Al-An'am: (91) "And they did not appraise Allah..."

(And they did not appraise Allah): When the Glorious One recounted from Abraham (peace be upon him) that he mentioned the proof of monotheism and the invalidation of polytheism, and He — the Almighty and Majestic — established that proof in the clearest manner, He then began to establish the matter of prophethood. This is because the pivot of the Quranic message rests upon the affirmation of monotheism, prophethood, and the resurrection; thus, the verse is linked to what preceded it. As the Imam said, and even better is what has been said: that He — the Exalted — extolled the magnificent Quran and declared it a majestic blessing from Him upon all nations, as expressed by His words, the Almighty and Majestic: "And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds." He followed this by declaring their belittling of it and their disbelief in it, in a manner that extended to disbelief in all divine books.

The origin of al-qadr (appraisal) is knowing the measure of a thing by surveying it. Then it was used for knowing a thing in the most complete manner until it became its literal meaning. Al-Wahidi said: "It is said, 'He appraised (qadara) the thing,' if he surveyed it and sought to know its measure, measuring it (yaqdiruhu)." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If it is obscured for you, then estimate (faqduru) it for it," meaning: seek to know it. Then it was said of one who knows a thing, that he knows its measure, and if he does not know it by its attributes, he does not know its true measure.

Interpretation here differs. According to al-Akhfash, the meaning is: They did not know Allah — the Exalted — "(as) His true measure," meaning: the truth of knowing Him. According to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), they did not revere Allah — the Exalted — with His true reverence. Abu al-Aliyah said: They did not describe Him with His true description. All are possible.

Some researchers chose the view held by al-Akhfash because it is most appropriate for the context: that they did not know Him — the Exalted — in His true measure of kindness to His servants and mercy upon them, and they did not observe His rights — the Exalted — in that, but rather they violated them with a great violation. (When they said), denying the sending of messengers (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them) and the revealing of scriptures, disbelieving in His majestic blessings in both, or they did not know Him — the Majestic and Exalted — in His true measure in terms of His wrath against the disbelievers and the severity of His retribution against them when they dared to deny that by saying: (Allah has not sent down anything to any human), meaning: not a single thing. "Min" (any) is for emphasis, and "Haqq" (true) is in the accusative as an infinitive (cognate accusative). It is, as Abu al-Baqa said, originally an adjective for the infinitive—i.e., qadaruhu al-haqq (he appraised Him the true appraisal)—so when it was added to the noun it described, it took the accusative case that it would have originally taken. And "id" (when) is a temporal adverb. Whether it contains the meaning of cause here or not are two possibilities, and Abu al-Baqa links it to "appraised," not to "did not." It has also been recited as qadruhu with a fatha on the dal.

There is a difference of opinion regarding who said this despicable statement. Abu al-Shaykh extracted from Mujahid that they are the polytheists of Quraish, while the majority are of the view that they are the Jews. Their intent in this was to attack his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) message through hyperbole. So it was said to them, by way of binding argument: (Say, "Who sent down the Book which Moses brought?"). For the intent is that He — the Exalted — certainly sent down the Torah to Moses (peace be upon him), and you have no way to deny that, so why do you not allow for the sending down of the Quran to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? By this, the difficulty in the majority's view is resolved, for the Jews say that the Torah is the Book of Allah which He sent to Moses (peace be upon him); how then could they say: "Allah has not sent down anything to any human"? The essence of this is that they presented the sending of the Quran to him (peace and blessings be upon him) in the form of an impossibility to exaggerate their denial, so they were compelled by the obligation of its possibility.

