Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:153

"And this is My path" is an indication of His—upon him be prayer and peace—Sharia, as narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and the following prohibition is consistent with this. Muqatil said it refers to what is in the two verses regarding commands and prohibitions. Others said it refers to what was mentioned in the Surah, as most of it is in establishing monotheism and prophecy and explaining the Sharia.

Hamza and Al-Kisa’i read in with a kasra (dative), while Ibn Amir and Ya’qub read it with fatha (accusative) and takhfif (non-geminated). The rest read it with a shaddah (geminated). Ibn Amir read sirati with a fatha on the ya. It is also read as hadha siratu rabbikum and hadha siratu rabbik. The attribution of the path to the Lord, the Exalted, is by way of establishment/origin, and its attribution to him—upon him be prayer and peace—is by way of practice/walking and calling to it. That is: this is the path that I walk upon and call to.

"Straight" (mustaqiman)—there is no crookedness in it. It is in the accusative case as a state (hal).

"So follow it"—that is, walk in its footsteps and act upon it.

"And do not follow the paths"—that is, the deviations, as transmitted by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim from Ibn Abbas. In another narration from him, it means the various religions, like Judaism and Christianity. Ibn al-Mundhir, Abd ibn Humayd, and others narrated from Mujahid that it refers to innovations and doubts.

"For they will scatter you"—it is in the accusative as the response to the prohibition. The original is tatafarraq, then one of the tas was dropped. The ba is for causativity; that is, they will scatter you according to their scattering, like the "scattering of Saba." It is, as you see, more eloquent than tatafarraqum (you scatter), just as "he took it away" (dhahaba bihi) is more eloquent than "he made it go" (adhhabahu) due to the indication of accompanying [the object of the action].

"From His way"—that is, the way of Allah, the Exalted, which has no crookedness and no hardship, which is the religion of Islam. It is said: it is the following of revelation and adherence to proof. There is a reminder in this that his path—upon him be peace—is the very same as the path of Allah, the Exalted. Ahmad and a group narrated from Ibn Mas’ud: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) drew a line with his hand and said, 'This is the path of Allah, the Exalted, straight.' Then he drew lines to the right and left of that line, and then said, 'These are paths, and there is no path among them except that upon it is a devil calling to it.' Then he read, 'And this is My path, straight, so follow it...'"

The reason it was first attributed to him—upon him be peace—is that it is more conducive to following, since through him it becomes clear that it is the path of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.

"That"—an indication of following the paths—"He has instructed you with it, that you may attain righteousness."

The punishment of Allah, the Exalted, comes from being persistent in doing what He commanded and continuing to refrain from what He forbade. Abu Hayyan said: Since the straight path is the one that encompasses the religious obligations, and He, the Exalted, commanded that it be followed and forbade following other paths, He concluded that with taqwa (righteousness), which is avoiding the Fire; for whoever follows His path attains eternal salvation and everlasting happiness. He, the Exalted, repeated the instruction for emphasis. What a great instruction it is, and how clear its proof!

Al-Tirmidhi (who classified it as hasan), Ibn al-Mundhir, Al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu’ab, and others narrated from Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "Whoever is pleased to look at the will of Muhammad—upon him be prayer and peace—upon his seal, let him read these verses: 'Say, come, I will recite...' until 'that you may attain righteousness.'"

Ibn Humayd, Abu al-Shaykh, and Al-Hakim (who authenticated it) narrated from Ubadah ibn al-Samit that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Which of you will pledge allegiance to me regarding these three verses?" Then he recited them to the end, then said: "Whoever fulfills them, his reward is with Allah, the Exalted; and whoever falls short in any of them and Allah catches him in the world, his punishment is that; and whoever delays him to the Hereafter, his matter is with Allah—if He wills, He will take him to account, and if He wills, He will pardon him."

Abu al-Shaykh narrated from Ubaydullah ibn Abdillah ibn ‘Adi that Ka’b heard a man reading "Say, come, I will recite..." and he said: "By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Ka’b, it is the first verse in the Torah: 'In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, say, come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you' until the end of the verses." From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "These are decisive verses; nothing in any of the Books has abrogated them. They are forbidden to all the children of Adam, and they are the Mother of the Book. Whoever acts upon them will enter Paradise, and whoever abandons them will enter the Fire."

As for an in His saying (the Exalted) "that (an) you do not associate," it may be mufassira (explanatory) or masdariyya (making it an infinitive). The second scholar (Al-Razi) said: Both possibilities present a difficulty. If it is masdariyya, it would be an explanation of "what is forbidden," as a substitute for "what" or its omitted referent. It is apparent that what is forbidden is the act of association, not the negation of it. Furthermore, the commands that follow would then be coordinated with "do not associate," which involves coordinating the request-form with the news-form and making the mandatory requirement a forbidden thing; thus, one would need their opposites or to imbue the news-form with the meaning of a request.

