(We have made the devils allies to those who do not believe)
This means they are companions to them, empowered over them, and capable of leading them astray—either because of the affinity We established between them, or by sending them upon them and giving them dominion over them. This sentence is either a further justification for the prohibition and a reinforcement of the warning upon warning, or a summary of the preceding narrative.
(And when they commit an immorality)
This is a sentence that serves as an inception and has no place in the grammatical inflection (*i'rab*). Some have allowed the possibility that it is linked to the connective clause. An *immorality* (*fahishah*) is a foul act that is extreme in its foulness. The [feminine marker] *ta* is either because it acts as an adjective for a feminine-described noun—meaning an immoral act—or for the purpose of transitioning from an adjectival form to a nominal one. What is meant by it here is the worship of idols, uncovering the private parts during circumambulation (*tawaf*), and the like. Al-Farra specifically restricted it to the uncovering of the private parts. According to what Al-Tabrisi stated, there is an omission in the verse, meaning: "And when they committed an immorality and were forbidden from it, they said..."
(We found our fathers [doing it], and Allah has commanded us to do it)
They argue using two grounds: the imitation of ancestors and the fabrication against Allah, the Exalted. The former is placed first to signal that it is what they primarily rely upon, or to indicate that their fathers were only doing it by the command of Allah—assuming the pronoun in "commanded us" refers to them and their fathers. In that case, the reason for ignoring the first [argument] when refuting their statement with the words of the Exalted, "(Say: Indeed, Allah does not command immorality)," becomes clear. For it is the habit of the Exalted to command virtuous deeds and urge towards noble character, which is what befits wisdom—the necessity of which cannot be violated.
The Imam said: The Exalted did not mention a response to their first argument because it is an indication of pure imitation (taqlid), and it has been established in the intellect that it is a corrupt path; for imitation occurs in contradictory religions, and if imitation were the truth, it would necessitate the truthfulness of contradictory religions, which is impossible. Since the corruption of this path is manifest, Allah the Exalted did not mention a response to it. Some researchers have stated that the omission is merely from explicitly refuting it; otherwise, the words of the Exalted, "(Indeed, Allah)..." contain the refutation. For if the Exalted commands virtuous deeds, how could He abandon His command for the mere sake of following fathers in that which is rationally foul?
What is intended by "rational foulness" here is the aversion of a sound nature and the disapproval of a straight intellect, not that the thing is subject to blame before the arrival of the prohibition—which is the point of contention between us and the Mu'tazila, unlike the former [which is accepted], as is established in the principles of jurisprudence. Thus, there is no evidence in the verse for what they [the Mu'tazila] have claimed.
It has been said: What is mentioned is a response to two consecutive questions. It is as if it were said to them, "When they committed it, why did you do it?" They said, "We found our fathers." Then it was said, "And from where did your fathers derive it?" They said, "Allah commanded us to do it." In this case, the speech is based on the assumption of an added word, meaning: "He commanded our fathers." It is also said that there is no ellipsis, and the shift from "their fathers" to "us" is to indicate the claim that the command to their fathers was a command to them. Under both interpretations, imitation is forbidden if evidence to the contrary is established, so there is no evidence in the verse for the absolute prohibition of imitation.
(Do you say about Allah that which you do not know?)
This is part of the command [to the Prophet] of what to say. The *hamza* is for denying what occurred and deeming it repugnant, and it is an indication that such a thing should not be. The denial is directed at their saying concerning Him, the Exalted, that which they do not know to have originated from Him, the Glorified, even though among them are those who say of Him, the Exalted, that which they know did not originate from Him, as an exaggeration in denying that image. There is no evidence in the verse for those who negate analogy (*qiyas*) on the basis that that which is proven by it is conjectural, not certain, for that is excluded from its generality by the consensus of the Companions and those worthy of consideration, or by other evidence. It has been said that what is meant by "knowledge" is that which includes conjecture.
