Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:28

This is a disjunction (idrab) from what their wish implies—namely, a promise to believe in the signs and embrace faith. It means that this wish does not arise from a sound resolve born of a desire for faith, a longing to attain it, or a yearning to be characterized by it. Rather, it is because, as they stood there, there appeared and became manifest to them that which they had concealed in the worldly life—the greatest of all calamities and the most dire of afflictions. Due to the intensity of that terror and their overwhelming distress, they said what they said.

Thus, the object of the relative pronoun ("what") is the Fire, as required by the context, and its "concealment" refers to covering up its reality by denying its existence and having no faith in its being established at all. It is as if it were said: "Nay, what they used to deny in the world and whose reality they rejected has appeared to them."

The reason the Almighty did not explicitly mention "denial" (as in His saying: This is Hell which the criminals used to deny and His saying: This is the Fire which you used to deny)—despite that being more suitable to their preceding statement, "We will not deny the signs of our Lord"—is to maintain balance with the "appearance" mentioned in the sentence, while also containing a subtle hint that their denial had no basis whatsoever, due to the strength of the evidence.

It has been said: "What they used to conceal" refers to their various evil deeds—other than polytheism—which they hid from people, only for them to appear in their records and be testified against them by their own limbs. Others said: It refers to the polytheism they denied in some stations of the Resurrection by saying, By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists. Still others said: It refers to the matter of the Resurrection and the gathering. The subject (in "they concealed") refers to the leaders of the disbelievers, and the object refers to their followers; meaning, it became manifest to the followers what the leaders they followed had concealed from them in the world regarding the matter of the Resurrection. This is attributed to al-Hasan and was favored by al-Zajjaj.

Another view is that the verse concerns the hypocrites, with the subject being the hypocrites and the object being the believers, and "what" refers to disbelief; meaning, it became manifest to the believers what the hypocrites used to conceal of disbelief, keeping it hidden from them in the world. Yet another view is that it refers to the People of the Scripture in general, or their scholars, and what they concealed was the prophethood of the Seal of Messengers (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

All these interpretations are critiqued by the fact that, aside from the forced nature of such readings, there is no room for them here. The flow of the majestic composition is intended to terrify regarding the matter of the Fire and to highlight the horror of the state of its people. Their standing before it has been mentioned, and it has been indicated that they were overcome by such fear, dread, bewilderment, and shock that description cannot encompass. Their aforementioned wish was then linked to this by the fa (particle of consequence), establishing the causality of what preceded for what followed. To omit the Fire from the causality after that—when it is, in itself, the most dire of calamities and the most potent of deterrents—is something the threshold of the Revelation should be elevated above. It is reported from al-Mubarrad that the speech is based on the omission of an added term (mudaf), i.e., "the consequence (wabal) of what they used to conceal has appeared to them." But the weakness in this is also apparent; therefore, reflect upon it.

From that station of theirs to the world, they would certainly return to that which they were forbidden from—that is, disbelief and denial, or something more general, within which the aforementioned is primarily included. Its suitability is clear. The necessity (luzum) in this conditional sentence lies in Allah’s prior decree concerning them, which is a consequence of the impurity of their inner nature, the vileness of their inherent disposition, and their poor readiness. This is why witnessing what they witnessed does not benefit them.

It has been said that the meaning is that if they were returned to their first state of lack of knowledge and lack of witnessing, they would return [to disbelief]. It is clear that this does not befit the context of rebuking them for their extremism in disbelief and their persistence, nor does it serve as an answer to their aforementioned wish. Some people attempted to explain why witnessing the terrors of the afterlife resulting from sins does not benefit them upon return to the world by stating that such witnessing is then like the message of a Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) supported by blinding miracles. Since they did not benefit from the message and were turned away by what turned them away, they would not benefit from what is equivalent to it, and they would be turned away by that same thing.

You know that this—after conceding that witnessing after returning is like the message of the Truthful One—eventually returns in the afterlife to what we pointed out: the prior decree, the poor readiness, and that whoever is created for wretchedness (may Allah seek refuge in Allah Almighty) will be wretched.

Meaning, they are liars in the report contained within their wish, specifically that this [faith] is what they truly desire. It is also possible that this is a statement from Him (Almighty and Exalted is He) that lying is their habit and their custom. In neither interpretation is the lie directed at the "wish" itself, because a wish is a creation (insha'), and a creation is not subject to being true or false. Al-Rib'i said: There is no harm in directing the lie toward the wish because it is inherently capable of being true or false. He argued for this by citing the verse: "I wish that you were true, which is the best of wishes; otherwise, we have lived with it for a long time in comfort," since "truth" here means veracity, which is the opposite of falsehood and lying. The weakness in this is obvious, and even if it were conceded, it would still be metaphorical. Others said the implied report here is the promise to believe and to cease denying. This was objected to on the grounds that a promise, like a threat, is of the category of insha' (creation), as established in its proper place, and thus is not subject to truth or falsehood just as insha' is not. This was answered by saying that this is one of two opinions on the matter, the second being that promises and threats are of the category of reports (khabar), not insha'. This interpretation is based on the latter view, while noting that "the lie" directed at the promise could mean "failure to fulfill it," not "lack of correspondence to reality," as al-Raghib mentioned.