holy Self by way of grace and beneficence, intrinsically and not through the mediation of anything else.

It is said: It is what the two Shaykhs [Bukhari and Muslim] and others recorded from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, said: "When Allah the Exalted finished creating, He wrote a book, and He placed it with Him above the Throne: 'Indeed, My mercy has preceded My wrath.'" In a narration by Ibn Marduyah: "Allah the Exalted wrote a book with His Hand for Himself before He created the heavens and the earth, and placed it beneath His Throne, in it: 'My mercy has preceded My wrath,'" in addition to other such reports. The meaning of the precedence of mercy and its dominance in them is that it is the earliest in its attachment to the creation and the most reaching toward them, even though it is from the requirements of the Essence that overflows with goodness.

In the commentary on Muslim by Imam al-Nawawi, he said: The scholars said: Allah the Exalted’s wrath and His pleasure return to the meaning of "will." His will for reward for the obedient and benefit for the servant is called "pleasure" and "mercy," and His will for the punishment of the disobedient and abandoning them is called "wrath." His will, may He be glorified and exalted, is an eternal attribute of His through which He wills. They said: The intent behind "precedence" and "dominance" here is the abundance of mercy and its encompassing nature, just as it is said, "Generosity and courage prevailed over such-and-such a person" if they became abundant in him. This returns to what we said. The summary of the discussion on this is that precedence and dominance in the attachments are within the essential attribute itself, for it is not imaginable for one attribute to precede another in Him, the Exalted, because that would entail the temporal occurrence of the preceded one. Likewise, multiplicity and scarcity between two attributes are not imaginable, as that would entail temporal occurrence.

Sometimes, "mercy" is intended as that which is used to show mercy; in this sense, it is described by multiplicity, descending, and so forth. Based on this is interpreted what Muslim and Ibn Marduyah recorded from Salman al-Farisi, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, said: "Allah the Exalted created, on the day He created the heavens and the earth, one hundred mercies, each mercy filling what is between the heavens and the earth. He placed on earth one mercy, by which a mother is tender toward her child, and wild animals and birds are toward one another. When the Day of Resurrection comes, He will complete it with this mercy." Abd ibn Humayd and others recorded from Abdullah ibn Amr who said: "Indeed, Allah the Exalted has one hundred mercies; He sent down one mercy to the people of the world, by which the jinn, mankind, birds of the sky, fish of the water, and the beasts and insects of the earth show mercy to one another. He stored with Him ninety-nine mercies, until, when the Day of Resurrection comes, He will pluck the mercy He had sent down to the people of the world and gather it to what He has with Him, and He will place it in the hearts of the people of Paradise and upon the people of Paradise." The intent behind "mercy" in the verse is what encompasses both abodes, with the generality of its object. Therefore, what was narrated from al-Kalbi—that the meaning is "He made obligatory upon Himself mercy for the nation of Muhammad, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, that He will not punish them when they deny as He punished the nations of the past and the bygone generations when they did so, but rather delays them to the Day of Resurrection"—does not invite to it except to manifest what is appropriate for the context from the particulars of that general concept.

In expressing the Essence as "Self" (Nafs) is a refutation of those who claim that the word "Nafs" is not applied to Allah the Exalted, even if the intent is the Essence, except by way of harmonization (mushakala); and considering the estimated harmonization is not apparent, as is evident.

His, the Sublime's, saying: (He will surely gather you to the Day of Resurrection) is the answer to an oath that is omitted. Abu al-Baqa said that "He has inscribed" occupies its place. The sentence is a grammatical resumption driven for the purpose of threatening them for their associating partners and their negligence of reflection. It is said: It is an explanatory sentence, as if it were said: "What is that mercy?" Then it was said: "Indeed, He will surely gather you..." and so on. That is because if not for the fear of the Resurrection and the punishment, chaos and disorder would occur, discipline would be lifted, and confusion would increase. It was objected that this only becomes apparent as mentioned if they were acknowledging the Resurrection, which they are not. Some researchers also said: That is an affectation, and the answer is not directed in it except by considering what is required of the fear—which is abstaining from prohibitions—which necessitates mercy. It is said: The suitability of what is in the verse for the answer is by considering that the meaning is "He will gather you to the Day of Resurrection and will not hasten the punishment upon you now for your denial," according to what al-Kalbi pointed to.

