Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:68

(And when you see those who engage in [insulting] Our verses) by way of denial and mockery, disparaging them, as is the habit and custom of the Quraysh in their gatherings—and they are the ones intended by the relative pronoun [those]. Mujahid stated that it refers to the People of the Scripture, for that is their habit as well; hence, the use of "when" (idha), which denotes certainty. This is in contrast to the [state of] forgetfulness mentioned later. The root of al-khawd (engaging/wading) originates from the phrase: "The people waded into the conversation and engaged in it," meaning they delved into it. Al-Tabarsi said: Al-khawd is confused mixing in discussion by way of jest and play, abandoning understanding and clarity. Some researchers stated: The original meaning of khawd is wading through water, which was metaphorically applied to delving into matters, and it appears in the Quran mostly for the purpose of condemnation.

(So turn away from them) i.e., leave them and do not sit with them, (until they engage in a conversation) i.e., speech, (other than that) i.e., other than Our verses. The use of the masculine pronoun [in ghayrihi] is based on [the verses] being considered "speech" (hadith); describing the speech as being other than them points to viewing them under the category of being speech. It is said: It is based on them being a Quran. The intent of khawd here is "delving into" without the condition of denial or mockery. Some claimed that the meaning is "until they become occupied with speech other than it," and that the mention of "they engage" (yakhudu) is for the sake of formal correspondence (mushakala). Some have argued that the pronoun refers to the [act of] khawd.

Some scholars used this verse as evidence that "when" (idha) implies repetition due to the prohibition of sitting with those who delve into [vain matters] every time they do so and contemplate it. This is refuted by the fact that the repetition does not stem from "when," but from the ruling being contingent upon the source of the derivation. As for some of the Hashwiyya using it as evidence to prohibit deduction and disputation regarding the Essence of Allah and His attributes—claiming that this is "delving into the verses of Allah"—it is a claim that does not deserve any consideration.

(And if Satan should cause you to forget) by occupying you such that you forget the command to turn away from them, and so you sit with them, either initially or by remaining [with them]. This is by way of a hypothetical assumption, for it did not occur; and how could Satan have a path to occupy the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)? This is why the conditional in (if) was used, with the particle ma added after it. Some researchers hold that the address here and preceding it is to the master of the addressed [the Prophet], while the intent is others. It is also said: It is addressed to others initially—i.e., "When you see, O listener," and "If he makes you forget, O listener."

It is well-known among the Rafidah that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is infallible regarding forgetfulness, due to the Almighty’s saying: We will make you recite, [O Muhammad], and you will not forget. They claim that others hold the view that it is permissible. Regarding the attribution of the first [view] to them, the author of al-Ahkam, al-Jubba'i, and others recorded it. The latter said: The verse is evidence of the invalidity of their statement. However, what I have encountered in their authoritative books is that they do not permit forgetfulness—nor slips of memory—for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), nor for any of the Prophets (peace be upon them) regarding what they convey from Allah as Quran and Revelation. As for anything else, they permit that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) might forget it, as long as it does not lead to a defect in the religion.

I hold that the point of disagreement is the forgetfulness whose origin is not the heart being occupied with satanic whispers and suggestions, for that is something no believer doubts is impossible for the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The detailed discussion regarding this, according to our authoritative books, is that the view of the majority of scholars is the permissibility of forgetfulness for him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in matters of Sharia rulings—this being apparent in the Quran and Hadiths—but they agreed that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is not left [to persist] in it; rather, Allah the Almighty informs him of it. Most [scholars] said that it is a condition that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) be alerted immediately, connected to the incident, without any delay. A group permitted its delay for the duration of his life (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), which was chosen by Imam al-Haramayn. Another group of scholars prohibited this in rhetorical actions and acts of worship, just as they unanimously agreed on its prohibition and impossibility regarding rhetorical statements. They answered the apparent texts that suggest otherwise, and to this leaned the Professor Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini. Al-Nawawi verified the first view, for it does not contradict Prophethood; and when he is not left in it, no corruption results from it, nor does it contradict the command to follow him. Rather, a benefit is derived from it: clarifying the rulings for one who forgets and establishing the rulings.

