Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:27-28

Surah Al-An'am (The Cattle): Verses 27-28

It is known that when the Almighty mentioned the description of those who forbid following the Messenger (peace be upon him) and distance themselves from obeying him—stating that they destroy themselves—He explained the manner of that destruction with this verse. In it are several issues:

The phrase ولو ترى (And if you could but see) implies an answer, which has been omitted to magnify the matter and emphasize its gravity. This omission is permissible because the addressee knows the outcome, and similar instances abound in the Qur'an and poetry.

If we were to supply the answer, it would be: "you would see the evil of their final destination" or "you would see the evil of their state." Omitting the answer in such cases is more eloquent than stating it. Consider: if you told your servant, "By God, if I approach you," and then remained silent, his mind would run to all types of harm—beating, killing, breaking—and the fear would be immense, without him knowing which specific punishment you intended. But if you said, "By God, if I approach you, I will surely beat you," he would know that nothing beyond beating would occur, and no other harm would cross his mind. Thus, omitting the answer has a stronger effect in instilling fear.

Some scholars suggest that the answer to لو (if) is mentioned implicitly: "And if you could but see when they are made to stand before the Fire, lamenting and saying, 'Oh, would that we were sent back and did not deny...'"

The verb وقفوا (they are made to stand) is related to وقفته وقفا (I made him stand a standing) and وقفته وقوفا (I made him stand a standing).

Al-Zajjaj suggested three possible meanings for وقفوا على النار (they are made to stand over the Fire):

1. They are made to stand at the Fire, beholding it, thus being detained before entering it.
2. They are made to stand above it, meaning they stand over the Fire on the Sirat (bridge) which spans over Hell.
3. It means they have come to know its reality, derived from the expression وقفت فلانا على كلام فلان (I made so-and-so understand the meaning of so-and-so's speech).

A fourth possibility is that they are within the Fire, surrounded by it and submerged in it. This is permissible because the Fire has levels (darakaat) and layers, some above others, thus validating the meaning of being "over" it in a relative sense.

A Question Raised: Why does the verse use ولو ترى (And if you could but see), which implies the future, and then follow it with إذ وقفوا (when they stood), where إذ is for the past, and then فقالوا (and they said), which also indicates the past?

The Answer: The particle إذ is sometimes used in place of إذا when the speaker intends exaggeration in repetition and emphasis, and to remove ambiguity. Since the past event is fixed and established, using a word typically designated for the past to describe the future conveys greater emphasis from this perspective.

Al-Zajjaj stated that inclining the vowel sound (Imālah) in النار is good because the letter following the alif is a rā’ (which has a kasrah sound implied by the following word), making the kasrah seem repeated on the tongue.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: "They will say, 'Oh, would that we were sent back, and would not deny the signs of our Lord, and would be among the believers!'" (فقالوا ياليتنا نرد ولا نكذب بآيات ربنا ونكون من المؤمنين) there are several issues:

The phrase ياليتنا نرد (Oh, would that we were sent back) indicates their wish to return to the world. As for ولا نكذب بآيات ربنا ونكون من المؤمنين (and would not deny the signs of our Lord, and would be among the believers), there are two views:

1. It is included in the wish: The meaning is that they wished to return to the world and not be deniers and be believers.
   • Objection: This is refuted by the Almighty's statement at the end of the verse: وإنهم لكاذبون (And indeed, they are liars). A person making a wish is not described as a liar.
   • Rebuttal: We do not concede that a person making a wish cannot be described as a liar. Whoever expresses a wish implicitly claims to desire that thing. Thus, it is not far-fetched for him to be deemed a liar regarding it. Example: A man says, "I wish God would grant me wealth so I can be kind to you." This is a wish in the form of a promise. If he receives wealth and is not kind, he would be called a liar regarding his promise.

2. The wish ends at نرد (we were sent back): The statement ولا نكذب بآيات ربنا ونكون من المؤمنين is a new statement. The Almighty’s subsequent statement, وإنهم لكاذبون, refers back to this new statement. The structure is: "Oh, would that we were sent back! Then they would say, 'If we were sent back, we would not deny the signs and would be believers.'" Then the Almighty denies them, clarifying that if they were sent back, they would deny and turn away from faith.

Ibn 'Amir recited نرد (we are sent back), نكذب (we deny), and نكون (we are) all in the indicative mood (raising the final vowel, *raf'**).

• They all agree on the indicative mood for نرد because it is necessarily part of the wish.
• For those who raised ولا نكذب and ونكون, there are two interpretations:
  1. Conjunction: They are coordinated with نرد, meaning all three actions (being sent back, not denying, and believing) are included in the wish.
  2. Interruption: ولا نكذب and what follows are cut off from the first part. The meaning is: "Oh, would that we were sent back, while we do not deny the signs of our Lord and while we are among the believers." They guarantee that they will not deny, contingent upon being sent back. The meaning is: "Oh, would that we were sent back, and we do not deny the signs of our Lord, whether we are sent back or not," meaning they have witnessed something that prevents denial. Sibawayh likened this to saying, "Leave me, and I will not return." The request is for leaving (the action), but the non-return is not part of the request itself. Similarly, here, the wish is for being sent back; not denying and believing are not part of the wish but are presented as an established state whether the return occurs or not.

Al-Zajjaj and grammarians favored the second view, arguing it is stronger because if the denial were part of the wish, the Almighty could not subsequently call them liars (as in وإنهم لكاذبون). This is the preference of Abu 'Amr. However, we have already addressed the argument that a wisher cannot be called a liar.

