Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:8

(And they say: "Why has an angel not been sent down to him?")

The apparent meaning is that this is an inception (istī’nāf) to clarify their criticism of his prophethood—upon him be blessings and peace—with something more explicit than the first. It has been said that it is conjoined to the response of the "if" (law), and what is forgiven in the latter parts is forgiven in the former. An objection was raised that this abominable statement is not something that can be estimated to proceed from them upon the condition of the aforementioned book being sent down; rather, it is one of their proven falsehoods and fabricated myths which they use as an excuse whenever ruses become difficult for them and pretexts fail them. It was answered that there is no remoteness in estimating the issuance of this statement upon the condition of that sending down, because it is something that plunges the stubborn disbeliever into a dilemma, such that he does not know how to counter it nor what to cling to. The word (lawlā) here is for incitement, and the intent is to reproach them for not bringing an angel to be witnessed alongside him, so that their suspicion—according to their claim—would be removed.

Abū al-Mundhir and Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated from Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq who said: The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—invited his people to Islam and spoke to them, and he reached the limit with them in what reached me. Then Zam‘ah ibn al-Aswad ibn al-Muṭṭalib, an-Naḍr ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Kaladah, ‘Abdah ibn ‘Abd Yaghūth, Ibn Abī Khalaf ibn Wahb, and al-‘Āṣ ibn Wā’il ibn Hishām said to him: "O Muḥammad, if only an angel were placed with you to speak to the people about you and be seen with you." Then Allah the Exalted revealed His saying, Glory be to Him: (And they say: "Why has an angel not been sent down...") i.e., why was an angel not sent down with him to be with him, to speak to the people about him, and to inform them that he is a Messenger from his Lord—Glory be to Him—to them? Perhaps this is similar to what Allah the Exalted recounted of them in His noble saying: (Why has an angel not been sent down to him, so that he becomes a warner with him?)

Since the pivot of this suggestion rested on two things: sending down an angel in his own form, and placing him with him—upon him be peace—to speak to the people about him and warn them, it was answered that this is something that can hardly exist, as it contains two mutually exclusive things. For sending the angel down in his own form necessitates that he not be made a speaker and a warner, and making him a speaker and a warner requires that he not be sent down in his own form.

The first was pointed to by His saying, the Exalted: (And if We had sent down an angel) in his true form so that they witnessed him with their own eyes: (the matter would have been decided), meaning: the matter of their destruction would have been completed due to their witnessing him, on account of the intensity of the terrifying sight, along with the weakness of their faculties and lack of fitness.

It has been said: All the prophets—upon them be blessings and peace—only ever saw the angel in the form of a human, and none of them saw him in his own form except the Prophet—upon him be blessings and peace—who saw him as such twice: once on earth at Jiyād and once in the heavens. It is not hidden that this requires a transmission from authentic traditions. What is authentic from the narration of al-Tirmidhī from ‘Ā’ishah—may Allah be pleased with her—is that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—saw Gabriel—upon him be peace—twice as mentioned in his original form, but it does not contain that any of his brothers, the prophets, other than him—upon him be peace—did not see him as such. This was not refuted, as Ibn Ḥajar said—and he is sufficient as a master of the traditions (ḥāfiẓ) regarding anything in the books of reports. As for the vision of the Prophet—upon him be peace—and likewise the vision of other prophets, of other than Gabriel—upon him be peace—in the original form, it is permissible without doubt, and the explicit reports also indicate it occurring to our Prophet—upon him be peace. As for the occurrence of the vision of the rest of the prophets—upon them be peace—I have not stood upon anything regarding it, neither in negation nor affirmation. The non-occurrence of the vision of Gabriel—upon him be peace—if it were true, does not indicate the non-vision of others, for the forms of all angels are not like his form—upon him be peace—in magnitude. The report of the two litigants and the guests for Abraham, Lot, and David—upon them be peace—contains no evidence beyond these prophets seeing the angels in the form of humans, and this does not necessitate that they only see them as such; otherwise, it would necessitate that the vision of our Prophet—upon him be peace—of Gabriel—upon him be peace—in the form of Diḥyah ibn Khalīfah al-Kalbī—may Allah be pleased with him—for example, means he did not see them except in human form, which is contrary to what the reports convey.

The building of the first verb in the response (the passive voice) for the Agent (Allah) is attributed to the "Nun of Majesty" (nūn al-‘aẓamah), while in the question it is built for the recipient (passive), to terrify the matter and cultivate awe. The building of the second (verb) for the recipient is to follow the custom of Majesty.

The word (then) in the saying of the Exalted: (then they would not be reprieved) implies they would not be granted delay after his descent and their witnessing him for the blink of an eye, let alone that they would derive a word from him or remove a suspicion with him—according to their claim—in order to alert (the reader) to the distance between the two matters: the deciding of the matter and the lack of reprieve, for the suddenness of the intensity is more intense than the intensity itself. It is said: it is to indicate that they have a respite long enough to reflect.

It was objected that His saying, the Exalted: (then they would not be reprieved) is conjoined to His saying, the Almighty: (the matter would have been decided), and there is no reprieve for reflection after the matter is decided.

It was said regarding the cause of their destruction upon the condition of the angel’s descent as they suggested: that if they witnessed him having descended upon the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—in his original form—which is a sign than which nothing is clearer—and then they did not believe, there would be no escaping their destruction, for the tradition (sunnah) of Allah the Exalted has occurred as such in those before them who disbelieved after the descent of what they suggested. This was narrated from Qatādah.

It is also said: The freedom of choice, which is the basis of religious accountability (taklīf), ceases upon his descent, for this is a compelling sign (āyah mulji’ah). Allah the Exalted says: (Their faith would not benefit them once they saw Our punishment), so their destruction becomes necessary lest their existence remain devoid of wisdom, for they were only created for the trial of accountability, which does not remain with compulsion. In this there is what contradicts the principles of the People of Sunnah, and it is not feasible except based on the principles of the Mu‘tazilah, which are frailer than a spider’s web. Moreover, it is not free from problem, as is not hidden to the seeker. Some of the learned mentioned that this view contradicts the one before it, because the former indicates the continuation of free will and that they would not believe even if they witnessed the angel descending, whereas this indicates the stripping and removal of free will and that their faith would be the faith of despair.

Ibn al-Munīr said: It is not good to make the reason for their destruction the clarity of the sign in the descent of the angel, for it might be understood from that that the signs which they were obligated to believe in were not equal to the descent of the angel in clarity, and the matter is not so. Therefore, the view—and Allah the Exalted knows best—is that the reason for hastening their punishment upon the condition of the angel’s descent and their failure to believe is that they suggested what the obligation of faith is dependent upon—since what the obligation is dependent upon is the miracle (mu‘jiz) in its capacity as a miracle, not the specific miracle. So, if they were answered in accordance with their suggestion and it did not benefit them, they would then be at the utmost of entrenchment in stubbornness, which is appropriate for the lack of reprieve. Perhaps the view we have relied upon is the most primary, and it has been narrated by Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and Abū al-Shaykh from Ibn ‘Abbās—may Allah be pleased with them both. The objection against it, that (they would not be reprieved) indicates their destruction and not their perishing by seeing the angel, is repelled by what we have indicated, as is not hidden. It is not an accountability that leaves room for the speech of the "Translator of the Quran" (Ibn ‘Abbās). The second was pointed to by His saying, the Exalted:...