Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:6

(Have they not seen how many generations We destroyed before them) is a resumption of speech directed toward establishing that which preceded it. It is said that it is a commencement of rebuking them by offering them counsel, and the first [opinion] is more apparent.

The "seeing" (ru’yah) is cognitive (knowledge-based), though it is said to be ocular, with the context being their travels—but this is baseless. In both cases, it requires one object. The word kam (how many), whether interrogative or declarative, acts as an object for the verb, having suspended it from governance, while serving to indicate multiplicity. It occupies the place of the object and is technically in the accusative case via the verb ahlakna (We destroyed). Kam here denotes individuals. It is also said that the "seeing" is cognitive and requires two objects, with the clause acting in their place.

Min qarn (a generation) is a specifier for kam. It denotes the people of an era among the eras, named as such because they are "linked" (uqtanu) together for a duration of time; thus, it is derived from qarnat. There is disagreement regarding the duration of this period: some say 120 years, others say 100, 80, 70, a few years, 30, or 20. Another view is that it equals the average life expectancy of the people of each respective time. Since this has no fixed standard, Al-Zajjaj said it refers to the people of an era in which there is a prophet or someone superior in knowledge, according to the custom of Allah the Almighty. It is possible to consider it 100 years, due to the tradition that Allah will send to this Ummah at the turn of every hundred years someone who will renew for it its religion.

It is also said that it refers to a span of time, with differences of opinion regarding its duration as mentioned above. Some have chosen the view that it is literal in terms of both the specific time and its people; the intended meaning here is "the people" without the burden of assuming a deleted term or committing to a figurative interpretation.

Some allowed for kam to be in the accusative as an infinitive (masdar) for ahlakna in the sense of "destruction," or as an adverbial denoting "times." This is forced. The min (in min qarn) is for categorization and is related to ahlakna. The interrogative hamza is for affirmation of the vision. The meaning is: Have these deniers and mockers not known—through observing the ruins and the recurrence of reports—how many nations We destroyed before their creation or before their time, such as the people of Nuh, ‘Ad, Thamud, the people of Lut, and their ilk? The speech thus involves the omission of a noun and the substitution of the genitive construct in its place.

His saying: (We established them in the earth) is an expository resumption, as if to say, "What was their state?" Abu al-Baqa’ said it is in the genitive case as an adjective for "generation," because clauses after indefinite nouns are adjectives due to the need for specification, and the pronoun is pluralized because of its intended meaning. The Master, the Shaykh al-Islam, countered this by stating that its "takhimi" (grandeur-implying) nunation renders it unnecessary to seek an adjective. Furthermore, the claim that it implies the content of this clause—and the four that follow it—is a foregone conclusion not intended by the structural sequence leads to a breakdown of the noble order. How could it not? For the meaning would then be: "Have they not seen how many generations We destroyed before them, described as being established in such and such, and our destruction of them for their sins..." It is not hidden that a grandeur-implying nunation does not forbid adjectival qualification, and instances of this among indefinite nouns are too many to count. As for what he mentioned later, Al-Shihab said it is an oversight or a feigning of ignorance regarding the upcoming interpretation of (So We destroyed them), etc., by their saying, "That availed them nothing."

Establishing someone in the land, as has been said, is to make them settled therein. Since that necessitated making it a residence for him, usage was established with both forms: sometimes makkana-hu fi al-ard (We established him in the land), from which is His saying, "And We had established them in that wherein We have not established you," and other times makkana la-hu fi al-ard (We established for him in the land), from which is His saying, "Indeed, We established for him in the land," until each was treated as the other. From this is His saying, "what We have not established for you" after what preceded, as if it were said in the first: "We established for them," and in the second: "What We have not established for you." In al-Taj, it is said that makkantuhu and makkantu lahu are like nasahtu-hu and nasahtu la-hu. Abu Ali said the lam is redundant, like radafa la-kum. The speech of Al-Raghib in his Mufradat supports this.

