Surah 6. Al-An'am, Ayah 136

Falsely - because everything that exists belongs, in the last resort, to God alone.

Lit., "for our [God-]partners" - i.e., "those whom we consider to be associated with God". For an explanation of the term sharik, see note [15] on verse {22} of this surah. The pre-Islamic Arabs used to dedicate a part of their agricultural produce and cattle to some of their deities, and a part to God, whom they regarded as one - albeit the greatest - of them. In consonance, however, with the method of the Qur'an, the above verse does not allude merely to this historical aspect of pre-Islamic Arabian life but has a wider, more general implication as well: that is, it refers not only to the apportioning of devotional "shares" between God and the imaginary deities, but also to the attribution of any share in His creative powers to anyone or anything beside Him.

I.e., the fact that they assign a "share" of their devotions to God does not strengthen their belief in Him but, rather, implies a negation of His transcendental uniqueness and, thus, makes them more and more dependent on imaginary divine or semi-divine "mediators".

There is scathing sarcasm here, which some of the Commentators have missed. The Pagans have generally a big Pantheon, though above it they have a vague idea of a Supreme God. But the material benefits go to the godlings, the fancied "partners" of God; for they have temples, priests, dedications, etc., while the true and supreme God has only lip-worship, or at best a share with numerous "partners". This was so in Arabia also. The shares assigned to the "partners", went to the priests and hangers-on of the "partners", who were many and clamorous for their rights. The share assigned to God went to the poor, but more probably went to the priests who had the cult of the "partners", for the Supreme God had no separate priests of His own. It is also said that when heaps were thus laid out, if any portion of God's heap fell into the heaps of the "partners", the priests greedily and promptly appropriated it, while in the contrary case, the "partners" priests were careful to reclaim any portion from what they called "God's heap". The absurdity of the whole thing is ridiculed . God created everything: how can He have a share?