Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:82

(Those who believe and do not...)

This is a resumption of the discourse. It is possible that it originates from Allah—the Exalted—as an explanation of the answer to the [previous] truth, which is inevitable. This has been narrated from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Ibn Zayd, and al-Jubba’i. It is also possible that it originates from Ibrahim—peace be upon him—and this has been narrated from Ali—may Allah—the Exalted—honor his face.

It has been objected that it can be a resumption on the grounds that it cannot be considered an "explanation," as it was not the answer to a hypothetical question; rather, it is the answer to a factual question. Nor can it be a "grammatical" resumption, as Ibn Hisham stated that a grammatical resumption is that which occurs at the beginning of speech and is disconnected from what precedes it, whereas this is linked to what precedes it due to the necessity of the connection between the answer and the question, and we have no other options.

The response given is to accept that it is grammatical, and the meaning of it being "disconnected" from what precedes it is that it is not conjoined to it, nor is it linked to it in terms of syntax, even if it is linked in another way. It has also been said that the meaning of "the beginning of speech" is its beginning in fact or in potential; meaning: the group that believes in what must be believed in.

(And do not mix) — meaning: do not confuse (their faith) — that (with oppression) — meaning: polytheism (shirk), as the group of polytheists does. They claim to be believers in Allah—the Exalted—and that their worship of others along with Him is among the completions and requirements of their faith, for the sake of drawing near and intercession, as their statement indicates: "We do not worship them except that they might bring us nearer to Allah in position."

Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—Ibn al-Musayyib, Qatadah, Mujahid, and the majority of the exegetes have gone to this interpretation of "oppression" as "polytheism" here. This is supported by the fact that the verse was revealed as an answer regarding the state of the two groups.

This is also indicated by what the two Sheikhs [al-Bukhari and Muslim], Ahmad, and al-Tirmidhi recorded from Ibn Mas'ud—may Allah be pleased with him—that when the verse was revealed, it was difficult for the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—and they said: "Who among us has not oppressed his soul?" The Prophet—peace be upon him—said: "It is not what you think. It is only what Luqman—peace be upon him—said to his son: 'O my son, do not associate anything with Allah; indeed, polytheism is a great injustice (oppression).'"

It cannot be said that it does not necessarily follow from his statement, "Indeed, polytheism..." etc., that other than polytheism is not oppression, because they have said that the nunation (tanwin) in "with oppression" (bi-zulm) is for magnification (ta'zim). It is as if it were said: "They do not mix their faith with a great oppression." When it became clear that polytheism is a great oppression, it was understood that the intended meaning is "they do not mix their faith with polytheism," or that what is commonly understood from the absolute term is its most perfect instances.

It has been said that the intended meaning is "sin." This was narrated from al-Jubba’i and al-Balkhi, and al-Zamakhshari favored it, following the majority of the Mu'tazilah. They argued from this verse that the person who commits a major sin has no security and no escape from torment, as the verse indicated—by placing "for them is security" later—that security is exclusive to those who do not mix their faith with oppression, i.e., with wickedness (fisq). They claimed that interpreting it as polytheism is rejected by the mention of "mixing," because it does not coexist with faith due to their contrariety, whereas it does coexist with sins. They argue that the hadith is a singular report (khabar wahid) and thus cannot be acted upon in opposition to categorical evidence.

The assertion that wickedness also does not coexist with faith according to them—so their argument does not hold—because it is a name for performing acts of obedience and avoiding evils, to the point that the wicked person is not a believer, just as he is not a disbeliever, is refuted. As it has been said, faith is very often applied to the act of belief itself; in fact, one barely understands anything else from the term when used as a verb, to the point that "doing righteous deeds" is conjoined to it, as has come in more than one verse.

It has been answered that "faith" is intended as the belief of the heart, and it may coexist with polytheism, such as one who believes in the existence of the Creator but not His oneness, as we indicated earlier. Among this is His statement—the Exalted: "And most of them do not believe in Allah except while they associate others with Him." Likewise, if it is intended as absolute belief, whether by the tongue or otherwise, coexistence is even more apparent in this case, as with the hypocrite. If it is intended as the belief in all that must be believed in, such that it negates disbelief, it is said: It does not necessarily follow from mixing faith with polytheism that the two are gathered in such a way that it is true to say he is both a believer and a polytheist; rather, it means covering it with disbelief, making it overwhelmed and extinguished, or being characterized by faith, then disbelief, then faith, then disbelief repeatedly.

Even after conceding all that has been mentioned, we say: His statement—the Exalted—"Those—for them is security" only indicates that security is exclusive to those who are not disobedient. This does not mandate that the disobedient are absolutely tormented; rather, they are fearful, because that is a possibility, and the side of its occurrence is likely.

It has also been said that the meaning of "security" is security from the eternity of torment, not security from torment absolutely. The relative pronoun is the subject, and the demonstrative pronoun is the second subject. The reference is to the relative pronoun from the perspective of its being characterized by what is in the position of the predicate of the relative clause. In referring to it with that which carries the meaning of distance, after describing it with the aforementioned, there is that which is not hidden. The sentence "for them is security" is the predicate of the fronted predicate, and the deferred subject is the predicate of the second subject, and the [whole] sentence is the predicate of the first.

It is permitted that "those" is a substitute for the relative pronoun or an explanatory appositive to it, and "for them" is the predicate, while "security" is the agent of the prepositional phrase because it relies upon the subject. It is also permitted that "for them" is a fronted predicate and "security" is a deferred subject, or the sentence is the predicate of the relative pronoun. Abu al-Baqa' permitted the relative pronoun being the predicate of a deleted subject, and said: the estimate is "They are those who..." but it is not free from being far-fetched. The majority are upon the first [view].

(And they are guided) to the Truth, while others besides them are in manifest error. Some have estimated it as "to the path that necessitates security from the eternity of torment."