Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:16

Meaning: Whoever is averted from the punishment. The vice-regent of the verb (the grammatical subject) is the pronoun referring to "the punishment," and the pronoun in "from it" (عنه) refers to "whoever" (من). It is also permissible to invert this—meaning whoever is averted from the punishment—where "whoever" (من) in both readings is an incipit (mubtada’) whose predicate is the conditional clause or the answer to the condition, or both, according to the disagreement. The prepositional phrase (on that Day) is related to the verb, or to the punishment, or to an omitted entity that serves as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the pronoun.

It is also permitted that "on that Day" (يومئذ) be the vice-regent of the verb. In that case, is it necessary to posit a genitive construct (mudaf), i.e., "the punishment of that Day," or not? There is a disagreement regarding this. It is said: It is necessary because the incomplete prepositional phrase—that is, one severed from its genitive construction, like "before" and "after"—cannot stand as a vice-regent unless a genitive is posited. "On that Day" holds the same ruling. In al-Durr al-Masun, it is stated that there is no need for this, because the tanwin (in يومئذ), being a substitute, makes it equivalent to the mentioned, contrary to al-Akhfash. al-Ajhuri mentioned that the tanwin here is a substitute for an omitted clause implied by the preceding speech; the origin being "on the day when the recompense occurs" and the like, and the clause is an inception emphasizing the horror of the punishment. It is also permitted that it be an adjective for "punishment."

Hamzah, al-Kisa’i, Ya’qub, and Abu Bakr on the authority of ‘Asim read "Whoever is averted" (يُصْرَف - yusraf) with the pronoun therein referring to Allah the Exalted. Ubayy read "Whoever Allah averts" (يَصْرِف الله), making the agent explicit, while the object is omitted—meaning "the punishment"—or "on that Day" by omitting the genitive, or by making "the Day" an expression for what occurs within it. In this reading, "whoever" is an incipit.

Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be in the accusative case by an omitted verb, estimated as: "Whoever is honored, Allah averts the punishment from him," making "is averted" (يصرف) an explanation for the omitted verb. It is also permitted that it be in the accusative by the verb "averts" (يصرف), and the pronoun in "from it" refers to the punishment, meaning: "Whichever human being Allah the Exalted averts the punishment from..."

( ...then He has granted him mercy) i.e., the supreme mercy, which is salvation. It is like saying: "If you have fed Zayd during his hunger, then you have done him a favor," meaning you have perfected the favor toward him. According to this, the speech is of the category: "Whoever attains the pasture of security has attained it," and "Whoever’s migration is to Allah..." and the category of applying the absolute to the perfect. It is also said: The intended meaning is "then He has entered him into Paradise," mentioning the cause and intending the effect, because entering Paradise is among the effects of mercy, as it is the abode of reward resulting from the cessation of punishment.

This has been challenged by the case of the "People of the Heights" (al-A‘raf). It was answered that His saying: (That is the clear victory) is a circumstantial qualifier qualifying what precedes it, and the "clear victory" is only through his entry into Paradise, according to His saying: (So whoever is drawn away from the Fire and admitted to Paradise has attained his desire). You know that if we say: "The Heights is a mountain in Paradise upon which are the elite of the believers," as is one of the opinions, the refutation does not apply. The investigation of that will come, God willing. The answer mentioned is based on what is hidden after it. The motivation for the interpretation is the union of the condition and the result, which is considered impossible by them.

Some of the masters (kamilin) said: What is in the glorious rhythmic arrangement is similar to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "No child will compensate his father unless he finds him a slave, then buys him and emancipates him." He means by the mentioned purchase—and that the difference in titles is for the validity of the sequence and the consequence. You may say: The mercy is a cause for the averting, preceding it, as indicated by the forms of the past and the future, and the sequence is in consideration of the reporting. al-Shihab critiqued this, saying it is an affectation, because the cause and the effect must differ in meaning. Regarding the mentioned Hadith, some have taken it literally, and some have interpreted it as meaning: "He will not compensate him at all," which is subtle because it is a suspension upon the impossible. As for the result being past in wording and meaning, there is disagreement, to the extent that some forbade it in other than "kāna" (was) due to its entrenchment in the past. Thus, understand.

The indication (in "that") is either to the averting which is within "is averted," or to the mercy. It is mentioned for the interpretation of the verbal noun via "that" and the verb. Some have considered "al-rahmah" with a dammah then a sukun, or two dammahs—and according to al-Qamus, it is in the meaning of mercy. The meaning of the distance is to signal the high degree of what is pointed to. "Victory" (al-fawz) is attaining the desire, and the definite article (al) is for limiting it to the predicate.