Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:81

"How could I fear what you associate..." is a new inception, as the Shaykh al-Islam stated, intended to negate fear from him (peace be upon him) according to the disbelievers' delusion, by way of an argumentum ad hominem (ilzam), after having negated it from him according to reality and the nature of the matter. The interrogative is for the denial of the occurrence and the total negation of it. Directing the denial to the "how" of the fear—rather than to the fear itself, by saying "Do I fear?"—contains an element of hyperbole that is not present in the latter, because every existing thing is not devoid of a how (modality); therefore, when its existence is negated from all perspectives through demonstrative evidence, the "how" condition is nullified.

"What" (ma) is a relative pronoun, or an indefinite noun qualified by an adjective, with the referent omitted. It is also permissible for it to be an infinitive (masdariyyah). His saying, "And you do not fear that you associate with Allah," is in the position of a state (hal) from the pronoun in "I fear," with an implied subject due to the presence of the waw (conjunction of state). It is said that there is no need for an implied subject because a negated present tense verb may be linked with the fa, and there is no need here for a pronoun returning to the possessor of the state, as the waw is sufficient for connection. This statement serves to confirm the denial of fear and to negate it from him (peace be upon him), and it is useful for their admission of this fact; for if they do not fear in a place of fear, then it is more appropriate that he (peace be upon him) should not fear in a place of security. That is to say: How could I fear what is not in the realm of fear at all, while you do not fear the catastrophe of what is the greatest and most terrifying of fears—namely, your associating with Allah the Exalted, who created the heavens and the earth, something that is among His creations? He expressed this with His saying, "for which He has not sent down any authority upon you," meaning: no proof. This is by way of sarcasm, while simultaneously alerting that in religious matters, one must not rely on anything except the proof sent down from Allah the Exalted. The pronoun in "with it" (bihi) refers to the relative pronoun, and the speech is based on the omission of a genitive, meaning: "by associating it." It is also permitted that it refers to the "association" (al-ishrak) qualified by its connection to the relative pronoun, and there is no need for a returning pronoun; this, according to some, is based on the school of al-Akhfash regarding the sufficiency of connection through a referent returning to something associated with the possessor.

The mention of the object of association—the Majestic Name—in the state-clause, rather than the first clause, is said to be because the intent in the state-clause is to emphasize the gravity of the matter, and mentioning the partner associated [with Allah] is more inclusive of that. Some researchers said: The apparent reason for the mention in the second and the omission in the first is that since it was just said before this, "and I do not fear what you associate with Him," what is here would be like a repetition, so abbreviation was appropriate. Furthermore, he (peace be upon him) omitted it as an indication of the remoteness of the Majestic One from association; thus, it is not appropriate in His presence to attribute it to Allah, nor to mention it alongside Him. When the state of the polytheists, who do not exalt Him the Exalted above that, was mentioned, he explicitly stated it. It is said: The mention of the Majestic Name in the second clause is so that the pronoun in "He has not sent down" returns to it, but this is nothing, because its prior mention in the clause is sufficient. It is also said: Because his (peace be upon him) intent is to deny their lack of fear regarding their associating with Allah the Exalted, for that is the denial that is considered far-fetched to a sound intellect, not absolute denial. This is not the case in the first clause, for the intent there is the denial that he (peace be upon him) should fear anything other than Allah, whether or not it is what the disbelievers associate; but this is also nothing, for the second clause is not included with the first under the ruling of denial—unless one claims conjunction, which is a path that cannot be taken, as it leads to the corruption of the meaning definitively for what has preceded, since denial here is in the sense of absolute negation. Thus, the meaning would devolve into the negation of fear from him (peace be upon him) and the negation of that negation from them, and that is manifest corruption. Furthermore, how could "what you associate" denote other than Allah as a partner? This is truly a strange thing.

Moreover, the verse is explicit that association is something for which He has not sent down authority. Is the obtaining of authority for that rationally impossible or not? The apparent speech of some of them—and there is that in the Principles of Jurisprudence which supports it in part—is the second view. As for what the Imam chose, that it is not rationally impossible that one be commanded to take those idols and images as a qiblah for supplication, this is not a point of disagreement, as is not hidden from the observer. So contemplate.

"Which of the two parties is more deserving of security?" This statement is arranged based on the denial of his (peace be upon him) fear in a place of security, alongside the realization of the lack of their fear in a place of fear. It is driven to compel them to acknowledge his (peace be upon him) entitlement to the security he possesses, and their lack of entitlement to that which they possess. By this, one learns what is in the claim that the denial in the first clause is for the negation of occurrence, and in the second for the deeming of the occurrence as far-fetched. The comparative form, which implies their entitlement to it in the clause, was brought only to bring them down from the rank of obstinacy and deviation by leading the speech along the path of fairness. The intent by "the two parties" is the party secure in the place of security and the one secure in the place of fear. Preferring what is in the Noble Order, as has been said, over saying, "Which of us is more deserving of security: I or you?" is to confirm the compulsion toward the answer by alerting to the cause of the ruling, and to avoid explicitly faulting them, which might invite stubbornness and obstinacy—while pointing out, through what is in the Order, that the entitlement to security is not specific to him (peace be upon him) but rather extends to every monotheist, as an encouragement for them toward monotheism, "if you possess knowledge"—that is, as to who is more deserving of that, or any of these matters; or, "if you are among the people of knowledge, then inform me of that." It was also read "sultan" with a damma on the lam, which is a dialect in which the damma is followed by another damma.