Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:124

(And when a sign comes to them): This is a return to explaining the state of the criminals among the people of Mecca, after having explained—by way of consolation—the state of others; for the grave [demand] mentioned was issued by them, not by the rest of the criminals. That is, when a sign comes to them through the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), (they say: "We will not believe until we are given the like of what the messengers of Allah were given").

The Shaykh al-Islam said: Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: "Until it is revealed to us and Gabriel (peace be upon him) comes to us and informs us that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is truthful," just as they said: (or you bring Allah and the angels face-to-face). Al-Hasan al-Basri reported the same. As you can see, this is explicit that the condition attached to being "given the like of what the messengers of Allah were given" is their faith in the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and in what was revealed to him—a true faith, as is the immediate understanding of the term when used in a general sense. However, this entails interpreting "what the messengers of Allah were given" as revelation in general and the address of Gabriel (peace be upon him) in particular, and it requires diverting the term "the message" (al-risalah) in His saying—Exalted is He—(Allah knows best where He places His message) from its apparent meaning to mean the message of Gabriel (peace be upon him) in the aforementioned manner. [It requires] interpreting "placing it" as conveying it to the addressee, rather than placing it in its proper position, which is the Messenger [himself], so that it may serve as an answer to their proposal and a refutation of it. The meaning of the proposal is: "We will not believe that this sign has descended from Allah the Exalted to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) until Gabriel comes to us personally and visibly, as he comes to the messengers, and informs us of that." The meaning of the refutation is: "Allah knows best who is worthy of having Gabriel (peace be upon him) sent to him for any matter," signaling that they are far from deserving such an honor. This contains an obvious degree of affectation (tamm-hul).

You know that there is no affectation in interpreting "what the messengers of Allah were given" as revelation in general; rather, the affectation lies in veering away from saying "We will not believe until we are made messengers like so-and-so" toward what is found in the noble arrangement [of the verse]. Yes, diverting the message from its apparent meaning and interpreting "placing" as "conveying" is not devoid of distance. Perhaps the matter is simple. It is understood from the words of some that revelation in general and the address of Gabriel (peace be upon him) in particular, even if they do not entail that specific message, are close to its station, and thus what was mentioned serves as an answer without the need for the aforementioned interpretation and diversion—though this view itself has its own issues.

Muqatil said: It was revealed regarding Abu Jahl when he said: "We vied with Banu Manaf for honor until we became like two racehorses. They said: 'From us is a prophet to whom revelation comes.' By Allah, we will never be satisfied with him nor will we follow him until we receive revelation just as he does." Ad-Dahhak said: Each one of the people asked to be singled out for the message and revelation, as Allah the Exalted reported about them in His saying: (Rather, every person among them desires to be given scriptures spread out).

The Shaykh said: It is clear that each of these two opinions, while appropriate for the aforementioned refutation, implies that what is meant by the "faith" attached to being given the like of what the messengers were given is merely their acknowledgment of his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) message in a general sense, without including all people. It also implies that the word "until" (hatta) in the statement of the accursed one—"until we receive revelation as he does"—is a limit for the lack of satisfaction, not for the lack of following, for he is persistent regardless of whether revelation comes or not. The meaning is: "We will not believe in his message at all until we are given prophethood like what the messengers of Allah were given, or given the like of what the messengers of Allah were given."

It is clear that it is permissible for it to be a limit in the statement of the accursed one also, on the basis that what is intended by it is merely agreement and the performance of acts similar to what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) does, such as the Oneness of Allah and abandoning the worship of idols, not the following of [his] path by obedience. This is because the accursed one only requested the arrival of revelation as it comes to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and that is not a definitive text for requesting independence that contradicts following. Perhaps his intent—may the curse be upon him—was participation in honor such that he would not be lowered beneath him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) at all. It is also possible to claim that these disbelievers, because each of them is an "Abu Jahl" regarding what the station of the message entails, do not reject the possibility that one messenger might be sent to another, and that one of them would be required to comply with the command of the other and follow him, even if he were a participant in the essence of the message. Understand this.

