Al-An'am (The Cattle): (91) And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal...

Know that we have established in this book that the core purpose of the Qur'an revolves around affirming Tawhid (Oneness of God), Nubuwwah (Prophethood), and Ma'ad (Resurrection/Afterlife).

After recounting how Abraham (peace be upon him) presented the proof for Tawhid and refuted polytheism, and after God firmly established that proof with clear arguments, He proceeded to affirm the matter of Prophethood by saying: {And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal} (6:91). This is because they denied Prophethood and Messengership. This explains the excellent connection (Nathm) between these verses.

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: Interpretation of {And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal}

There are several interpretations:

1. Ibn Abbas said: They did not glorify God with the glorification due to Him.
2. It is also narrated from him that it means: They did not believe that God is capable of all things.
3. Abu al-Aliyah said: They did not describe Him with the description due to Him.
4. Al-Akhfash said: They did not know Him with the true knowledge of Him.

Al-Wahidi confirmed this, stating that in Arabic, qaddara (to appraise/measure) means to examine, verify, and determine the measure of something. Hence, the saying: "If something is obscure to you, then iqdarū lahu" (seek to know its measure). This is the linguistic origin. Therefore, saying {And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal} is sound in all the meanings mentioned.

Issue 2: The Reason for Their Failure to Appraise God Properly

After recounting their statement, {They said, "Allah has not revealed anything to any human being"}, God explains the reason for their failure to appraise Him correctly.

Know that whoever denies Prophethood and Messengership has, in reality, not known God with true knowledge. This can be established in several ways:

The First Way: The denier of divine appointment (Ba'thah) and Messengership must either claim:

1. That God has not imposed any obligations (Taklif) upon creation at all. (This is false, as it implies God permits all abominations, such as insulting God, describing Him inappropriately, scorning prophets and the religious, neglecting gratitude, and repaying blessings with harm—all of which are clearly false.)
2. Or, they must concede that God has imposed obligations (commands and prohibitions). If so, there must be a conveyor, a lawgiver, and an explainer—and that can only be the Messenger.

Objection: Why can't reason alone be sufficient to mandate obligations and forbid prohibitions?

Response: Even if reason mandates certain things, it is not impossible to reinforce this rational definition with divinely ordained definitions conveyed by the tongues of the Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them). Thus, whoever denies the divine appointment and Messengership attacks God's Wisdom, which stems from ignorance of the divine attribute of Divinity. In such a case, the statement {And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal} is truly applicable to them.

The Second Way: Some people claim that sending Prophets and Messengers is impossible because it requires the manifestation of a miracle to confirm their claim. Those who hold this view fall into two categories:

1. Category One: They claim it is impossible for the natural order (customs) to be broken or for something to occur contrary to established custom.
2. Category Two: They concede the possibility of breaking customs but argue that such extraordinary acts do not prove the truthfulness of the claimant to prophethood.

Both views lead to impugning the perfection of God's power:

• Regarding Category One: It is established that physical bodies are similar. What one body can endure, another similar body must also be capable of enduring. Therefore, the sun and moon must be capable of splitting or scattering. If one claims God is incapable of this, they describe Him with impotence and deficiency of power, thus fulfilling {And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal}. If one concedes God is capable, then the splitting of the moon and other miracles are not rationally impossible.

• Regarding Category Two: It is established in the books of Usul (Principles) that the occurrence of extraordinary acts upon a claimant's assertion does indicate their truthfulness. Thus, whoever denies the possibility of divine appointment and Messengership describes God with impotence and deficiency of power, and whoever does so has not appraised God with His true appraisal.

The Third Way: Since the creation of the universe is established, its very existence proves that the God of the universe is Capable, Knowing, and Wise. All creation are His servants, and He is their absolute Master and Sovereign. An obeyed Sovereign must have commands, prohibitions, and obligations for His servants, along with a promise for obedience and a threat for disobedience. This cannot be complete or perfect except through sending Messengers and revealing Books. Whoever denies this attacks God's status as an obeyed Sovereign, and whoever believes this has not appraised God with His true appraisal. Therefore, whoever says, "Allah has not revealed anything to any human being," has not appraised God with His true appraisal.

Issue 3: Identifying the Speakers of the Denial

This verse presents a difficult debate: Who said, {Allah has not revealed anything to any human being}?

1. The Quraysh Disbelievers? If so, how can God refute them by saying, {Say, "Who then sent down the Book that Moses brought"}? The Quraysh disbelievers deny the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) just as they deny the prophethood of all previous prophets. How is it appropriate to use Moses's revelation as a refutation against them?
2. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians)? This is also problematic because they do not hold this view. Their doctrine affirms that the Torah was revealed to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus. Furthermore, this Surah is Meccan, while the debates between the Prophet (PBUH) and the Jews/Christians primarily occurred in Medina. How can a Meccan verse be applied to Medinan disputes?

