Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:148

(Those who associated partners with Allah will say) This is a narration of another aspect of their falsehoods, and it is a foretelling of something before it occurred, followed by its occurrence exactly as reported, as evidenced by His saying—Exalted be He—at the time of its occurrence: (And those who associated partners with Allah said: "If Allah had willed, we would not have associated partners with Him, nor would our forefathers, nor would we have forbidden anything.") It is explicit that this originated from Allah—Exalted be He. Many scholars have affirmed that the occurrence of unseen matters that Allah has foretold is one of the aspects of the miraculous nature of His Speech, even if the miracle is not limited to that alone. As in the saying of the one who weakens [the truth]: (If Allah had willed)—i.e., the absence of our associating partners and our forbidding anything—(we would not have associated partners, nor would our forefathers, nor would we have forbidden anything).

They did not intend by this statement to offer an apology for committing evil, for they did not believe their actions were evil; rather, these were their own actions. Indeed, they were as the verses describe them: (They think they are doing good deeds), believing they only worshiped idols to draw them closer to Allah in position, and that the act of forbidding was from Allah—Mighty and Majestic is He. Their objective was nothing other than to argue that what they committed was true, legitimate, and pleasing to Allah, based on the assumption that "will" and "desire" are synonymous with "command" and necessitate "approval," as the Mu'tazila claimed. Thus, the conclusion of their argument is: "What we commit of associating partners, forbidding, and other things is linked to the will and desire of Allah, and whatever is linked to His will and desire—Glorified is He—is legitimate and pleasing to Him." Consequently, they conclude that their actions are legitimate and pleasing to Allah.

After He—Exalted be He—narrated this from them, He responded to them by saying—Mighty is the One who speaks: (Just as)—meaning, just as these people lied—(did those before them lie)—who were their polytheist predecessors. The substance of the matter is that their speech implies the denial of the Messengers—peace be upon them—and miracles have already proven their truthfulness. It is not hidden that the first premise itself does not contain denial; rather, it contains the affirmation of what both reason and revelation agree upon: that everything existing is by the will of Allah, and that it is impossible for anything to occur in His kingdom contrary to what He wills. The origin of the denial is the second premise, because the Messengers—peace be upon them—call them to monotheism and tell them: "Allah—Exalted be He—does not approve of disbelief as a religion for His servants, nor does He command indecency." Thus, their claim—that what they commit is legitimate and pleasing to Him—is a denial of this message. Since the corruption of this argument rests upon the second premise, it is determined that it is not true. Consequently, its opposite must be true: that not everything linked to the will and desire is legitimate and pleasing to Him—Glorified is He—based on the fact that "desire" is not synonymous with "command" and "approval," which is the creed of the Ahl al-Sunnah. For the "will" gives preference to certain possibilities over others, whether they are commanded or forbidden, good or evil. Based on this, there is no argument for the Mu'tazila in the verse; rather, the matter has turned against them, making the verse an argument for us against them, because they did not distinguish between the "commanded" and the "desired," and they believed, like the polytheists, that everything desired is commanded and pleasing.

It is also possible to say that the intent of the polytheists in their statement was to reject the call of the Prophets—peace be upon them—and to invalidate the mission and religious obligation, which is what is mentioned in many theological books. The substance of their argument then is: "What Allah wills must happen, and what He does not will cannot happen, and whatever is in this state cannot be tasked to a human, as it is conditional upon ability." The result is that "we were not tasked to abandon what we commit of shirk and other things, and no Prophet was sent for that." Allah—Exalted be He—responded to them that this is "a word of truth intended for a falsehood," because they intended by it that the Messengers—peace be upon them—were liars in their claim of a mission and obligation, whereas their truthfulness has been established by definitive proofs. Because it was a truth intended for a falsehood, Allah condemned them for their denial. The necessity of the occurrence of that which is linked to the "will" does not negate the truth of the claim of the mission and obligation, for they are both for the purpose of manifesting the proof and delivering the argument. Another interpretation of the verse will follow soon, God willing.

The conjunction of (our forefathers) with the nominative pronoun in (we associated partners) is permissible according to the Basrans, even if the pronoun is not emphasized, because for them, any separator is sufficient; and here, [the word] "nor" has separated them. The Kufans do not stipulate anything for this and use this verse as evidence, and they do not consider this separation [sufficient] because the conjunction should precede it to prevent awkwardness; for them, the separation between the conjoined and the conjoined-to is not enough. Abu Ali hesitated regarding the sufficiency of the separation between the conjoined and the conjoined-to if the conjunction [itself] did not separate them. The Imam [al-Razi] claimed that there is an ellipsis in the speech, because the negation is not directed at the entities of the forefathers, but must be directed to an action issued by them, which is the act of associating partners. Thus, the estimation would be: "We did not associate partners, nor did our forefathers associate partners," and in that case, there is no problem.

(...until they tasted Our punishment), meaning they received Our punishment which We sent down upon them for their denial. In this, according to what is said, is an allusion that they have a punishment reserved for them with Allah—Exalted be He—because "tasting" is the first perception of a thing.

(Say: "Do you have any knowledge")—i.e., any known matter that is valid to use as an argument for your claim—(that you can bring forth)—meaning, that you can display—(for us) in the most complete manner and the clearest explanation? It is also said: The intent is, "Do you have any fixed, corresponding conviction regarding what you claim—that shirk and all that you are upon is pleasing to Allah—so that you may display it to us with proof?" The Imam of the Haramayn [al-Juwayni] made this and what follows evidence that the polytheists only deserved rebuke for their saying because they were mocking the religion and seeking to reject the call of the Prophets—peace be upon them—as they had heard from the laws of the Messengers—peace be upon them—the entrusting of matters to Him—Glorified be He—so when the Prophets demanded them to submit and adhere to the rulings, they argued against them using what they took from their own words, mocking them—peace be upon them—and their goal was not to mention what their beliefs actually entailed. How could it be otherwise, when belief in the attributes of Allah—Exalted be He—is a branch of belief in Him—Mighty and Majestic is He—which was far from their reach?

(You follow)—i.e., you do not follow in that—(nothing but conjecture)—the false [conjecture] which does not avail anything against the truth—or the meaning is: your custom and the majority of your affairs are that you follow nothing but conjecture—(and you are nothing but liars) regarding Allah—Exalted be He. The discussion regarding the ruling on following conjecture has already preceded in detail, so remember it.