سُوْرَةُ الْاَنْعَامِ
Surah Al-An'aam (6) — Ayah 136
وَجَعَلُوا۟ لِلَّهِ مِمَّا ذَرَأَ مِنَ ٱلْحَرْثِ وَٱلْأَنْعَـٰمِ نَصِيبًا فَقَالُوا۟ هَـٰذَا لِلَّهِ بِزَعْمِهِمْ وَهَـٰذَا لِشُرَكَآئِنَا ۖ فَمَا كَانَ لِشُرَكَآئِهِمْ فَلَا يَصِلُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ۖ وَمَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ فَهُوَ يَصِلُ إِلَىٰ شُرَكَآئِهِمْ ۗ سَآءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ ﴿136﴾
Translation by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan & Dr. Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali
And they assign to Allâh a share of the tilth and cattle which He has created, and they say: "This is for Allâh according to their claim, and this is for our (Allâh’s so-called) partners." But the share of their (Allâh’s so-called) "partners" reaches not Allâh, while the share of Allâh reaches their (Allâh’s so-called) "partners"! Evil is the way they judge!
Word by Word — Arabic, Transliteration & Meaning
وَجَعَلُوا۟
wajaʿalū
And they assign
لِلَّهِ
lillahi
to Allah
مِمَّا
mimmā
out of what
ذَرَأَ
dhara-a
He produced
مِنَ
mina
of
ٱلْحَرْثِ
l-ḥarthi
the crops
وَٱلْأَنْعَـٰمِ
wal-anʿāmi
and the cattle
نَصِيبًۭا
naṣīban
a share
فَقَالُوا۟
faqālū
and they say
هَـٰذَا
hādhā
This
لِلَّهِ
lillahi
(is) for Allah
بِزَعْمِهِمْ
bizaʿmihim
by their claim
وَهَـٰذَا
wahādhā
And this
لِشُرَكَآئِنَا ۖ
lishurakāinā
(is) for our partners
فَمَا
famā
But what
كَانَ
kāna
is
لِشُرَكَآئِهِمْ
lishurakāihim
for their partners
فَلَا
falā
(does) not
يَصِلُ
yaṣilu
reach
إِلَى
ilā
[to]
ٱللَّهِ ۖ
l-lahi
Allah
وَمَا
wamā
while what
كَانَ
kāna
is
لِلَّهِ
lillahi
for Allah
فَهُوَ
fahuwa
then it
يَصِلُ
yaṣilu
reaches
إِلَىٰ
ilā
[to]
شُرَكَآئِهِمْ ۗ
shurakāihim
their partners
سَآءَ
sāa
Evil
مَا
mā
(is) what
يَحْكُمُونَ
yaḥkumūna
they judge
Tafsir Taiseer ul-Quran — Maulana Abdul Rahman Kilani
Tafsir Taiseer ul-Quran (Facilitation of the Quran) is a comprehensive Quran commentary by Maulana Abdul Rahman Kilani, a renowned Salafi (Ahl al-Hadith) scholar from Pakistan. Known for his eloquent and accessible writing style, Kilani authored this tafsir with a focus on clarity — making Quranic meanings understandable to the common reader. The tafsir provides detailed historical context for verses related to battles and expeditions, and firmly refutes modernist ideologies using strong scriptural evidence. It is widely regarded as an invaluable resource for understanding the Quran and countering deviant interpretations. The tafsir is originally written in Urdu, translated to English by tohed.com.
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.
[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.