As for making "la" a prohibition standing in the place of a connection, as Sibawayh allowed for masdariyya... this has no path here, because the addition of the prohibitive "la" is not something anyone has said, nor has it appeared in speech.

If "an" is made mufassira and "la" is a prohibitive, then the prohibitions are an explanation of the recitation of the forbidden things. Two problems arise: first, the coordination of "And this is My path, straight" with "that you do not associate," while there is no meaning in coordinating it with an mufassira along with the verb. Second, the coordination of the mentioned commands, as they cannot serve as an explanation of the recitation of the forbidden things, but rather [they are] obligations.

Al-Zamakhshari chose it to be mufassira and coordinated the commands because they are [in the] meaning of prohibitions. There is then no way to make it masdariyya connected to the prohibition, as you have learned. He answered the first problem by saying that His saying (the Exalted) "And this is My path" is not a coordination with "that you do not associate," but rather it is an explanation for the command to follow, related to "follow it" with the deletion of the lam (for/because). It is permissible for the pronoun in "follow it" to return to "the path" because it precedes it in wording. If it is said: Then according to this, "follow it" would be coordinated with "do not associate," and the estimate would be "Follow My path because it is straight," and this involves combining two conjunctions, the waw and the fa, which is not correct. And if you make the waw initial/incidental, we say: The occurrence of the waw with the fa when the object precedes them, acting as a separator, is common in speech, like "And your Lord, so magnify," and "And the mosques are for Allah, so do not call upon anyone with Allah." If you refuse the combination altogether and forbid the addition of the fa, then make the object related to an omitted element, and the mentioned part with the fa a coordination to it, like "Magnify (everything), so magnify (Him)," and "Call upon Allah, so do not call upon anyone with Allah," and "Choose it, so follow it."

He answered the second problem by saying that the coordination of commands to prohibitions occurring after the an mufassira of the recitation of the forbidden things—while being certain that the commanded thing cannot be forbidden—indicates that the prohibition reverts to their opposites, in the sense that the commands are as if they were mentioned, and their implications—which are the prohibitions of their opposites—were intended. It is as if it were said: "Recite what is forbidden: that you do not do evil to parents, do not diminish the measure and scale, do not abandon justice, and do not break the covenant." While this may not be permissible according to the rule, perhaps it is permissible by way of coordination.

As for making the pause on His saying (the Exalted) "your Lord," and the accusative case of "that you do not associate" being linked to "upon you"—meaning "commit yourselves to refraining"—this is rejected by the coordination of the commands, unless you make "la" prohibitive and the masdariyya connected to both the commands and the prohibitions.

Abu Hayyan said: It is not necessary that all the commands be coordinated with all that "la" has entered upon, for it is not correct to coordinate "and to parents, good treatment" with "come." Rather, what follows is coordinated to it.

The statement that the prohibition reverts to the opposites of the commands was objected to as being very far-fetched, a riddle in meanings, and there is no necessity that leads to that. Then he said: As for the coordination of these commands, it allows for two aspects:

First, that they are coordinated not to the prohibitions before them—so the prohibition would not apply to them, as they were in the scope of the an tafsiriyya—but rather they are coordinated to His saying (the Exalted): "Recite what is forbidden," [where] He commanded them first with a command upon which the mention of prohibitions was based, then He commanded them a second time with commands; this is a clear meaning.

Second, that the commands are coordinated to the prohibitions, falling under the judgment of the tafsiriyya. This is correct upon the assumption of an omitted element which the an explains, as well as the uttered element before it, which indicates its omission. The estimate is: "And what He has commanded you with." He deleted "and what He has commanded you with" due to the indication of "what He has forbidden" upon it, because the meaning of "what your Lord has forbidden to you" is "what your Lord has prohibited to you." Thus, the meaning is: "Say, come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you and what He has commanded you with." When this is the estimate, it is correct for it to be tafsiriyya for the verb of prohibition (indicated by "forbidden") and the omitted verb of command. Do you not see that it is permissible to say: "I commanded you not to honor an ignorant person, and to honor a learned person"? It is permissible to coordinate command to prohibition and prohibition to command, according to the words of Imru’ al-Qays: "Do not perish in grief, but be patient." We know of no disagreement in this, unlike sentences differentiated by news, interrogation, and initiation, for there is disagreement in the permissibility of coordination in them.

You know that coordination to "come" is extremely far-fetched and one should not pay attention to it. What he mentioned regarding the omission and making the explanation for the omitted and the uttered is not free from excellence. Al-Tabrisi narrated the possibility of "that you do not associate" being with an implied lam (preposition of causality) in the sense of "I explain to you the forbidden [things] so that you do not associate," because when they forbid what Allah made lawful, they have placed someone other than Allah, the Exalted, in the position of Allah, the Exalted, in terms of acceptance, and by that, they became polytheists. It is not appropriate to derive the speech of Allah, the Exalted, upon something like that, as is not hidden.