Al-Qadi mentioned that they differed regarding the permissibility of slips of memory (sahw) for him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in matters that do not relate to communication (balagh) and the clarification of Sharia rulings—from his actions, habits, and the recollections of his heart. The majority permitted it. As for sahw in rhetorical statements, they unanimously agreed on its prohibition, just as they agreed on the impossibility of him doing so intentionally. As for sahw in worldly statements, and that which is not of the nature of balagh—from speech that does not relate to rulings, nor the news of the Resurrection, nor what relates to it, and which is not attributed to revelation—a group permitted it, as there is no corruption in it. He then said: "The truth, regarding which there is no doubt, is the preference for the view of those who said: This is impossible for the Prophets (peace be upon them) in every piece of news, just as it is not permissible for them to go back on their word, neither intentionally nor by way of sahw, neither in health nor illness, neither in pleasure nor anger. Sufficient for you in this is that his biography, his speech, and his actions (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) are a collection that has been tended to throughout time, scrutinized by friend and foe, believer and skeptic. Yet, there never appeared in any of them a rectification of a mistake in speech, nor an admission of a fallacy in a word. If that had occurred, it would have been narrated, just as his sahw in prayer, his sleeping through it, his revision of his opinion on the pollination of date palms, and his descent at the lowest water of Badr were narrated." As for the permissibility of sahw in beliefs concerning worldly matters, it is not impossible. God willing, a completion of the discussion on this topic will follow during the interpretation of the Almighty’s saying: And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke, Satan threw [some misunderstanding] into his speech...

Ibn Amir recited (yunsiyannaka) with a shadda on the sin, and nasiya means ansaya. Ibn Atiyyah said: Nasiya is more emphatic than ansaya. The nun in both recitations is doubled, being the nun of emphasis; it is well-known that it is necessary in a verb occurring after the conditional in accompanied by the additional ma. It is said: It is not necessary, and to this [view] belongs the saying of Ibn Durayd: "Do you not see my head, its color resembling the fringe of dawn beneath the trails of darkness?"

(Then do not sit after the reminder) i.e., after remembering the command to turn away, as is the view of the majority of exegetes. Abu Muslim said: The meaning is "after you remind them by calling them to the religion and forbidding them from engaging in the verses," but this is of no substance.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted that "the reminder" might mean Allah the Almighty’s reminding him, and that the meaning is: "Even if Satan makes you forget before the prohibition the repulsiveness of sitting with the mockers—since it is something that [sound] intellects reject—do not sit [with them] after We have reminded you of its repulsiveness and alerted you to it." It is not hidden that this is a far-fetched interpretation built upon the foundation of [the objective nature of] evil and good, which the sledgehammers of the thoughts of the firmly grounded scholars have demolished. Furthermore, we do not concede that sitting with mockers is something that intellects reject absolutely. Ibn al-Munir mentioned that what is suitable, based on what he said, is "if he makes you forget" (in ansaka) rather than "if he should cause you to forget" (in ma yunsiyannaka), as Satan’s causing forgetfulness, if it were true, would be minor according to the [rules of] hearing. This is not the first instance of khawd [delving into vanity] by Al-Zamakhshari in interpreting the verses; rather, that is his habit.

(With the wrongdoing people) i.e., with them. The explicit noun was placed in the position of the pronoun as a reproach against them, that by such engaging [in vanity], they are wrongdoers, placing denial and mockery in the position of affirmation and glorification, and being entrenched in that. In the verse, as more than one has stated, there is an indication of the lack of accountability for the one who forgets. These are issues disputed among them; they titled them the "issue of the accountability of the heedless," and they counted the forgetful one among them. Al-Ash'ari has two views on this, and he deemed the lack of accountability to be correct because there is no benefit in it, unlike accountability for the impossible. Ibn Burhan recorded in al-Awsat on behalf of the jurists the view of the validity of his accountability in the sense of the act being established as a liability, whereas the theologians prohibited it, as it is inconceivable according to them. It might be thought that al-Shafi'i, by his text on the accountability of the intoxicated person, holds the view of the accountability of the heedless, but that is a suspicion, for he only held the intoxicated person accountable as a punishment for him, because he caused [the state] through a forbidden act he chose for himself; and this is why the legal penalty is required of him, unlike the heedless person. It was objected against the view of impossibility that the servant is held accountable for knowing Allah the Almighty without knowing the command, and that is because the command to know Him, Glorified be He, has arrived; so it is not permissible for it to have arrived after [the knowledge] has been attained, because obtaining the already obtained is impossible. Thus, it must have arrived before it, so the command cannot be absolute based on this, for knowing His command without knowing Him, Glorified be He, is impossible. Therefore, he has been held accountable for knowing Allah the Almighty while he is heedless of that accountability.

The answer is that general knowledge is sufficient to negate heedlessness, and that which is required is specific knowledge. Or, the condition for accountability is the obligated person’s understanding of it—that he understands the address to the extent upon which compliance depends, not that he believes in his being held accountable; otherwise, circular reasoning would ensue, as well as the non-accountability of the disbelievers. Here, he has understood that, even if he does not believe in it. The author of al-Minhaj, following the author of al-Hasil, answered that the accountability for knowing Allah the Almighty is an exception to the rule by consensus. The complete research should be sought in the books of Usul.