It is said that this statement originated from anger and inattention to its reality. Ibn Jarir and al-Tabarani extracted from Sa'id ibn Jubayr that Malik ibn al-Sayf, one of the Jewish rabbis, said to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "I adjure you by Allah, Who sent down the Torah to Moses, do you find in it that Allah — the Exalted — hates the fat rabbi? For the fat rabbi became fat from the wealth that the Jews feed you." The people laughed, and he became angry, then turned to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: "Allah did not send anything down to any human." His people said to him: "What is this that has reached us about you?" He said: "It made me angry." So they removed him and put Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf in his place, and Allah revealed this verse. This is objected to on the grounds that it does not align with the obligation of the Torah's revelation to Moses (peace be upon him), for the speaker confessed that it came from him out of anger. Let this be understood. It should not be retorted that this surah is Meccan and the debates that occurred between the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Jews are all Medinan, so the claim that the verse was revealed regarding the Jews cannot stand, because Abu al-Shaykh extracted from Sufyan and al-Kalbi that this verse is Medinan. It is also argued against Mujahid’s saying, that just as the polytheists of Quraish deny the message of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they deny the message of all other prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them). How then is it appropriate to bring this argument against them? It is defended by saying that because the revelation of the Torah was a famous and widespread matter—for which reason they used to say: "If only we had been sent the Book, we would have been better guided than they"—it was appropriate to bind them with what was mentioned. Despite this, the view held by the majority is more worthy of acceptance.

Some people have claimed that in the verse there is a syllogism from the third figure, which is: Moses is a human, and Moses had a book sent down to him; this yields that some humans had a book sent down to them. The minor premise is taken from the force of the verse, and the major from its explicit statement. The conclusion is a particular affirmative, falsifying the universal negative that the Jews claimed, which is: "No human had a book sent down to him," which is derived from their statement: "Allah has not sent down anything to any human." These two individuals yielded this conclusion even though the condition of the third figure is the universality of one of the premises, because the individual in their view is equivalent to the universal.

The Imam said: The Proof of Islam, al-Ghazali (may mercy be upon him), philosophized and said: "This verse is based on the second figure of logical syllogisms. This is because its essence returns to: Moses had something sent down to him by Allah, and not a single human had anything sent down to him by Allah; this yields that Moses was not a human, and this is a contradiction and an impossibility. This impossibility is not due to the form of the syllogism nor the correctness of the first premise, so there remains no choice but to conclude that the premise assumed in the second—their statement 'Allah has not sent down...'—must be false." There is reflection in this, so let it be reflected upon.

Then, describing the Book as having reached them is for the sake of added emphasis and intensified exposure of their shame, as is His saying — the Exalted — (a light and guidance). Its being clear in itself and clarifying for others is what confirms the argument further. Its accusative state is as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from "the Book," and the operator is "sent down," or from the pronoun in "with it," and the operator is "brought." The apparent meaning is that the adverb is attached to "brought." It is allowed that it is attached to an omitted verb acting as a circumstantial qualifier from the subject. The "lam" in His saying — the Exalted — (for the people) either attaches to "guidance" or to an omitted word acting as an adjective for it, i.e., "a guidance being for the people." The intent by them is the Children of Israel, and it is said: they and others. The meaning of it being a guidance for them is that it guides whoever stands before it, directly or indirectly, to that which saves him through belief in Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

His saying — the Exalted — (you make it into parchments) is a parenthetical sentence, having no place in inflection, directed at reproaching them for what they did of distortion and alteration. It is allowed to be in the accusative position as a circumstantial qualifier as mentioned before, i.e., "you place it into torn parchments and scattered leaves," by omitting the preposition based on the analogy of the parchments as an indefinite container, as has been said. Abu Ali al-Farisi said: "The intent is 'you make it possessor of parchments'." More than one has allowed for there being no omission, in the sense of "you make it the parchments themselves." In this is an increase in their reproach for their evil deed, as if they removed it from the category of the Book and reduced it to the level of parchments devoid of writing. The intent in the first case is not to reproach them for merely placing it into parchments—for every book must be deposited in parchments—but the intent is to reproach them for placing it into parchments described by His saying — the Exalted — (you show it and conceal much). So the conjoined sentence and that to which it is conjoined are in the position of an adjective for "parchments," and the referent in the conjoined sentence returning to the described noun is omitted, i.e., "much of it." The intent by "much" is the descriptions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the rest of what they concealed of the Torah's rulings, such as the stoning of the married adulterer. This is an address to the Jews, without doubt, and they were doing this with their commoners in collusion. This is apparent on the assumption that the previous answer was for them, for addressing them directly necessitates speaking to them.