People have differed on this issue:

The First Opinion (The Majority): This verse concerns the Jews. Ibn Abbas narrated that Malik ibn al-Sayf, one of the Jewish rabbis, entered upon the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet (PBUH) adjured him by God who revealed the Torah to Moses, asking if he found therein that God hates a fat rabbi, while he (Malik) was fat from what the Jews fed him. The people laughed. Malik became angry, turned to Umar, and said: "Allah has not revealed anything to any human being!" His people rebuked him, and due to this statement, they deposed him and replaced him with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf. This is the famous narration regarding the occasion of revelation, but it raises questions:

• Question 1: Although the language is absolute, context (custom/convention) can restrict it. Just as a conditional divorce statement is often restricted by context to a single instance, the statement {Allah has not revealed anything to any human being} might be restricted by the context of Malik's anger—meaning, "Allah has not revealed anything concerning the hatred of a fat rabbi." If this absolute statement is restricted, then God's subsequent question, {Say, "Who then sent down the Book that Moses brought"}, does not invalidate his speech.
• Question 2: Malik ibn al-Sayf prided himself on being Jewish. It is highly unlikely he would utter such a statement unless driven by overwhelming, irrational anger. Such speech is unworthy of God revealing the eternal Qur'an to refute it.
• Question 3: This Surah is known to be Meccan and revealed all at once, while Jewish debates were Medinan. How can this verse be linked to that debate? Also, if the Surah was revealed at once, how can a specific verse be said to have a specific occasion of revelation?

My preferred resolution: Perhaps when Malik ibn al-Sayf was offended by the Prophet's words, he attacked the Prophet's mission, saying: "Allah has revealed absolutely nothing to you; you are not a messenger from God at all." It was then this verse was revealed. The purpose was to show him: Since you admit God revealed the Torah to Moses (a human), you cannot insist that God revealed nothing to me, for I am also human. Once you admit revelation came to a human, you cannot definitively claim it did not come to Muhammad. The goal was to show that what Muhammad claimed was not impossible, and the opponent (the Jew) should not insist on denial but rather demand a miracle. If he insists on denial despite admitting revelation to Moses, it is pure ignorance and blind imitation. This resolves the first two questions.

Addressing Question 3 (Meccan Surah vs. Medinan event): Those who hold this view say that while the Surah was revealed Meccan/at once, this specific verse was revealed in Medina during this incident.

The Second Opinion: The speakers were the Quraysh disbelievers. This view is held by some.

Objection: The Quraysh deny all prophets. How can they be refuted by citing Moses's prophethood? Furthermore, the verses following this one do not suit the Quraysh but suit the Jews: {You make it into separate sheets, displaying some of it and concealing much, and [through which] you have been taught what you did not know—you and your fathers} (6:91b). These descriptions clearly fit the Jews. Therefore, the idea that the beginning addresses disbelievers and the end addresses Jews is flawed, as it breaks the coherence of the verse structure, which is unbecoming of the best speech, let alone the speech of the Lord of Worlds.

Addressing Objection 1 (Citing Moses to Quraysh): The Quraysh mingled with Jews and Christians and heard reports of Moses's overwhelming miracles (staff to serpent, splitting the sea, shading mountain). The Quraysh demanded similar miracles from Muhammad, saying they would believe if he brought them. Their collective statements implied an admission of Moses's prophethood, making it appropriate to cite Moses as a refutation against their claim: {Allah has not revealed anything to any human being}.

Addressing Objection 2 (Different audiences): Since the Quraysh, Jews, and Christians shared the denial of Muhammad's prophethood, it is not impossible for one passage to address the Meccan disbelievers while the remainder addresses the Jews and Christians.

Issue 4: The Use of {And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal} in Theology

Many profound scholars hold that human intellects cannot grasp the ultimate reality of God's knowledge. Many use this verse to support this, meaning: "They did not know God with true knowledge." This inference is weak because God uses this phrase in three places in the Qur'an, and in all instances, it is directed at disbelievers (here, the Jews or Quraysh, and similarly in the other two instances). Thus, this verse offers no independent proof for that theological position.

Issue 5: Rulings (Ahkam) in the Verse

Ruling 1: Indefinite Nouns in Negative Context Imply Universality. The proof is this verse itself. The phrase {Allah has not revealed anything to any human being} contains an indefinite noun (shay'un - anything) in a negative context. If it did not imply universality, then God's subsequent statement, {Say, "Who then sent down the Book that Moses brought"}, would not invalidate his claim. Since that refutation is valid, the rule is established: an indefinite noun in a negative context implies generality.

Ruling 2: Refutation (Naqd) Invalidates the Opponent's Statement. God refuted their statement by asking, {Say, "Who then sent down the Book that Moses brought"}. If refutation did not prove the statement false, God's argument here would be useless. Since we know God's argument is effective, we know that refutation, in general, invalidates the preceding claim.

