Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:27

(And if you could see when they are made to stand before the Fire) This is a commencement of narrating the contradictory speech that will issue from them on the Day of Resurrection, in contrast to the abominations they committed in the world, while that which they say is itself a lie. The address is to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), or to anyone who possesses the aptitude for such contemplation, with the intention of clarifying the wretchedness of their condition and the extent of its vileness, to such a degree that it is not exclusive to one viewer over another.

"If" (law) is conditional in its original sense, and its apodosis (jawab) is omitted so that the listener’s mind may roam in every direction, which is more effective in inducing awe. An example of this is the saying of Imru’ al-Qays: "By your life, if a messenger came to us regarding something [other than your love]... but we found no way to repel you," and the saying of the Arabs: "If it were the one with bracelets who slapped me [I would have taken revenge]."

"See" (tara) is visual. Its object is omitted due to the indication provided by what is within the scope of the adverbial phrase. "Being made to stand" (al-iqaf) is either from the well-known wuquf (to stand), or from wuquf in the sense of cognition—as one says, "I made him stand (waqaftuhu) upon such-and-such," meaning I made him understand and know it. This was chosen by al-Zajjaj. That is: If you were to see their state when they are made to stand before the Fire until they behold it, or when they are raised above its bridge while it is beneath them, or when they enter it and realize the magnitude of its punishment, you would see that which no scope of expression can encompass. The past tense is used to signify certainty. It is said that law functions here as in (if), and some have permitted that tara be of the cognitive type, but this is as you see [it is weak].

It has been recited as wuqifu (they were made to stand), in the active voice, from waqafa ‘alayhi (to come upon something), the masdar of which is usually wuquf. It is also used as a transitive verb, its masdar being waqf. The form awqafa has been heard in a rare dialect. It is also said that it is by way of analogy.

(And they will say) due to the greatness of the matter they have realized, (Oh, would that we were returned) i.e., to the world. "Oh" (ya) is for alerting or for calling, and the vocative is omitted, e.g., "Oh, our people." (And we would not deny the verses of our Lord) i.e., the Quran, as we used to deny [them] before, saying they were "tales of the ancients." Some interpret "the verses" to include both that and the miracles. Shaykh al-Islam said: It is possible that it refers to the verses that speak of the conditions of the Fire and its inhabitants, or the verses of warning to fear it, on the basis that these are what cross their minds at that moment, and they regret having neglected their duty toward them. It is also possible that it means all the verses, which encompass those verses by primary implication.

(And we would be among the believers) in them, so that we would not see this terrifying station, just as the believers did not see it. The two verbs are in the accusative case based on what al-Zamakhshari said—following al-Zajjaj, as al-Halabi mentioned—by the omission of an (to) in response to the wish (tamanni). The meaning is: "If we were returned, we would not deny, and we would be among the believers."

Abu Hayyan refuted this, arguing that the accusative of a verb after waw is not due to it being a response, because [the waw] cannot occur in the response of a conditional sentence, so a condition and response are not formed by what precedes or follows it. It is merely a conjunction that connects what follows it to a masdar implied before it. It is a conjunction where, with the accusative, one of its three possibilities is necessitated: either ma’iyyah (concomitance)—distinguished from the fa by the validity of replacing it [with ma’a]—or hal (state). The suspicion of those who say it is a response is that it is rendered in the accusative in places where the fa is rendered in the accusative, so they mistake it for a response. What clarifies that it is not [a response]—in contrast to the fa—is that if it is deleted, the verb following it becomes jussive by virtue of what precedes it, due to the meaning of conditionality it contains.

It was answered that the waw is treated here like the fa, and Ibn al-Anbari made it a substitute for it. This is supported by the recitation of Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Ishaq: (fa-la nukadhdhibu). Furthermore, what al-Zamakhshari mentioned regarding the meaning of consequence (jaza’iyyah) was objected to on the grounds that their return would not be the cause of their non-denial. It was answered that for a cause, it is sufficient that it be so in their estimation. This was refuted by stating that mere return is not sufficient for that, so there must be the concern that the return meant is that which occurs after [the reality] has compelled them to it, as the truths of things have been unveiled to them. Because of this instability, those who chose to connect it to a masdar implied before [the verb] did so, as if it were said: "Would that we had a return, and a non-denial, and a state of being among the believers."

Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, and al-Kisa’i recited both verbs in the nominative. This is explained by the fact that this is the beginning of a statement from them, not conjoined to what preceded it, and the waw is like an extra [particle], as when a sinner says to one he has harmed regarding what he did: "Leave me, and I shall not return [to it]," meaning "I will not return whether you leave me or not." Among this, according to what Imam Abd al-Qahir said, is his verse: "Today is two days since my soul was hidden from my sight; may I be your ransom, what is my sin [that you treat me so]?"—then he offers an apology. It is as if the requirement for putting it in this category is the achievement of emphasis appropriate for the context of courtship.

Some chose that it is the beginning of a statement in the sense that it is disconnected from what is in the realm of the wish, conjoined to it as a narration conjoined to an incipience. Some grammarians permitted this absolutely, and Abu Hayyan reported it from Sibawayh. It has been permitted that it falls under the ruling of the wish, on the basis that it is a conjunction to "we were returned" or a state (hal) from the pronoun within it. Thus, the meaning, as the Shihab said, is the wishing for the sum of both matters: the return and the non-denial—i.e., the belief that occurs after the return to the world—because the return is not an object in itself here. That it is an object of desire is obvious because it is not achieved at the time of the wish, even if the wish is directed toward belief and assent. They desire a belief that would benefit them, and that only happens after the return, which is impossible; and that which is dependent on the impossible is impossible.

Ibn Amir recited the first in the nominative and the second in the accusative, as you have known earlier. The response is either regarding the whole or regarding the second [verb]. Non-denial of the verses is distinct from belief and assent, so there is no unification.

It has been recited in a shadhdh (aberrant) manner with the reverse of this recitation.