Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:7

"And even if We had sent down to you a book on parchment..."

This is a new commencement, presented through a shift in address to demonstrate the intensity of their stubbornness in contradiction and the false statements that branch out from it, following the explanation of their state regarding other matters.

It is narrated from al-Kalbi and others that this was revealed concerning al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, Abdullah ibn Abi Umayyah, and Nawfal ibn Khuwaylid when they said to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, "O Muhammad, we will never believe in you until you bring us a book from Allah, the Exalted, accompanied by four angels who testify that it is from Allah, the Exalted, and that you are His Messenger."

The phrase "written upon" (maktubin)—the prepositional phrase following it is attached to a deleted term that acts as an adjective for it, or it is attached to it directly. It is said: If "book" (kitab) is taken as a noun similar to "leader" (imam), then the prepositional phrase is in the position of an adjective for it. If it is taken as a verbal noun in the meaning of "that which is written" (al-maktub), then it is attached to it. It is permitted that it be attached to "We had sent down," but this is far-fetched.

"Parchment" (al-qirtas), with the qaf having a kasrah or dammah, and it is read with both, is an arabized term for kurrasah (notebook), as it is said. Among those who stated it is not Arabic is al-Jawaliqi. It is also said that it is a common term meaning paper. Qatadah says it means a sheet. In the Qamus, al-qirtas is said to have all three vowel variations for the qaf, and like ja'far and dirham, it means paper (kaghad). Al-Shihab said: It is specific to that which is written or more general, covering both that and other things.

"...so they touched it [with their hands]"

"It" refers to the book or the parchment. "Touching" (al-lams), as al-Jawhari said, is contact with the hand. Therefore, His saying, "with their hands," is for the sake of greater specification and to repel the possibility of the metaphorical usage found in His saying, "And we touched the heaven," meaning: we investigated/searched.

It is said that "touching" is more general than contact with the hand. According to al-Raghib, "touching" is perception through the outer skin, such as tactile feeling. By restricting it to "hands," the possibility of metaphor is also repelled.

It is also said that it was restricted to this because the sensation of adhesion is perceived by all parts of the body, but the hand has a specificity in sensation that other parts do not. As for the metaphorical usage of "touching" as "investigation," it is not repelled by this, because there is nothing far-fetched about them performing the investigation themselves. Rather, it is repelled because the literal meaning is more appropriate to the context—though this is nothing [substantial], as is not hidden.

Some say that mentioning the "hands" is to indicate that the touching was done with both hands, though the benefit of this specification is not apparent. Specifying "touching" is because it is preceded by "seeing" where there is no barrier, and because forgery does not occur in it, so they would be unable to say—if they were to abandon obstinacy and captiousness—"Our eyes were merely bewitched."

It is objected that "touching" here only repels the possibility that what is seen is a delusion; it does not prove its descent from the heavens. The answer is that when visual perception of the descent is reinforced by tactile perception of what has descended, the intellect concludes by necessity that the perceived object exists with a certainty that does not admit the opposite. After this, nothing remains except sheer obstinacy, while the fact that it occurs there without anyone’s direct interference is sufficient for the miracle, as is not hidden.

Ibn al-Munir said: The apparent meaning is that the benefit of adding "touching with their hands" is to confirm that the reading was done at close range—meaning they read it while it was in their hands, not far from them—so they would have believed.

His saying, "the disbelievers would have said," is the response to "If," according to the most eloquent usage, which pairs the affirmative response of "If" with the lam. The intent is that they would have said it out of captiousness and defiance of the truth. The relative pronoun [the one who] was placed in the place of the pronoun [they] to specify their characterization by what is contained in the connective clause of disbelief, which does not become obscured. As it is said, its placement is also appropriate regarding its linguistic meaning. It is also permitted that the intended meaning is a specific group of disbelievers known to them, in which case the talk of placement is irrelevant.

"Indeed, this" —i.e., the book— "is naught but clear magic," meaning manifest in its being magic.