Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:137

(And likewise), meaning: in a manner similar to that embellishment—which is the embellishment of associating partners with God in the distribution of offerings, such as tillage and livestock, between God Almighty and their partners—or similar to that profound embellishment customary from the devils, (it was made fair-seeming to many of the polytheists), meaning: the polytheists of the Arabs, (the killing of their children). They used to bury their young daughters alive. Regarding this, it is said they were two groups: one said that the angels are the daughters of God Almighty, so they attributed daughters to God, claiming He is more entitled to them. The other group killed them out of fear of poverty. It is also said it was out of fear of that and of shame, which is what is narrated from al-Hasan and a group.

Another account suggests the reason for killing daughters was that al-Nu’man ibn al-Mundhir raided a tribe and took their women captive, among whom was the daughter of Qays ibn ‘Asim. When they later made peace, every woman desired her own kin except the daughter of Qays, who desired the one who had captured her. Consequently, Qays swore that he would bury alive every daughter born to him, and this became a tradition among them. It is also said that some of them would vow, upon their sons reaching the number of ten, to slaughter one of them, as ‘Abd al-Muttalib did in his famous story, to which the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—alluded by saying: "I am the son of the two slaughtered ones." The word qatl (killing) is the object of the verb zuyyina (made fair-seeming), being a verbal noun annexed to its object (awladihim).

And His saying, Exalted is He: (their partners) is the subject of the verb. By "partners," it is meant either the devils or the custodians of the idols. They were called such because they were partners in their wealth, as previously mentioned, or because they were obeyed just as the partner of God—Mighty and Majestic is His Name—is obeyed. The meaning of their embellishing this for them is their making it attractive and inciting them toward it.

Ibn ‘Amir read zuyyina in the passive voice, with al-qatl (the killing) in the nominative case, awladihim (their children) in the genitive, and shuraka’uhum (their partners) in the genitive, due to the annexation of al-qatl to it, while being separated from it by its object. Al-Zamakhshari followed this by asserting that such a construction, if it were in the place of necessities—i.e., poetry—would be considered crude and rejected, just as the verse "The repelling of the she-camel of Abu Mazada" was considered crude and rejected. How much more so, then, in prose? And how much more in the miraculous speech of the Quran? He then said: "What led him to this is that he saw in some codices shuraka’ihim written with a ya." If he had read it with the genitive for both the children and the partners—arguing that the children are their partners—he would have found a way to avoid this offense.

He [Al-Zamakhshari] has truly ridden blindly into this matter and wandered in a wilderness. He imagined that the seven Imams of recitation each derived the letters they recited based on personal reasoning, not by transmission and audition, as some ignorant people have claimed. Therefore, he criticized Ibn ‘Amir in this recitation of his and proceeded to explain the origin of his "error." This is a manifest error from which one fears disbelief—we seek refuge with God Almighty. For the seven recitations are mutawatir (mass-transmitted), in their entirety and in every detail, from the most eloquent of those who spoke the daad, may God bless him and grant him peace. Therefore, criticizing any of them is, in a sense, criticizing the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace; nay, it is criticizing God Almighty—we seek refuge in God from that.

Abu Hayyan said: "I am amazed at a non-Arab weak in grammar who disputes against a pure, eloquent Arab over a mutawatir recitation that has parallels in the speech of the Arabs in more than one verse. And I am even more amazed at the poor attitude of this man toward the Imam-reciters whom this nation has chosen for the transmission of the Book of God Almighty, both East and West. The Muslims have relied upon their transmission due to their precision, knowledge, and piety." Many other Imams have also denounced him. Perhaps his excuse for this is his ignorance of the sciences of recitation and legal theory (usul).

It is sometimes said that he does not distinguish between the annexed noun that performs an action and one that does not. The critical grammarians have distinguished between them, stating that the latter is separated by an adverb, while the former—if it is a verbal noun or similar—is separated by its object absolutely. This is because its annexation is intended to be separable, and its object is posterior in rank; thus, its separation is as if it were not separated at all. Therefore, this is permissible in such cases and is not exclusive to poetry. Among those who explicitly stated this is Ibn Malik, who corrected Al-Zamakhshari for failing to make this distinction.

My own reliance is upon the recitation of Ibn ‘Amir, and how many supporters and defenders it has! Furthermore, even if we were to concede that the recitation of Ibn ‘Amir contradicts the analogy of Arabic grammar, it would still be mandatory to accept it once the authenticity of its transmission is verified, just as other things that contradicted analogy were accepted, even though the authenticity of their transmission is far inferior to the authenticity of the aforementioned recitation.

How beautiful is the statement of the Imam, as related by Al-Jalal al-Suyuti: "I often see grammarians bewildered in settling the wording of the Quran. When they cite an unknown verse to support their view, they rejoice in it. I am deeply amazed at them; for if they consider the appearance of an unknown verse to be evidence of its correctness, then to consider the appearance of that wording in the Quran to be evidence of its correctness is more worthy." From what we have mentioned, one learns the flaw in the statement of al-Sakkaki: "Separation between the annexed and the annexed-to is not permitted except by an adverb." Such as his saying: Between the arms and the forehead of the lion, is carried on the basis of the deletion of the annexed noun in the first instance. The likes of the recitation of those who read (the killing of their children, their partners) is based on reliance upon the trustworthy and the abundance of its parallels. Whoever desires them should refer to the Khasa'is of Ibn Jinni. In my view, it is carried on the basis of the deletion of the annexed noun in the first and the implicit reference to the annexed noun in the second, as in the recitation of those who read: "And God desires the Hereafter" (with the genitive), meaning: the provision of the Hereafter. Although what I have mentioned may have a degree of remoteness, criticizing the trustworthy and the eloquent is more remote.

Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami read zuyyina in the passive, qatl (killing) in the nominative, awladihim (their children) in the genitive, and shuraka’uhum (their partners) in the nominative, implying a verb indicated by zuyyina, as in the saying: "Here I am, at your service, a distressed man [answers] to a grievance..." as if when it was said: "The killing of their children was made fair-seeming to them," it was said: "Their partners made it fair-seeming to them," (in order to ruin them), meaning: to destroy them through misguidance, (and to confuse for them their religion), meaning: to mix up for them what they were upon of the religion of Ishmael, peace be upon him, until they slipped away from it into polytheism, or [to confuse] the religion they were obligated to follow. It is also said the meaning is: to cause them to fall into a confused religion. The "lam" is for causality if the embellishment is from the devils, as their intent in misguiding them is nothing but that. It is for the consequence if it is from the custodians, as that is not their primary concern, though it is the consequence. (And if God had willed), meaning: if He had willed their not doing so, (they would not have done it), meaning: the polytheists would not have committed what was made fair-seeming to them of killing, or the partners would not have done the embellishment, or the ruining and the confusing, or both groups would not have done all of that, treating the singular pronoun as a demonstrative. (So leave them and what they fabricate.)

The fa (so) is fasiha (eloquent/explanatory), meaning: since what has happened occurred by the will of God Almighty, then leave them and their fabrication—or what they fabricate of lies—and do not pay them any heed; for in what God Almighty wills are profound wisdoms, and in it is the intensity of the warning, as is not hidden.