Note: The view that stating a difference between the two cases prevents the refutation from being invalidating is weak. If that were true, God's argument in this verse would fail, as the Jew could argue that Moses's miracles were more manifest than Muhammad's, so proving prophethood there does not necessitate proving it here. Since we cannot accept that this argument fails, we must conclude that refutation, absolutely, is invalidating.

Ruling 3: Al-Ghazali's Logical Analysis. Al-Ghazali philosophically claimed this verse is based on the Second Figure of logical syllogisms. His argument reduces to:

• Premise 1: Moses had a revelation sent down to him.
• Premise 2: No human had a revelation sent down to them (the denial).
• Conclusion (from the Second Figure): Therefore, Moses was not human. This conclusion is an impossible contradiction (khalf muhal). Since the impossibility is not due to the syllogistic form or the truth of the first premise, it must stem from assuming the truth of the second premise (their statement). Therefore, the second premise must be false. This shows that the verse's proof relies on accepting the validity of the Second Figure of syllogisms and the logic of Khalf (proof by contradiction).

After God commanded the Prophet to ask this question, He then described Moses's Book with attributes:

The First Attribute: It was a light and guidance for people. God named it a light by analogy to light, which clarifies the path.

Objection: If this is the interpretation, there is no difference between being a light and being guidance, yet one is connected to the other by conjunction (wa), implying difference.

Response: Light has two qualities: 1) Being inherently manifest and clear, and 2) Being the cause for the manifestation of other things. Being a light and guidance refers to these two aspects. God described the Qur'an with these same two attributes elsewhere: {But We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants}.

The Second Attribute: {You make it into separate sheets, displaying some of it and concealing much} (6:91b).

• Issue 1 (Reading): Abu Amr and Ibn Kathir read it with the third-person plural (omission/absence): yaj'alūnahu (They make it), consistent with the preceding phrase {And they have not appraised Allah with His true appraisal} (which uses the third person). Those who read with the second person (taj'alūnahu - You make it) take the context as direct address: "Say to them: You make it into sheets..." consistent with the following phrase {and what you did not know} (which uses the second person).

• Issue 2 (Meaning): Abu Ali al-Farisi said: {You make it into sheets} means you make it possess sheets, i.e., you deposit its contents within them.

Objection: Every book must be deposited in sheets. Why is this mentioned in a context of blame?

Response: The blame is not just for putting it in sheets, but because by separating and fragmenting it into sheets, they were able to display some and conceal others—specifically, the parts describing Muhammad (PBUH).

Objection: How could they alter a book as widespread as the Torah, known to scholars across East and West? Such a book cannot easily have additions or omissions, just as the Qur'an cannot today.

Response: As mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah, the intended meaning of alteration (tahrif) here is the false interpretation of the Torah verses, as is done today with the verses of the Qur'an by corrupt people.

Objection: Even if there were verses indicating Muhammad's prophethood, they were few. Why did they conceal "much" if they only concealed those few verses?

Response: They concealed verses indicating Muhammad's prophethood, and they also concealed verses containing rulings. For example, they attempted to hide the verse concerning the stoning of the adulterer (muhsan).

The Third Attribute: {and [through which] you have been taught what you did not know—you and your fathers} (6:91c). This means the Torah contained glad tidings about the coming of Muhammad (PBUH). Before his arrival, the Jews read these verses but did not understand their meaning. When God sent Muhammad, it became clear that those verses referred to his mission. This is the meaning of {and you have been taught what you did not know—you and your fathers}.

After describing the Torah with these three attributes, God says: {Say, "Allah"}. This means that after asking, {Say, "Who then sent down the Book..."} which possesses these attributes and whose claimant is supported by overwhelming miracles like Moses's, the answer must be "Allah." A sound intellect and natural disposition testify that a book described thus, supported by decisive proof, can only be from God. Since this meaning becomes evident through conclusive proof, God commanded Muhammad to say: The one who sent down this Book is Allah. This is similar to {Say, "What is greatest in testimony?" Say, "Allah"}. Just as a person arguing for the Creator asks: Who brought life after non-existence? Who brought intellect after ignorance? Who placed the faculty of sight in the eye? The questioner himself answers: "Allah." The point is that the evidence has reached a level where every rational person must admit it, whether the opponent confesses or not.

Then God says: {Then leave them to their plunging and playing}.

• Issue 1 (Meaning): Once you have established the proof, presented the excuses, and delivered this great warning, nothing remains for you concerning them except to leave them. This is similar to {Your duty is only to convey the message}.

• Issue 2 (Abrogation): Some say this verse is abrogated by the "Verse of the Sword" (commanding fighting). This is unlikely, as {Then leave them to their plunging and playing} is meant as a threat/warning, which does not negate the possibility of fighting. The verse commanding fighting does not remove any meaning implied by this verse, so abrogation does not occur.

6: {And this is a Book which We have revealed, blessed, confirming what came before it, and to warn the Mother of Cities [Mecca] and those around her. And those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it and are constant in their prayers.}

(The translation of the next verse is provided as requested by the structure, though no commentary follows in the excerpt.)