Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:75

“And thus We show Abraham...” This showing (ira’ah) is derived from visual sight used metaphorically for knowledge, based on the principle of using the cause to signify the effect. That is: We made him know and We made him see. While the manifest form would have been “We showed” (arayna) in the past tense, the future tense was employed to narrate the past event in order to bring the image to mind, as if it were present and being witnessed.

It has been said that the use of the future tense is because the object of this showing is infinite, and the path of its indication is such that one cannot encompass it except gradually; however, this is weak. The reference is to the source (masdar) of "We show," not to another showing understood from His, the Exalted’s, saying: "Indeed, I see you," nor to the knowledge and discernment with which he warned his father and argued against his people—though all of these have been suggested.

It is permissible to consider the mushabbah (that which is compared) as the act of making one see, in that it is an occurring reality, and the mushabbah bihi (the thing to which it is compared) as the act of making one see, in that it is the meaning signified by the word. A parallel to this is describing a relationship as "conforming to reality," while the relationship is the very reality itself. It has also been permitted that the kaf (in kadhalika) acts as the lam (for the purpose of), referring to the preceding discourse. You know which interpretation is most robust and superior among those mentioned in similar contexts; it is none other than the first: that We make him, upon him be peace, see that wondrous display of sovereignty.

“...the kingdom (malakut) of the heavens and the earth”—that is, His, the Exalted’s, Lordship (rububiyya) and ownership of them, not another showing inferior to this. Malakut is a noun form like raghabut and rahmaut, as stated by Ibn Malik and other linguists; the ta is an addition for emphasis. For this reason, it has been interpreted as "great sovereignty" and "overwhelming authority." As Al-Raghib stated, it is a term exclusive to the Exalted, contrary to some others.

It is reported from Mujahid that malakut refers to the signs (ayat). It is also said that it refers to the wonders within the heavens and the earth; for the seven heavens were opened to him, so he looked at what was within them until his gaze reached the Throne, and the seven earths were opened to him, so he looked at what was within them.

Ibn Marduyah narrated from Ali—may Allah, the Exalted, honor his face—that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “When Abraham was shown the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, he looked down upon a man committing one of the sins against Allah, so he invoked [judgment] against him, and he perished. Then he looked down upon another committing one of the sins against Allah, so he invoked [judgment] against him, and he perished. Then he looked down upon another and went to invoke [judgment] against him, but Allah, the Exalted, revealed to him: ‘O Abraham, you are a man whose supplication is answered, so do not invoke [judgment] against My servants. For they are with Me in one of three states: either the sinner repents and I forgive him; or I bring forth from his loins a soul that fills the earth with glorification; or I take him unto Myself—if I will, I pardon, and if I will, I punish.’” Similar reports, both mawquf (attributed to a Companion) and marfu‘ (attributed to the Prophet), have been transmitted through various chains; there is no contradiction in them according to the proofs of reason, contrary to what some may imagine. It has also been said that the kingdom of the heavens is the sun, the moon, and the stars, and the kingdom of the earth is the mountains, the trees, and the seas.

These interpretations, as has been said, do not necessitate that the "showing" be visual. For the intention behind showing what has been mentioned of these sensory matters is not merely enabling him to see and witness them in their own essence, but rather to inform him of their realities and make him know them in terms of how they indicate the attributes of the Almighty. There is no doubt that this is not something perceived by the senses, as the previous comparison indicates.

It is read as tura (in the second person) with the ta, attributing the action to the malakut (i.e., “you see, O Prophet, the signs of Lordship”).

“...and so that he may be among the certain”—that is, among the group of those firmly rooted in certainty, who have reached the degree of "the eye of certainty" (‘ayn al-yaqin) in the knowledge of Allah. This does not imply that there was prior doubt, as is obvious. The lam (in li-yakuna) is connected to a suppressed, postponed verb; the clause is an interruption confirming what preceded it—meaning, "and so that he may be among the certain, We did what We did of the aforementioned wondrous showing." The restriction (hasr) is based on the fact that this state of certainty is the primary intention of that showing, while things like guiding creation and compelling the disbelievers are its consequences. Some did not observe this and interpreted the verb as preceding, due to the view that the cause is not restricted to what was mentioned.

It is also said that it is connected to the preceding verb, and the clause is linked to a suppressed cause that the discourse follows—i.e., "We showed him in order that he might infer, and in order that he might be among the certain." It was objected that inference, if considered apart from being a cause for consideration, would not be a cause for the showing, so how could it be linked by repeating the lam? This objection is without merit. Some have claimed that, based on this, the "kingdom of the heavens and earth" must be interpreted as their marvels and signs, because inference is an ultimate goal of showing these, not an ultimate goal of showing the Lordship itself. You know that the vision of Lordship is only attained through the vision of its signs and effects. Some consider the waw to be redundant and the lam to be connected to what was stated; there is far-fetchedness in this, even if they mention it as a possible way, just as they do with all such occurrences in the Quran.