Whoever considers what preceded to be for the polytheists, carries this as a shift (iltifat) to addressing the Jews, since they were mentioned. Ibn Kathir and Abu Amr recited the three verbs with the "ya" of the third person, and the plural pronoun is also for the Jews, except that He shifted from addressing them to alienating them due to their commission of the ugly deed, away from the arena of address. Therefore, He addressed them when He attributed the good to them in His saying — the Exalted — (and you were taught that which you did not know, you nor your fathers). This is better, as has been said, than the shift in the first view, because in it there is a movement from speech with one group, who are the polytheists, to speech with another group, who are the Jews, before completing the first speech, for its completion is in His saying — the Exalted — (Say, "Allah...") etc., contrary to the shift in the second view. The sentence, according to Abu al-Baqa, is in the state of a circumstantial qualifier for the subject of "you make it" by implying "qad" or without it, according to the two different opinions. Upon this, as the Shaykh al-Islam said, "what" should be made to mean the sciences and laws they took from the Book, so that the restriction with the hal (circumstantial qualifier) is beneficial for emphasizing the reproach and intensifying the denunciation, not what they received from the side of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as an addition to what is in the Torah, and as a clarification of what was confused for them and their fathers of its problems, as expressed by His saying — the Exalted — (Indeed, this Quran narrates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they differ). Because their receiving that is not something that would restrain them from what they did with the Torah, so the sentence would be devoid of emphasizing the reproach, thus it would not deserve to fall into the position of a hal. Rather, the aspect in that case would be that it is a parenthetical sentence confirming what preceded it of the coming of the Book by way of completion, digression, and paving the way for what follows it of the coming of the Quran. There is no way, as he said, to make "what" mean what they concealed of the Torah's rulings, as is made clear by His saying — the Exalted — (There has come to you Our Messenger, making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture), for its appearance, even if it were a deterrent to them from concealment for fear of being exposed, and makes it valid for the sentence to fall into the position of a hal, yet that is something the concealers definitely know.

It is allowed for the sentence to be conjoined to "who sent down the Book" in terms of meaning: i.e., "Say: 'Who sent down the Book and who taught you what you did not know?'" There is remoteness in this. Abu al-Shaykh extracted from Mujahid that this is an address to the Muslims. It is narrated from him that he recited: "And you were taught, O community of Arabs, what..." etc. It is, to some, an objection to show favor to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his followers by guiding them to argue in a way that is best. Some of them said: "The people" in what preceded is general, including Muslims and Jews, and "you were taught" is conjoined to "you make it," and the address in it is to the people considering the Jews, and in "you were taught" it is for them considering the Muslims. It is not hidden that this is forced.

His saying — the Exalted — (Say, "Allah") is an order to His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to answer the previous question on their behalf, as an indication that they deny the truth out of stubbornness, a sign of the definitiveness of the answer, and a notification that they have been silenced and were unable to speak at all. The Majestic Name is either the subject of an implied verb or an initial whose predicate is an implied sentence, i.e., "Allah sent it down," or "Allah — the Exalted — sent it down." The disagreement over which is the most preferred of the two ways is famous. (Then leave them), meaning: let them be, (in their vain discourse), meaning: their falsehood, for there is nothing upon you after establishing the proof and silencing them, (playing).

(It is in the position of a circumstantial qualifier, and the first "hum" and the adverb are connected to "leave them" or "playing" or a hal from the object of "leave them" or from the subject of "playing.")

It is allowed that it is in the position of a hal from the second "hum," and it is in meaning the subject of the infinitive to which it is added, and the adverb is connected to what precedes it, unless it is superfluous or a hal from "hum." It is not permitted in that case to make it connected to "playing" as a hal or as a superfluous element, because it would be governed by it, while being delayed from it in rank and meaning, despite it also being advanced from it in rank, because the operator of the hal is an operator in its possessor, so there would be circularity and corruption in meaning. The verse is, according to some, abrogated by the Verse of the Sword. The Imam chose that there is no abrogation because it was sent as a threat, and a threat does not negate the occurrence of fighting, so the arrival of the verse indicating its necessity did not remove what was meant, so abrogation did not occur in it.