Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:160

Ya'qub read 'ashrun (ten) with tanwin (nunation), and amthaluha (like it) in the nominative case as a description. This is the minimum promised in terms of multiplication, whereas promises have come of seventy, seven hundred, and without measure. Therefore, it is said that what is meant by "ten" is abundance, not a restriction to a specific number.

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Abu Hurairah, Abu al-Shaykh from Ibn Abbas, and 'Abd ibn Humayd and others from Ibn Umar, that the verse was revealed specifically concerning the Bedouins; as for the Emigrants, the good deed for them is doubled seven hundred times. However, the apparent meaning is generality. The exclusion of the ta from 'ashr is because the counted object is feminine, as we have indicated, but it has been omitted and its adjective (or implied noun) stands in its place. It is also said that it is the mentioned object, but it acquired femininity from the genitive construction.

(Whoever comes with a bad deed, whosoever he may be among the worlds, then he shall not be recompensed except with the like of it) by the decree of the promise, one for one, and the necessity of punishing the eternal state for the disbelief of an hour, because the disbeliever is resolved that if he were to live forever, he would remain upon that belief forever.

(And they shall not be wronged) by a reduction of reward or an increase in punishment. For such an act from Him, Exalted is He, is not considered a wrong, as it is His right, glory be to Him, to punish the obedient and reward the disobedient. It is said: the meaning is that they are not decreased in the good deeds from their ten-fold, nor in the bad deeds from their like, in the place of reckoning.

Among the Mu'tazila, some have used this verse as evidence for establishing intellectual goodness (husn) and badness (qubh). There is disagreement regarding their argument: it is said that when they saw that one of the arguments of the Ash'arites for negation is that the servant is not independent in bringing about his actions—as explained in its proper place—and therefore the intellect cannot judge the independence of the connection of reward and punishment to it, they said: His saying, Exalted is He, "Whoever comes with a good deed..." etc., is explicit that the servant is independent and possessor of choice in his good and bad actions. Once that is established, intellectual goodness and badness are proven.

The response is that the verse does not prove the independence of the servant; the most it contains is that it proves his performance (mubasharah), and they do not deny that. It is also said: the verse indicates that for Allah Almighty there is a good action; yet if the goodness of actions were only because they were commanded or permitted, then the action of Allah Almighty would not be "good," as He is not commanded nor permitted. Furthermore, if the knowledge of goodness and badness were dependent upon the arrival of the Divine Law (shar') as a prohibition or permission, then His actions, Exalted is He, would not be "good" before the arrival of the Law, which is a departure from the religion.

The response to the first is: We do not claim that nothing is "good" except what is commanded or permitted so that it would follow that the actions of Allah are not good (since it is impossible for Him to be commanded or permitted). Rather, whatever the Lawgiver commanded or permitted is good, and it does not follow conversely that only those are good. Rather, an action might be good by virtue of conforming to a purpose, or by virtue of the fact that its doer is commanded to be praised. In this sense, the action of Allah Almighty is good, regardless of whether it conforms to a purpose or contradicts it.

As for the second, the response is that although goodness and badness were interpreted by the arrival of the Law regarding prohibition and permission, we do not concede that there is no goodness or badness except through the Law so that we are forced into that position. Rather, goodness and badness are more general than what is mentioned, as is known in its proper place. It does not follow from the realization of the meaning of goodness and badness apart from the arrival of the Law as a prohibition or permission that they are intrinsic to the actions. It is not hidden from the learned reader that their saying "If the goodness of actions were..." etc., and their saying "If the knowledge of goodness and badness were dependent..." are two independent doubts among the ten binding doubts mentioned by Al-Amidi in Abkar al-Afkar. The truth is that the discourse of both of these arguments is not devoid of consideration, so reflect upon it.