ﲬ ﲭ ﲮ ﲯ ﲰ ﲱ ﲲ ﲳ ﲴ ﲵ ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ ﲼ ﲽ ﲾ ﲿ ﳀ ﳁ
And likewise, to many of the polytheists their partners have made [to seem] pleasing the killing of their children in order to bring about their destruction and to cover them with confusion in their religion. And if Allah had willed, they would not have done so. So leave them and that which they invent.
Tafsir
Verse range: 6:137
{And likewise} And like that embellishment—which is the embellishment of polytheism in the division of offerings between Allah (Exalted is He) and the idols—or like that eloquent embellishment which is a hallmark of the devils.
The meaning is: Their partners—from the devils or the custodians of the idols—embellished for them the killing of their children, either by burying them alive or by slaughtering them for the idols. A man in the Pre-Islamic era would swear: "If I am blessed with such-and-such number of sons, I will surely slaughter one of them," just as Abd al-Muttalib swore.
It is recited: (Zayyana) in the active voice, where the subject is "their partners," and {qatl awladihim} (the killing of their children) is in the accusative case.
It is also recited: (Zuyyina) in the passive voice, where the subject is "the killing," and "their partners" is in the nominative case, implying a verb indicated by zuyyina. It is as if it were said: When it was said "the killing of their children was embellished for them," it was asked: "Who embellished it for them?" and the answer was: "Their partners embellished it for them."
As for the recitation of Ibn Amir: (Qatlu awladihim shuraka'uhum)—with the nominative for "killing," the accusative for "children," and the genitive for "partners"—this is an attribution of the killing to the partners, separating them with something other than an adverbial phrase. If this were in a place of necessity, such as poetry, it would be ugly and rejected, just as the line: “Zajju al-qaluusi abi mazada” was considered ugly and rejected. How, then, could it be in prose? And how could it be in the Quran, which is miraculous in its beautiful structure and eloquence? What drove him to this was seeing "shuraka'ihim" written with a ya in some codices. Had he recited it with the genitive for both "children" and "partners"—meaning the children were their partners in their wealth—he would have found a way out of this transgression.
{To destroy them} To ruin them through misguidance.
{And to confuse for them their religion} To mix it up for them and make it obscure. Their religion was what they were upon from the faith of Ishmael (peace be upon him), until they slipped away from it into polytheism. It is also said: it refers to the religion they were obligated to follow. It is also said: it means to cause them to fall into a confused religion.
If you ask: What is the meaning of the lam (in li-yurduhum)? I say: If the embellishment is from the devils, it is a true causal lam. If it is from the custodians, it is a lam of consequence.
{And had Allah willed} With a will of compulsion.
{They would not have done it} The polytheists would not have done what was embellished for them of killing; or the devils or custodians would not have done the embellishing, the destroying, or the confusing—or all of that—if you treat the pronoun as referring to the totality of the aforementioned acts.
{And what they fabricate} And what they fabricate of lies, or their act of fabrication.
{And they said, "These are animals and crops forbidden; none may eat them except whom we will," by their claim. And there are animals whose backs are forbidden, and animals upon which they do not mention the name of Allah—fabricating lies against Him. He will punish them for what they were fabricating.}
