Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:50

(Say): O Messenger, the herald of glad tidings and the warner to the disbelievers who propose to you what they propose: (I do not say to you that I possess the treasures of Allah)—meaning His created things. It is the plural of khazīnah or khizānah or khizanah, which in origin refers to that in which precious things are preserved. Al-Jubba'i and others used this term metaphorically for what was mentioned. He did not say, "I am not capable of what Allah is capable of." It is said: Because this is more eloquent, indicating that due to the intensity of His power, His created things are as if they were stored and present before Him. It is also said that "treasures" is a metaphor for provisions, applying the term for the container to the contained, or the necessary consequence to that which necessitates it. Some say the speech involves the omission of a genitive, meaning the treasures of Allah’s provision or His created things. The meaning is: I do not claim that these treasures are delegated to me so that I may dispose of them however I wish, either independently or by request, such that you propose to me the sending down of signs, the bringing down of torment, the turning of mountains into gold, or other things that do not befit my status.

(And I do not know the unseen): This is a conjunction to the position of "I possess the treasures of Allah," so it is also a statement that he says. Al-Halabi examined this, arguing it leads to the interpretation: "And I do not say to you: I do not know the unseen," which is incorrect. It was answered that the interpretation is "And I do not say to you: I know the unseen," by assuming an ellipsis of the word "say" between "no" and "I know," not between the waw and "no." It is also said that the la (no) in la a'lamu (I do not know) is redundant, used for emphasis in negation.

Abu Hayyan said: The apparent meaning is that it is a conjunction to "I do not say," having no operative force. Rather, it is a command to inform about himself with these sentences, so they are objects of the command which is "Say." This was countered by saying there is no benefit in informing [them] that "I do not know the unseen." The benefit lies in informing them that "I do not say that," so as to negate the claim to the two matters that are among the attributes of divinity, so the meaning would be: I do not claim divinity.

(And I do not say to you that I am an angel): I do not claim angelic nature. The repetition of "I do not say" points to this meaning. Some researchers said: Since the concepts of "I possess the treasures of Allah" and "I am an angel" were known to people, there was no need to negate them. The need was only to negate the claim to them, as a disclaimer against false claims. As for the concept "I do not know the unseen," since it was not known, it was necessary to negate it here. Thus, the claim that there is no benefit in stating it is open to examination. What our master, the Shaykh al-Islam, chose is the first opinion: that the meaning is also "I do not claim that I know the unseen" from among the acts of the Almighty, such that you might ask me about the time of the Hour, the time of the descent of torment, or similar things. Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) specified the unseen as the end result of what they will become. Meaning: I do not claim that, nor do I claim angelic nature such that you would demand from me feats extraordinary to custom, which humans cannot bear, such as ascending to the sky and the like, or that you would consider my lack of their attributes a defect in my mission, as indicated by their saying: "What is the matter with this messenger? He eats food and walks in the markets." In this verse, there is no proof for the superiority of angels over the prophets (peace be upon them), which is the point of contention as al-Jubba'i claimed. For it was revealed as a response to the disbelievers in their saying "What is the matter with this messenger..." and their charging him (peace be upon him) with things like ascending to the sky. We do not claim the superiority of the prophets over the angels (peace be upon them) in not eating, for instance, or the ability to perform extraordinary feats like ascending to the sky, nor their equality with them in that. Rather, that the angels are distinguished in that is something agreed upon by both those who agree and those who disagree. This does not necessitate agreement that the angels are better than them in the sense being contested; otherwise, many animals would be better than humans, and only the foolish would claim that.