As for those who read ولا نكذب and ونكون in the subjunctive mood (nasb):

1. By implying أن (that) as the response to the wish: "Oh, would that we were sent back and that we would not deny."
2. The wāw (and) is substituted for fā’ (so/then): "Oh, would that we were sent back, so we would not deny." This is supported by the narration that Ibn Mas'ud recited it with فلا نكذب (so we would not deny) in the subjunctive.
3. It indicates a state (hāl): "Oh, would that we were sent back while not denying," similar to the Arabic saying, "Do not eat fish while drinking milk" (meaning, do not combine eating fish with drinking milk).

Under this reading (nasb), all three matters are included in the wish. The permissibility of calling the wisher a liar has already been discussed. As for Ibn 'Amir's reading, where he raises ولا نكذب and subjoins ونكون (in the subjunctive), the meaning is that he makes "not denying" part of the wish, implying: "If we are sent back and do not deny, then we will be among the believers."

There is no doubt that the intended wish is a return to the state of accountability (taklīf), because the word "return" (الرد) when used for a transition from one state to another implies a return to the first state. It is apparent that one who has fallen short, upon witnessing severe trials due to that shortcoming, wishes to return to the initial state to rectify all shortcomings. Rectification is achieved not merely by returning to the world, nor just by abandoning denial, nor just by believing, but by the combination of all three matters. Therefore, all three must be included under the wish.

A Question Raised: How can they wish for a return when they know that the return will absolutely not happen?

The Answer (in several ways):

1. Perhaps they did not know the return would be impossible.
2. Even if they knew it would not happen, this knowledge does not prevent the desire for return. This is like the Almighty's saying: يريدون أن يخرجوا من النار (They will want to get out of the Fire) and أن أفيضوا علينا من الماء (Pour down upon us some water). Since it is valid for them to desire these things while knowing they won't occur, it is even more plausible for them to wish for it, as the realm of wishing is broader; one can wish for things one cannot even desire.

Then the Almighty says: "Rather, what they used to conceal before has become clear to them." (بل بدا لهم ما كانوا يخفون من قبل) In this, there are issues:

The particle بل here serves to refute their statement. The meaning is that they did not wish for a return to the world, abandoning denial, and achieving faith because they genuinely desired faith and obedience. Rather, they wished for these things out of fear of the punishment they witnessed and experienced. This indicates that a desire for faith and obedience is only beneficial if that desire is for the sake of faith and obedience itself, not merely for seeking reward or fearing punishment, as the latter is unhelpful.

The verse means that what they concealed in the world has been revealed to them in the Hereafter. Scholars differed on what exactly was concealed:

1. Abu Rawq: The polytheists at some stations of the Resurrection will deny their polytheism, saying, "By God, our Lord, we were not polytheists." Then God causes their limbs to speak, testifying against them regarding their disbelief. This is when "what they used to conceal before has become clear to them." Al-Wahidi noted that this view is held by the exegetes.
2. Al-Mubarrid: What became clear to them were the consequences of their beliefs and deeds, and the evil outcome thereof. Their disbelief was not apparent to them because the harm of their disbelief was hidden. When it became manifest on the Day of Resurrection, God said, "Rather, what they used to conceal before has become clear to them."
3. Al-Zajjaj: What the followers concealed from the leaders regarding the Resurrection became clear to the followers. Al-Zajjaj cited the subsequent verse (وقالوا إن هى إلا حياتنا الدنيا) as evidence, which is the view of Al-Hasan.
4. Some Scholars: This verse concerns the hypocrites, who concealed disbelief while showing Islam. On the Day of Resurrection, it became clear to others that they were hypocrites.
5. Another View: What their scholars concealed—the denial of the Prophet's prophethood, his description, and the glad tidings of him in the scriptures, and the distortion of the Torah—became clear.

The wording is open to many interpretations. The essence of all these views is that their disgrace became manifest in the Hereafter, and their veils were torn away, which is the meaning of the Almighty's saying: يوم تبلى السرائر (The Day when secrets will be tested).

Then the Almighty says: "And if they were sent back, they would return to that which they were forbidden." (ولو ردوا لعادوا لما نهوا عنه) This means that if God sent them back, they would not cease denying or practicing faith; rather, they would persist in their original path of disbelief and denial.

A Question Raised: The people of the Resurrection have recognized God necessarily and witnessed various forms of punishment and torment. If God returned them to the world, how could it be said that they would return to disbelief and disobedience to God?

The Answer: Al-Qadi stated that the verse implies a return to the state of accountability (taklīf). This return would only be possible if, in the Resurrection, they had not attained necessary knowledge of God, nor witnessed the horrors and torment of Hell. This condition must be implicit in the verse. However, we find this answer weak. The purpose of the verse is to demonstrate their extreme persistence in disbelief and lack of desire for faith. If we assume the absence of necessary knowledge of God and the absence of witnessing the horrors of the Resurrection, then their persistence in their original disbelief would not be particularly astonishing, as it would resemble the persistence of all disbelievers in the world. Therefore, the condition mentioned by Al-Qadi cannot be considered.

Once this is established, Al-Wahidi stated that this verse is clear evidence against the position of the Mu'tazila, because God informs us about a people upon whom His eternal decree of polytheism was passed. This prior decree is certain, as a rational person would not doubt what they witnessed. Then the Almighty says: وإنهم لكاذبون (And indeed, they are liars).

A Question Raised: No prior statement was mentioned to which this denial could refer.

The Answer: We have explained that some scholars hold that only ياليتنا نرد (Oh, would that we were sent back) is part of the wish, while the rest is a statement of fact. Others hold that everything is part of the wish, as including denial in the wish is permissible because expressing a wish implicitly conveys a claim about the future state, like saying, "I wish Zayd would come so we could eat, drink, and converse." Similarly here.