Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:79

Then, when he (peace be upon him) had disassociated himself from what he disassociated from, he turned towards the Originator and Creator of these created things, saying: "I have directed my face towards Him who created [i.e., brought into existence and originated] the heavens [of which these celestial bodies are parts] and the earth [of which those idols are parts], inclining toward the truth [i.e., turning away from all false religions and deviant beliefs], and I am not of the polytheists."

He is not a polytheist at all in any speech or action. The intent behind "directing the face towards Him who created, etc." is the intention of worshipping Him, Glory be to Him.

The Imam said: The meaning is, "I have directed my worship and obedience." The reason for this metaphorical usage is that whoever is obedient to another and submissive to his command directs his face towards him; thus, directing the face towards Him was made a metonymy for obedience. It is apparent that the lam (in lil-ladhi) is linked to "face" (wajhi). In Al-Sihah, it is stated: "I directed my face to Allah (wajjahtu wajhiya lillahi)," and "I turned towards you (tawajahtu nahwaka wa-ilayka)." It is apparent that there is a distinction between wajaha and tawajjaha by using the former with lam and the latter with ila. On this basis, the use of lam here instead of ila is clear, though Al-Qamus does not address this distinction. The Imam claimed that since the meaning is directing the face of the heart towards His service and obedience—due to His lordship—and not directing the heart towards Him (His Majesty be exalted, for He is transcendent above spatial location and direction), the preposition ila was abandoned and lam sufficed. The reliance upon lam here is clear evidence that the Worshipped is transcendent above spatial location and direction. However, there is some reservation in the heart regarding this.

If it is asked: The utmost that the evidence proves is that the star, the sun, and the moon are not fit for divinity and godhead; it does not follow from this amount that polytheism is negated absolutely and monotheism established. Why then did he (peace be upon him) resolve to establish monotheism and negate polytheism after establishing that evidence?

The answer is that the people were in agreement regarding the negation of other partners; they only disputed this specific case. When it was proven by evidence that these things are not lords nor gods, and the negation of others was established by consensus, the resolution to negate partners absolutely was naturally attained.

Furthermore, it is well known that this reasoning is from the first mood of the second figure of the syllogism. To them, a singular proposition has the status of a universal one, as if it were said: "This, or the moon, or this, set," and "Nothing that is divine sets," or "My Lord does not set." This yields: "This, or the moon, or this, is not a god or is not my Lord." As for the minor premise, it is as good as explicitly stated in His saying (when it set) in both instances, and His saying (it did not set) in the last. As for the major premise, it is taken from His saying: "I do not love those that set," because he points to a syllogism: "Every setting thing does not deserve worship," and "Everyone who does not deserve worship is not a god." This yields from the first: "Every setting thing is not a god," and it necessitates: "No setting thing is a god," due to the necessity of the converted negative categorical syllogism. It is valid to make the major premise a negative one from the beginning, which yields what was mentioned, and it converts to: "No god is a setting thing," which is one of the two major premises. From this, one may know with the slightest reflection how the second major premise is derived.

Al-Malawi said: It is better to say that His saying, "I do not love those that set," contains a proposition, which is: "Nothing that sets deserves worship." This is made a major premise for a necessary minor premise, which is: "A god is worthy of worship," which yields: "No god is a setting thing." If this result is joined to the previous proposition, which is "This sets and the like," it yields from the second figure: "This is not a god," or "Nothing of the moon is a god." If you join its simple conversion to it, it yields from the first figure the very conclusion sought. Thus, the second figure is not uniquely required in the verse; rather, the first is also derived from it. Consider this, and do not be heedless.