Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:21

(And who is more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allah) by claiming that He—Exalted is His Majesty—has a partner, and by his saying: “The angels are the daughters of Allah,” and “These are our intercessors before Allah.” Included in this is describing the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—who was promised in the two Books, with attributes contrary to his actual attributes. The interrogation is for the sake of an alleged magnification. It is well-known that the intended meaning is a denial that anyone is more unjust than one who does this, or equal to him. Although the construction does not, by convention (waḍ‘an), indicate the denial of equality—as the second scholar stated in Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid and the marginalia of al-Kashshāf—it indicates it through usage (isti‘mālan). Thus, if you say: “There is no one more excellent in the city than Zayd,” it means he is more excellent than everyone, according to convention. The secret behind this is that a relationship between two things is usually only conceived—especially in matters of competition—through difference, by increase or decrease. If one of them is not greater, then decrease is inevitably realized.

Some later scholars have claimed that a subtle and commendable point occurred to them in justifying this: it is that two equals, or even two who are close in reality, do not concede that one should be preferred over the other. For every person is unable to estimate everything according to its true worth, and no human is capable of knowing every matter exactly as it is; for understandings differ in confronting imaginations, and intellects vary in defending against doubts. Thus, if some people judge, for example, the equality between two things that are equal in reality, others may judge the superiority of one over the other according to the limit of their understandings, the extent of their intellects, and the scope of their perception. Therefore, wherever someone is found who is equal to another in reality, there is someone who is found to prefer one over the other according to the beliefs of people. Indeed, whenever someone is found who is close to another in that regard, there is someone found who surpasses him in the minds of the masses. This is inverted via reverse contraposition (al-‘aks al-naqīḍ) to our saying: “Whenever there is no one found to be superior, there is no one found to be equal, nor even close.” And this is the intended conclusion. In short, establishing an equal necessitates establishing a superior/preferred one, so negating the superior necessitates negating the equal, just as establishing the necessitated (the superior) necessitates establishing the necessary (the equal). In this, however, there is room for reflection.

Some investigators claimed that the construction’s indication of negating equality is conventional, because he who is “not the most excellent” is either equal or inferior. Thus, it is used for one of its two individual instances. Ibn al-Ṣā'igh said regarding the issue of kohl: “There is no man I have seen whose eyes are more beautiful with kohl than Zayd’s.” Even though it is explicitly a denial of increase—which is true for both increase and decrease—the intended meaning is the latter (the superlative), which is the restriction of a thing to some of its instances, like [the category of] "the beast." You know, however, that this is also with regard to convention.

(Or denied His signs) as if he denied the Quran, the entirety of which is the sign declaring that the People of the Book know it as they know their own sons, or denied the rest of the miracles with which the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—was supported, by labeling them magic. Included in this is the distortion of the Scripture and the alteration of the attributes of the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—which Allah Almighty mentioned therein. The mention of “(or)” while they combined both matters is to signal that each one of them, on its own, reaches the limit of excess in wrongdoing against the soul. It is said: The particle “(or)” alerts us that they combined two contradictory matters, meaning they affirmed what was denied and denied what was established. The term “contradictory” here means two matters which, by convention, are not to be combined. Or, it is said that he who denies what is established by proof is, by extension, more inclined to deny that for which there is no proof—and vice-versa—so combining them is a combination of contradictories from this perspective.

Some have claimed that the aspect of contradiction indicated by this conjunction is that “inventing a lie against Allah” is a claim that one must accept without proof what is attributed to Him, while “denying the signs” is a claim that one must not accept what is attributed to Him even if evidence is presented, and that one must deny the awakening and engage in stubbornness based on the premise that the Messenger must be an angel. It is not hidden that the claim of contradiction is obscure, and these justifications do not remove it.

(Indeed), that is, the matter—and the intended meaning is that this grave matter is—(the wrongdoers will not succeed), meaning they will not attain their desires nor be saved from what they dislike, (in that they are wrongdoers). So how could the “most unjust” succeed, in that he is the “most unjust”?