This answer is more evident than what was narrated from Judge Zakariya, that this statement from him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is by way of humility and manifestation of servitude, similar to his saying (peace be upon him): "Do not prefer me over the son of Matta [Jonah]." This is not the case, as is not hidden. It is said: The superiority is according to the assumption of the addressees, but this is narrow-minded. It is said: Since the meaning of the verse is "I do not claim divinity nor angelic nature," there is no progression from the lower to the higher; rather, it is evident in descending. By this, the basis of al-Zamakhshari's argument regarding the Almighty's saying, "The Messiah will never disdain to be a servant to Allah, nor will the angels brought near," for the superiority of humans over angels is demolished, for it is not conceivable to progress from divinity to what is higher, as there is nothing higher to progress to. It was countered that it is not demolished, given the repetition of "I do not say," which he made an independent command, like a diversion; for the meaning is "I do not claim divinity, nor even angelic nature," and for this reason, he repeated "I do not say." Some said, in differentiating between the two positions: The position of negating disdain requires that the later be higher so as not to render its mention void. The position of negating a claim is the opposite, for he who does not dare to claim angelic nature is less likely to dare to claim divinity, which is more remote. Yes, there is a view in the idea that the intent of the first is to negate the claim to divinity and disclaim it; otherwise, it would have been said, "I do not say to you that I am a god," just as it was said, "I do not say to you that I am an angel." Furthermore, the metonymy for divinity through "possessing the treasures of Allah" involves ugliness that is not hidden, and attributing the treasures to Him (the Almighty) contradicts it. The rebuttal of this contradiction—that the claim to divinity is not a claim to be Allah the Almighty, but to be a partner to Him in divinity—is problematic, because the attribution of the treasures to Him (the Almighty) is one of exclusivity, which contradicts partnership. Unless the treasures were like "treasures," or attributed to Him... and this is as you see. From here, the Shaykh al-Islam said: To make that a disclaimer of a claim to divinity has no standing whatsoever.

(I only follow what is revealed to me): Meaning, I do nothing except follow what is revealed to me, without there being any input of mine in the revelation or in the Revealer by way of request or any other way whatsoever. The gist is: I am a servant who complies with the command of his Master and follows what He has revealed, and I do not claim any of those things, so that you would propose to me what are their effects and rulings, and make my failure to respond to that a proof for the invalidity of the messengership I claim. It is not hidden that this is more eloquent than saying "I am a prophet or messenger," and for this reason, it was chosen. There is no evidence here for those who negate analogy, nor for the meanings of the permissibility of his (peace be upon him) ijtihad, as is not hidden. Some went to the view that the intent of this is a response to the disbelievers, as if it were said: This is a claim, and it is not something that is considered remote; what is remote is claiming divinity or angelic nature, and I do not claim them. You have already known what is in the claim that the intent of the preceding is to negate the claim to divinity and angelic nature.

(Say, "Are the blind and the seeing equal?"): That is, the misguided and the guided, in an absolute sense, as stated by more than one. The interrogation is one of negation, and the intent is to deny the equality of him who does not know the aforementioned truths and him who knows them, with an indication of their complete clarity, and to turn away from misguidance and encourage guidance. The repetition of the command is to solidify the shaming and confirm the binding nature.

(Will you not then reflect?): This is a conjunction to an implied [element] required by the situation, meaning: Do you not hear this truthful speech and then reflect on it? Or, do you hear it and not reflect? The interrogation is for confirmation and rebuke, and the speech is included in the command; the basis of the rebuke is the lack of both [hearing and reflecting] in the first, and the lack of reflection despite the realization of what necessitates it in the second. Some mentioned that in "the blind and the seeing" there are three possibilities: either they are an example of the misguided and the guided, or an example of the ignorant and the learned, or an example of the claimant of the impossible (like divinity and angelic nature) and the claimant of the straightforward (like prophethood), and that the meaning is: These two classes are not equal. Will you not reflect on that and be guided? That is, distinguish between the claim of truth and falsehood, or learn that following the revelation is something from which there is no escape. The sentence is an epilogue to what has passed, whether from the beginning of the Surah until here, or to His saying, "I only follow...," or to His saying, "I do not say." The first, then the second, was favored in al-Kashf. It is not hidden that this favoring is far-fetched. The claim that angelic nature is impossible was objected to on the grounds that it is one of the possibilities, because essences are identical and the attributes existing in some are permitted to exist in all.

It was answered, after conceding what is in it: That for a human, while remaining a human, it is impossible to be an angel, due to their differentiation by mutually exclusive accidents, without disagreement. And the action of Adam (peace be upon him), after hearing, "Your Lord did not forbid you this tree except that you become angels or become of the immortals," to eat was not out of greed for angelic nature while being human. Moreover, it is permitted to say: He did not covet angelic nature at all; rather, he coveted immortality, so he ate.