It was said: Al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah said to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "If prophethood were true, I would be more entitled to it than you, because I am older than you in age and have more wealth and children." So this verse was revealed. The Shaykh—may his secret be sanctified—objected that this has no connection to their refuted statement, unless "faith" attached to what was mentioned is interpreted as merely faith that the sign which descended is a true revelation, not faith that it descended to him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The meaning would then be: "And when a sign descends to the Messenger, they say: 'We will not believe in its descent from Allah until its descent is to us, not to him, for we are more worthy than him.'" For the summary of his saying "If prophethood were true..." is: "If what you claim of prophethood were true, I would be the prophet, not you; and since the matter is not so, it is not true." Its ultimate result is conditioning the belief in the truth of prophethood upon his own self being a prophet.

You know that the general use of "prophethood" and their saying "messengers of Allah" do not, on the surface, possess complete harmony. Thus, the truth is that this opinion falls from the level of consideration, even if the like of it is narrated from Ibn Jurayj, because of the extra care applied to it in light of what is in the verse.

(The like of what... was given): It is in the accusative case as an adjective for an elided verbal noun (masdar), and "ma" (what) is a conjunctive particle representing a masdar. That is, "until we are given it—the giving of the like of the giving to the messengers of Allah." The attribution of the "giving" to them is a rejection of it being given to him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

(Where) (haythu): It is an object for an elided verb; that is, [Allah] knows. It has moved out of its position as an adverb (zarf) based on the opinion that it is declinable, and there is no weight given to those who deny this. The sentence following it, as Abu Ali stated in Kitab al-Shi'r, is a descriptor for it, and its annexation to what follows is because it was used as an adverb. Ar-Radi said: "It is better that haythu is annexed, and there is no barrier to its annexation—it is a noun—to the sentence." There is debate regarding this. In this context, according to many, it is not permissible for it to be genitive by annexation, because the superlative (af'al) is part of what is annexed to it, nor is it accusative by the superlative as an adverb, because His knowledge—the Exalted—is not restricted by an adverb. Among those who stated this is Ibn al-Sa'igh. Some permitted the second and refuted the reason given for its prohibition, arguing that it is permissible to consider the restriction of His knowledge—the Exalted—by the adverb as metaphorical, considering what it relates to. Indeed, that is better than removing haythu from being an adverb, as that is either rare or impossible.

The sentence (Allah knows best...) etc., is an explanatory initiation (isti'naf). The meaning is that the station of the message is not something attained by what they claim—such as wealth and the support of causes and numbers—but is attained by spiritual virtues and a sanctified soul which Allah the Exalted pours forth by pure generosity and grace upon whoever has completed his capacity. Some stated that it follows innate capacity, and this does not necessitate the [philosophical] "necessitation" that the philosophers speak of, because He—the Exalted—if He wills, gives it, and if He wills, He withholds it, even if the locus is prepared. What is in al-Mawaqif, that innate capacity is not a condition for the message, but rather Allah the Exalted singles out with His mercy whom He wills, is interpreted as the "compelling" innate capacity; for the custom of Allah has been to send from every people their noblest and purest in character. The full discussion is in its proper place.

Most of the seven [reciters] read "His messages" (risalatihi) in the plural. From some, it is said that it is recommended to pause at "messengers of Allah," and that supplication is answered between the two recitations. I have not seen any reliable basis for this.

(Those who committed crimes will be struck...): Another initiation, denouncing the types of evil they will encounter after denouncing their deprivation of what they hoped for. The "sin" is for emphasis, and the use of the relative pronoun [those who] instead of the pronoun [them] is for greater reproach. It is said: It is to signal the causality of the content of the relative clause; that is, they will certainly be struck in place of what they hoped for and upon which they pinned their empty greeds—[deprived of] the might of prophethood and the honor of the message.

(Humiliation): That is, great abasement—which is after their arrogance—(with Allah) on the Day of Resurrection. It is also said: [It means] "from Allah," and the majority of exegetes incline toward this, as al-Farra' said, though he objected to it saying: "It is not permissible in Arabic to say 'I came at Zayd' when you intend 'from with Zayd'." It is said that the intent is that this is in His guarantee—the Exalted—or a storehouse for them with Him, and it is in the category of sarcasm, as is clear. (And a severe punishment) in the Hereafter, or in this world, (for what they used to scheme), meaning because of their continuous scheming or in retaliation for it. Since this was one of the greatest materials of their crimes, He explicitly stated the reason for it.