Some researchers mentioned that makkana-hu (We established him) is more emphatic than makkana la-hu (We established for him), which is why the former was assigned to the predecessors and the latter to the successors. Ma (in ma lam numakkin la-kum) is either a relative pronoun functioning as an adjective for an omitted term (the estimation being: "the establishment which We have established for you"), or it is an indefinite noun described by the clause (i.e., "an establishment which We have not established"). In both cases, it is a cognate accusative (maf'ul mutlaq), and the referent (the "returner" pronoun) to it from the relative or adjectival clause is omitted. It is said that it is a direct object because the intent of "establishment" is giving, as indicated by what is narrated from Qatada, meaning: "We gave them what they were enabled with of various types of disposal, which We have not given you." It is also said it is an adverbial masdar, meaning "the duration of your non-establishment," but its far-fetchedness is evident.

The address is to the disbelievers. It is said it is to all people, and said to the believers. The apparent meaning is the first. The shift (iltifat) carries a rebuke regarding their weakness of state that is not hidden. It is said [it was shifted] so the referent of the two pronouns would be clear and not confused from the beginning—a subtlety of the shift that the masters of rhetoric did not delve into.

(And We sent the sky upon them pouring) i.e., rain, as narrated from Harun al-Taymi and also attributed to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). It is said [it means] the clouds, and its usage for that is a borrowed metaphor (majaz mursal). It is said it is used in its literal sense, meaning the canopy (the sky), and the metaphor lies in attributing the "sending" to it, for the one sent is the rainwater, and the sky is its origin. This contains a level of hyperbole that is not hidden. "Sending" (irsal) and "bringing down" (inzal)—as in al-Bahr—are close in meaning because the derivation is from rusl al-laban, which is the milk that descends from the udder in succession.

Midran (pouring/abundant) means heavy, with much pouring. It is a form of hyperbole that is the same for masculine and feminine. It is a state (hal) of the sky, and the prepositional phrase is linked to arsalna.

(And We made the rivers flowing beneath them), i.e., We made them flow. The intent is that they lived in fertility and luxury among rivers and fruits. The clause occupies the place of the second object of ja'alna. He, the Exalted, did not say "We made the rivers flow" as He said, "We sent the sky," to indicate that they were subjugated and continuously flowing, not because a river cannot be anything but flowing—for the speech would then be of no benefit, as the order is focused on the fact that they were "beneath them," so the benefit is apparent. If what was mentioned [by others] were true, it would not have appeared in the noble order, such as His saying: "Rivers flowing beneath them." It is suggested that ja'al (making) implies creation and origination, which is specific to Him, the Exalted; hence, the style was changed. On this basis, the clause is in the place of a state for the object.

The intent is not—as some say—the counting of those great blessings bestowed upon them after mentioning their establishment, to explain the magnitude of their crime in being ungrateful for them and their deserving the greatest punishments. Rather, it is to explain their possession of all the means for achieving goals and the beginnings of security from hardships and perils, and that this did not avail them anything. This [fact of] "not availing" is reported by the majority of exegetes.

His saying: (So We destroyed them for their sins). The fa is for succession (ta'qib), and it is said it is "eloquent" (fasiha), the meaning being: "So they disbelieved, and We destroyed them." The first is preferred. The ba is for causality, meaning: We destroyed every generation of those generations because of the sins specific to them, such as denying the Messengers (peace be upon them).

(And We brought forth), i.e., created, (after them), i.e., after their destruction due to that, (another generation) as a replacement for the destroyed ones. This is an explanation that He, the Almighty—His majesty is exalted—is not overwhelmed by destroying a generation and leaving its lands vacant; He is capable of bringing forth others in their place to inhabit the lands. It is like a completion of what preceded, similar to His saying: "And He does not fear the consequence thereof." It holds an indication that they were plucked from their roots and no one remained of their offspring, because He made them "others." Being "after them" [indicates replacement].