Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:53

"And thus We have tested some of them..."

"And thus We have tested" means: We have afflicted and examined them. The meaning is: We have treated them with the treatment of one who tests, and this is a reference to the trials mentioned in the noble arrangement [of the Quran]. The expression is used to signify its importance, just as one says: "I struck that specific strike."

The kaf (in kadhalika) is inserted in the sense that the comparison is not intended, but rather its consequential or metaphorical implication, which is the realization and establishment [of the matter]. It is an established insertion, not redundant as some have supposed. The meaning is: "Like this great and wonderful trial, We have tested some people with others," for they prioritized the latter in matters of religion over the former who preceded them in worldly affairs. This reduces to: "This great matter is realized by Us." Whoever thinks that a comparison is intended would not consider this a reference to what was mentioned, due to the necessity of comparing a thing to itself and the difficulty of finding a basis for comparison, unless one creates a distinction by making the subject of comparison the matter established in the intellects, and the object of comparison that which the speech points to regarding external reality.

It is said: The meaning is "like how We tested the disbelievers through their wealth and the poverty of the believers, until they insulted them because of their differences in worldly means, We tested them through the believers' precedence in faith and their [the disbelievers'] lagging behind, until they envied them and said what they said due to their differences in religion." It is not hidden that the first [interpretation] is more subtle in observation and higher in merit, and some discussion on this has already passed.

"To say" — meaning the first group, pointing to the latter while disparaging them — "Are these those whom Allah has favored among us?" — by granting them success in attaining the truth and winning what brings them happiness with Him, Glory be to Him, instead of us, while we are the leaders and the chiefs, and they are the slaves and the poor. Their intent in this is to deny the favor itself fundamentally, along the lines of their saying: "If it were good, they would not have preceded us to it," rather than disparaging those favored while acknowledging the occurrence of the favor by way of objecting to the Almighty.

The Imam stated that He, the Almighty, clarified in this verse that each of the two groups, the believers and the disbelievers, is tested by the other. Those disbelieving leaders and wealthy ones envied the poor Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—for their precedence in Islam and their haste to accept it. They said: "If we were to enter Islam, we would be obligated to follow these poor people," and that was difficult for them. A parallel to this is His saying: "Is the Reminder sent down to him from among us? If it were good, they would not have preceded us to it."

As for the poor Companions, they used to see those disbelievers in comfort, pleasure, prosperity, and abundance, and they would ask: "How did these disbelievers obtain these conditions while we are in hardship, distress, and poverty?" The realized scholars, the possessors of truth, are those who know that everything Allah does is truth, sincerity, wisdom, and correctness, and there is no objection to Him, either by the principle of absolute ownership—as we say—or according to [the principle of] interest/benefit—as the Mu'tazila say. This is the end [of his statement].

There is a consideration [to be made] regarding this, because the beginning of his statement explicitly indicates that the disbelievers acknowledge the occurrence of the favor toward those referred to and are envious of them for it, which contradicts his analogy to their saying "If it were good, they would not have preceded us," etc. Furthermore, his statement is like an explicit admission that the poor believers envied the disbelievers for their worldly life and objected to Allah, the Almighty, for providing comfort to His enemies and constriction for His beloved ones, which is something the lowest of believers is far above—so how could those be [that way] who call upon their Lord morning and evening, desiring His countenance? Moreover, contrasting the poor Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—with "the realized scholars who possess the truth" suggests that they—and may they be far from such—were not [of that caliber], which is obviously false according to the realized scholars. So, reflect.

The lam is clearly for causality (ta'lil) and is connected to "We tested," and what follows it is the cause for it. The predecessors—as our teacher Ibrahim al-Kurani, the Chief Justice Taqi al-Din Muhammad al-Tanukhi, and others have said—are upon establishing the cause for His actions, the Almighty, through approximately ten thousand proofs. Those who denied this argued with points that the second [author] refuted in al-Mukhtabar, and the first [author] mentioned in Maslak al-Sadad that by which their refutation is known. This is a discussion whose discourse has been finished and folded away.

Many have said: It is the lam of consequence (al-'aqibah). What is narrated from the Sharh al-Maqasid opposes that, [stating] that the lam of consequence is only used where the agent does not have awareness of the result at the time of the action or before it, so he acts for a purpose and does not obtain it, but rather the opposite; thus, it is made as if he did the action for that corrupt purpose to warn him of his mistake. This is not conceivable in the speech of the Knower of the Unseen with regard to His actions, even if it occurs in it with regard to the actions of others besides Him, the Almighty, such as His saying: "Then the family of Pharaoh picked him up so that he would become an enemy and a grief to them," since the arrangement of the benefits of His actions, the Almighty, is based on perfect knowledge. Yes, Ibn Hisham and many grammarians did not consider this restriction and said: It is a lam that indicates eventual transformation and outcome absolutely. Thus, it is permissible for it to occur in His speech, the Almighty, in a way that contains no corruption.

Some have said: It is for causality, opposing the possibility of consequence, based on the fact that "We tested" contains the meaning of "We abandoned/forsaken," or that "trial" is meant as "forsaking," by applying the effect to the cause. It was objected that the causality here is not in its true sense, based on the fact that His actions, the Almighty, are above causes, so it would be a metaphor for mere sequence; and that is, in reality, the meaning of the lam of consequence, so there is no basis for opposition. It was answered that they differ in consideration: if the resemblance of sequence to causality is considered, it is a lam of causality; if not, it is a lam of consequence. It was objected that "consequence" is a metaphor, so this difference is not complete except by saying it is a literal meaning, and otherwise, it requires another difference.

It may be said: The difference is that in causality, which is opposed to consequence, there is a cause and a requirement, whereas in consequence, there is mere sequence and leading to. In literal causality, the incitement to act is considered, and this is what is intended by those who said that the actions of Allah, the Almighty, are not caused [by anything]. In that case, it is correct to say that the lam—upon the assumption that "We tested" includes the meaning of "forsaking," or that "trial" is intended to mean "forsaking"—is for causality metaphorically, because there is only a cause and a requirement there, without an incitement. Upon the assumption of not saying it includes that [meaning] and keeping the word on its immediate understanding, it is the lam of consequence, which is also a metaphorical causality, but it contains nothing but leading to, for the testing of some by others leads to envy, and that leads to the aforementioned statement, and there is no cause or incitement at all.

The conclusion is that both the consequence and the causality opposed to it are metaphors for literal causality, except that the opposed causality is closer to it than the consequence, and the origin of this closeness is the differentiator. The discussion still needs contemplation, so contemplate. And if it is opened up for you, then thank Allah, the Almighty.

"Is not Allah most knowing of the grateful?"

[This is] a rebuttal to their statement and an indication that the basis for deserving that favor is knowing the status of the grace and acknowledging the right of the Bestower. The questioning is for affirmation of His perfect knowledge thereof. The first ba (in bi-sha'irin) is for emphasis, and the second is connected to "most knowing," and the af'al [superlative] is sufficient for action in its like. In al-Durr al-Masun, knowledge is connected with ba because it includes the meaning of encompassing, which is common in people's speech, like "he has knowledge of such-and-such" and "he has knowledge of it."

The meaning: Is Allah, the Almighty, not knowing in the most perfect way, His knowledge encompassing those who are grateful for His graces, such that they [the disbelievers] would deem His favoring, the Almighty, upon them as unlikely? It contains an indication that those weak ones are aware of the right of Allah’s graces upon them—by granting them success in faith, precedence to it, and so forth—and are grateful for it, while obliquely suggesting that those who speak while lost in the deserts of misguidance are far from all of that, in a way that is not hidden.