It is said: The oath and its answer are in the accusative case as a substitute for "mercy," a substitute of a part for the whole. Grammarians have mentioned that a sentence can be substituted for a singular term; however, they did not address the types of substitution in that. The prepositional phrase is said to be connected to an omitted element, meaning: "He will gather you in the graves as those resurrected to the Day of..." assuming "Ba'th" (Resurrection) is in the sense of "Irsaal" (sending), which is a verb that takes the preposition "ila" and does not require committing to "Tadmīn" (implicational shifting of meaning). It was objected that "resurrection" (Ba'th) is to a place, not a time, unless "Day of Resurrection" is meant as its event in its place. It is said: It is connected to the aforementioned verb, and the intent is a gathering containing the meaning of driving and compulsion, as if it were said: "He will surely resurrect you and drive you and compel you to the Day of Resurrection," meaning to its reckoning. It is said: It is connected to the aforementioned verb, and "ila" is in the sense of "fi" (in), as in his saying: "Do not leave me with threats, as if I were smeared with tar like a mangy camel." Some prohibited "ila" coming in the sense of "fi" in their speech, and even if that were true, it would allow "Zayd is to (ila) Kufa" in the sense of "in Kufa," and the verse was interpreted as implying a genitive or a detested or hated thing. It was answered that this objection only holds if it were said that the usage of "ila" in the sense of "fi" is a consistent rule; perhaps the one who claims the usage does not say what was mentioned, and committing to "Tadmīn" is contrary to the original principle, and committing to the claim that "ila" is in the sense of "fi," even if it is not consistent, is easier than it. It is said: It is in the sense of "lam." It is said: It is extra. The address is to the disbelievers, as is apparent from the context. It is said: It is general to them and the believers after it was purely for the disbelievers, meaning: "He will gather you, O people, to the Day of Resurrection."

(There is no doubt about it)—meaning, it is not appropriate for anyone to doubt it due to the clarity of its proofs and the brilliance of its evidences, some of which were mentioned previously. The sentence is a circumstantial clause for "the Day," and the pronominal suffix refers to it. It is possible that it is an attribute for an omitted noun, and the pronoun refers to it, meaning: "a gathering in which there is no doubt." It is permitted that it is a confirmation for what preceded it, as they said regarding His, the Exalted’s, saying: (That is the Book; there is no doubt in it).

(Those who have lost their own selves) by wasting their capital, which is the original innate nature (fitra), sound reason, the near readiness gained from witnessing the Messenger, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, and listening to the revelation, and other traces of mercy. Regarding the position of the relative pronoun (alladhina), it is said: it is in the accusative case as an object of vilification, or in the nominative case as a predicate for an omitted subject, meaning: "You are those who..." and it is an elliptical adjective, and it is not required that every elliptical adjective be capable of following it as an adjective; rather, the meaning of description suffices. Do you not see His, the Exalted’s, saying: Woe to every backbiter, slanderer, who collects wealth... how he Ellipsed the relative pronoun despite it not being correct to follow it as an adjective for an indefinite noun? So it cannot be objected that ellipsis is only in the adjective, and the pronoun is not described. It is said: It is a substitute for the pronoun, a substitute of a part for the whole by estimating a pronoun, or it is a predicate for a subject based on ellipsis for substitution as well; and there is no specialization for ellipsis to the adjective. Perhaps they did not make it accusative by an estimated verb or a predicate for an omitted subject without need for what was mentioned, due to their claim that mere estimation does not yield vilification or praise except with ellipsis. Al-Akhfash chose the substitution, but Abu al-Baqa criticized that as being far-fetched because pronouns of the first and second person are not substituted from, due to their extreme clarity, and others are below them in that. It is said: It is a subject whose predicate is (for they do not believe).

The "Fa" (so) is for indicating that their lack of belief and their persistence in disbelief is caused by their loss; for the nullification of reason by following the senses and the imagination, and indulgence in imitation, led them to persist in disbelief and refrain from belief. In al-Kashshaf: "If you say: How can their lack of belief be caused by their loss, when the matter is the opposite? I would say: Its meaning is: 'Those who have lost their own selves in the knowledge of Allah the Exalted, due to their choice of disbelief, so they do not believe.'" The summary of the discussion on this is: Those whom Allah the Exalted judged as having lost because of their choice of disbelief, so they do not believe. The judgment of loss is prior to the lack of belief because it is contemporaneous with the knowledge of the choice of disbelief, not because of its actual occurrence in practice, so the consequence of the lack of belief upon it is correct from this angle. You know that this question is dispelled by carrying the "loss" upon what we mentioned, and perhaps it is more appropriate than what is in al-Kashshaf due to the ambiguity it contains. The sentence, as more than one has said, is an appendage (tadhīl) driven from His side, the Exalted, to vilify their state, not falling under the command.

It is said: The apparent meaning, assuming it is a beginning, is the conjunction of the sentence to "there is no doubt in it," so the separation requires the burden of estimating a question, as if it were said: "Why then do the disbelievers doubt it?" and it was answered that their losing their own selves became the cause for the lack of belief. It is permitted, based on that estimation, that the sentence is a circumstantial clause, and it is as you see.