Surah Al-An'aam (6) — Ayah 136

(Ayah 136) {وَ جَعَلُوْا لِلّٰهِ مِمَّا ذَرَاَ مِنَ الْحَرْثِ......:} After refuting their beliefs about the Day of Judgment and reward and punishment, from here begins the mention of their other doctrinal and practical follies and ignorances which had been continuing for a long time. Abdullah bin Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said that if you want to know the ignorance of the Arabs, then read from verse (130) of Surah Al-An'am to «قَدْ خَسِرَ الَّذِيْنَ قَتَلُوْۤا » i.e., verse (140). [ بخاری، المناقب، باب قصۃ زمزم و جہل العرب : ۳۵۲۴ ] The first ignorance among these was that from their crops and cattle, they had fixed a portion for Allah Almighty, that is, for hospitality, maintaining family ties, and works that please Allah, and a portion for their patrons, helpers in difficulties, idols made in their likeness, their priests, and soothsayers. If for any reason the portion of the idols and soothsayers fell short, they would take from Allah’s portion and add it to theirs, saying that Allah is self-sufficient, what need does He have for more wealth? And if Allah’s portion fell short, they would not add anything from the idols’ portion to it. Now tell me, what lesser ignorance was it to associate partners with Allah than this, that to please these partners even more, they would prefer them over Allah in the shares of crops and cattle! This is just like nowadays some Muslims do not pay Allah’s obligatory zakat and ushr, but never miss the offerings for their deceased patrons and benefactors of the poor, and hold the belief that if there is any shortcoming in this, then instead of milk, blood will come from the udders of the animals. They call it “Isal-e-Thawab” (conveying reward), but Isal-e-Thawab is achieved by giving charity in the name of Allah, not by making offerings at the graves of saints. And if the aim is to please Allah, then instead of vows and offerings to other than Allah, they should pay ushr and zakat.

136. 1. In this verse, a sample of the belief and practice of the polytheists is described, which they had fabricated on their own, and that is, from the produce of the earth and livestock, they would allocate some portion for Allah and some for their self-made deities. The portion for Allah would be spent on guests, the poor, and maintaining family ties, and the portion for the idols would be spent on the caretakers and their needs. Then, if the expected yield was not obtained in the portion allocated for the idols, they would take from Allah’s portion and add it to that, and if the opposite happened, they would not take from the idols’ portion, saying that Allah is self-sufficient.

136. 2. That is, in the case of a shortfall in Allah’s portion, they would not give charity and alms from the portion allocated for the idols.

136. 3. However, if there was a shortfall in the portion allocated for the idols, they would take from Allah’s allocated portion and spend it on the interests and needs of the idols. That is, in comparison to Allah, the greatness and fear of the idols was greater in their hearts, which can also be observed in the behavior of today’s polytheists.

136. And they assigned a portion of what Allah has produced of crops and cattle to Allah and to their partners [143], saying by their false assumption: "This is for Allah,"—so they claim—"and this is for our partners." But what was for their partners never reached Allah, while what was for Allah would reach their partners. How evil is their judgment!

[143]
The Injustices of the Polytheists in Charity and Almsgiving:

The polytheists had set aside a separate portion for Allah when giving charity and alms, and a separate portion for their idols or deities. Their first injustice was that, despite acknowledging that the Creator of their crops and livestock was only Allah Almighty, they still assigned a share to others along with Allah. Their second injustice was that, based on their own conjectures, they themselves became legislators, and their false assumption was that they set aside Allah’s share because He is the One who creates their crops and livestock, and the share for other deities—that is, goddesses, angels, spirits of stars, and souls of former elders—was set aside because whatever they received was, in their view, due to the favor of these beings. In other words, they considered them to have control over their benefit and harm, and thus set aside their share, and this is the essence of shirk (polytheism). In this form, even if something is given in the name of Allah, it is absolutely not accepted by Allah, as is made clear by the following hadith. Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) says that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “I am most free from needing partners. Whoever does a deed in which he associates another with Me, I abandon him and his deed.” [مسلم۔ كتاب الزهد۔ باب تحريم الربا۔ بخاري۔ كتاب الزكوٰة۔ باب قول الله تعالىٰ لا يسئلون الناس الحافا]

[144] The third injustice committed by these polytheists was that if, for any reason, there was a shortfall in the share of the deities—if the harvest was less or destroyed by a storm—they would make up this shortfall from Allah’s share. But if there was a shortfall in Allah’s share, they would not make it up from the share of the deities. How much they had set aside for Allah and how much for their deities—this detail is not found anywhere. It was determined only according to their own conjectures. Allah’s share they would distribute among the poor, orphans, etc., and the share of the deities would go to the temple priests or caretakers. The offerings placed before the idols would also, indirectly, reach these priests. These monks and priests, for their own personal interests, had taught the polytheists that if there was a shortfall in Allah’s share, it did not matter, because Allah Almighty is rich and can make up the shortfall from His treasures, but there should never be any shortfall in the share of the deities. Thus, in this polytheistic custom, they committed three types of crimes:

(1) Associating their deities with Allah in financial worship.

(2) Assigning a separate share for Allah and a separate share for the deities. In this, the priests’ shirk was that they had given themselves the status of lawgivers, and the common people’s shirk was that they accepted this as a religious matter.

(3) Even in this division, they were unjust to Allah’s right, and in this crime, both the priests and the common polytheists were partners.