Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:89

(We would have invented a lie against Allah), a lie so great that its magnitude cannot be measured, (if we were to return to your creed), which is polytheism, and were to claim, as you claim, that Allah—glorified and exalted is He far above that—has a peer.

(After Allah has saved us from it) and taught us its falsity, and that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner. The apodosis (consequent) of the conditional clause is omitted, indicated by what precedes it; that is: "If we return to your creed, then we have surely invented a lie." A difficulty arises here: typically, when the apodosis is a statement like the one mentioned, its manifestation and the knowledge of it are connected to the condition, such as in: "If he has stolen, a brother of his has stolen before" (12:77); or "If you do not aid him, Allah has already aided him" (9:40); or "If you honored me today, then I honored you yesterday." Here, however, the intention is to restrict the act of invention itself to the return, and the use of the particle qad (surely) and the past tense verb inhibit this. The answer is what al-Zamakhshari pointed out: it is a case of "extraction" (rhetorical shift) rather than following the apparent structure.

The preference for qad and the past tense, which both signify emphasis, is either because it is the response to an implied oath, or because it expresses astonishment in the sense of: "How great would be our lying if we were to return..." The basis for this astonishment is that an apostate is more egregious in his invention of a lie against Allah than an original disbeliever. This is because the disbeliever lies against Allah by claiming He has a peer—though He has none—while the apostate is the same in this regard but exceeds it by claiming that the distinction between truth and falsehood, which was hidden from him, has now become clear to him. Interpreting it as astonishment, as stated in al-Kashshaf, is preferable because dropping the lam (of the oath) is weak. Abu Hayyan, following Ibn Atiyyah, allowed that the mentioned verb might be an oath, similar to saying: "I am absolved of Allah if I do such-and-nothing," and like the words of Malik bin al-Ashtar al-Nakha'i: "I have forsaken my honor, deviated from nobility, and met my guests with a frowning face, if I do not launch upon the son of Hind a raid that never leaves a day devoid of the loss of souls." This is a type of rhetorical figure mentioned by more than one author of Badi'iyyat (works on rhetorical beauty).

(And it would not be for us), meaning: it is not correct for us, nor does it occur—the verb here is complete (intransitive), though it may also come in the sense of "it is not appropriate or fitting," (to return to it) in any circumstance or at any time, (unless Allah our Lord should will), meaning: except for the condition or time of Allah’s willing our return. The reference to the title of Lordship is to declare that He is the Owner who is not questioned about what He does.

(Our Lord has encompassed all things in knowledge); therefore, He—glory be to Him—knows every wisdom and interest, and His will follows the requirement of wisdom. Thus, everything that occurs contains such wisdom. This is an indication of not being secure from the plan of Allah, for "none feels secure from the plan of Allah except the people who are the losers" (7:99). In this, there is an obvious abandonment to Allah the Exalted. This is confirmed by His saying: (Upon Allah we have relied), for reliance upon Him—glory be to His Majesty—is a manifestation of one's inability and a leaning upon Him. The declaration of the Majestic Name is for exaggeration (intensification), and placing the object (Allah) first is for the purpose of restriction (exclusivity). The verse provides evidence that Allah has the power to will disbelief.

The Sheikh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah) claimed that the meaning is the impossibility of that occurring, as if it were said: "It would not be for us to return to it unless Allah the Exalted willed the return," and far be that; it could hardly be, as indicated by the use of the title of Lordship and their saying: (After Allah has saved us), for His saving them from it is among the proofs that He does not will their return to it. He derived from the verse "(Our Lord) has encompassed..."—after interpreting it in such a way—that His willing the return is impossible, albeit [done] out of gentleness. This is one interpretation of the verse, and perhaps what I have leaned toward regarding it is better. It does not rebut the idea—upon the assumption that the "return" is the object of the will—that mentioning the encompassing knowledge thereafter has no significant meaning. Rather, it would have been appropriate to mention the encompassing nature of His Will, that all occurrences are by the will of Allah, for reasons which are obvious. There is no need to say that this, from him (the Prophet), is a refutation of the claim of restriction by the possibility of a third category. Al-Zamakhshari based his interpretation on his corrupt belief regarding the necessity of observing the "good and the better," and that it is impossible for Allah to will disbelief in any way, as it falls outside of wisdom. He argued using His saying: "(Our Lord) has encompassed..." Ibn al-Munir refuted him by saying that the position of what was mentioned is an admission of one's limitation regarding the knowledge of the end and the disclosure of unseen matters. An analogue for this is the saying of Ibrahim (peace be upon him): "And I do not fear what you associate with Him unless my Lord should will something. My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge" (6:80). When he referred the matter to the Will, which is unseen, he glorified Allah by being unique in the knowledge of the unseen. Ja'far bin al-Harith and al-Zajjaj also held the view that the meaning of the exception is perpetuity, and they treated it like the saying of the poet: "When the crow turns gray, I shall come to my family, and the pitch shall become like white milk." You are aware that this contradicts the transmitted texts, the intellect, the phrasing, and the indication.

Al-Juba'i and the Judge (al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar) said: "The 'creed' (millah) refers to the law (Shari'ah), and it contains matters that do not relate to belief; it is permissible for Allah to order His servants with them. The object of the will is the return to that; i.e., 'It is not for us to return to your law unless Allah wills our return by prescribing it for us, transferring us to it, and abrogating what we are currently upon of the law.'" It is also said: "The meaning is: 'Unless Allah wills to enable you to compel us and leaves you between us and that, so we return to manifesting your creed under compulsion.'" This is supported by the preceding: "Or even if we were reluctant?" (7:88). It is also said that the pronoun in His saying "in it" refers to the village, not the creed; thus, the meaning is: "We will depart from your village and not return to it unless Allah wills, through the promise He fulfills for us in granting us victory over you and triumphing over you, so we return to it." It is also said that the estimation is: "Unless Allah wills to return you to the Truth, so we all become upon one creed." It is not hidden that all of these are laughable. In sum, the verse is apparent in what the People of Sunnah have adhered to. Glory be to Him who blocked the door of guidance from the Mu'tazilah.

(Our Lord, judge between us and our people in truth): A turning away from debating them after their insolence and obstinacy became apparent, and a turning toward Allah the Exalted with supplication. "Fath" (opening/judging) in the sense of judgment and decree is a linguistic usage of the Himyarites or the Murad tribe; the "Fattah" (Judge) among them is the ruler, and "Fattahah" (with a damma) is the government. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from al-Suddi that he said: "'Fath' is judgment in the Yamanite dialect." Al-Bayhaqi and a group recorded from Ibn Abbas, who said: "I did not know what His saying 'Our Lord, judge (iftah)' meant until I heard the daughter of Dhu Yazan—a conversation having taken place between me and her—say, 'Afatihuka' (I am opening/judging you), meaning: 'I am taking you to a judge.'" (Between us) is in the accusative case as a locative adverb. The qualification (in truth) is to demonstrate fairness. It is also allowed that it is a metaphor for clarification and manifestation, which is the view of al-Zajjaj; from this is the "opening" of a difficult problem, meaning its clarification and resolution, likened to opening a door and removing the obstruction so that one reaches what is behind it. "Between us," according to what is said, is the direct object with the estimation of "what is between us." (And You are the best of the judges), meaning: the best of rulers, because Your judgment is free of injustice and bias; or, the best of those who manifest (the truth) due to the abundance of Your knowledge and the vastness of Your power. The sentence is a concluding reinforcement for the content of what preceded it.