Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:195

His saying, the Almighty: "Do they have legs with which they walk?" etc., is a rebuke following a rebuke, further emphasized by what the incapacitating command entails of non-response, by demonstrating the total absence of the organs required for such actions.

It is said: On the first hypothesis regarding [the idols'] equivalence [to the polytheists], this serves as an invalidation of that similarity, for the idols are lower than them; and the worship of one who is equal to oneself is improper, so how much more so regarding one who is inferior? On the second hypothesis, it is a return to the premise upon which the similarity was based, for the sake of refuting it. As for the reading of [the interrogation] as a negation (without the hamza), it establishes the denial of equivalence by proving [the idols'] deficiency and imperfection.

The focus of the denial is directed toward each of these four organs individually, to repeat the rebuke, double the reproach, and signal that the absence of any one of them is sufficient in itself to indicate the impossibility of their responding. It is not meant that one who lacks these does not deserve divinity, and that only one who possesses them deserves it—which would necessitate either denying that right to Allah—Blessed and Exalted be He—or affirming such organs for Him (as some anthropomorphists have claimed, using this verse as evidence). Rather, it is merely the establishing of incapacity; from that, the denial of the right to divinity is known.

He describes the legs as being "for walking" to signal that the axis of the denial is the attribute [of walking]. The denial is directed at the legs rather than the attribute—by saying, for example, "Do they walk with legs?"—to verify that since these [idols] do not manifest what is manifested by other legs, they are not legs in reality. The same discourse applies to the remaining three organs.

The word "am" (or/nay) in His saying: "Or do they have hands with which they seize?" is disjunctive. The hamza it contains is for the purpose of the aforementioned rebuke, and the bal (nay) is for turning away [from the previous point], which serves to transition from one type of rebuke to another after the completion of the first. "Al-batsh" means seizing with force. Abu Ja'far read yabtushun (in the imperfect) with a damma on the ta, which is a dialectal variation. The meaning is: "Nay, do they have hands with which they take what they desire or with which they defend you?" The postponement of this mention relative to the previous one—as the Sheikh al-Islam said—is because walking is a state pertaining to the idols themselves, whereas seizing is their state in relation to others.

As for the precedence of this over His saying: "Or do they have eyes with which they see, or do they have ears with which they hear?"—even though all are equal in being states relative to others—it is to observe the pairing between hands and legs, and because the absence of walking and seizing is more apparent, and the rebuke through them is stronger. As for the eyes preceding the ears, it is because they are more famous, more apparent in manifestation, and more evident in their effect. The fact that seeing is by the eye and hearing is by the ear is based on the apparent, conventional understanding.

Some have used this verse as evidence that Allah—the Almighty—has deposited in certain things a power through which they influence [events] if Allah—the Almighty—permits them, contrary to those who say that the influence occurs at the time of them, not by them, and who claimed that the latter view is close to disbelief. It is not as they claimed; rather, it is the truth, worthy of acceptance.

"Say, 'Call upon your partners'" is a command to the Prophet—may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him—to engage them in argument and repeat the rebuke to them, after having clarified that their partners are incapable of anything at all. That is: Call upon your partners and seek their help against me. "Then plot against me," all of you—you and your partners—and exaggerate in arranging whatever you can of the premises of scheming and plotting, "and do not give me respite" even for an hour, after arranging the preliminaries of the plot, for I do not concern myself with you at all.

The ya of the first person in the two verbs is not written in the script. Abu 'Amr read with the retention of the ya in "kiduni" (plot against me) when in continuation, and its deletion when pausing. Hisham read with its retention in both states, and the rest with its deletion in both. In [Surah] Hud, "So plot against me all together" has the retention of the ya universally according to everyone. As for the ya in "la tunziruni" (do not give me respite), al-Ajhuri said: They deleted it, and nothing else.