Tafsir of Yunus 10:16

His saying, Exalted is He: "Say: If Allah had so willed, I would not have recited it to you," is a substantiation of the truth of the Qur’an and that it is from Him, Exalted is He, following the declaration of the invalidity of what they proposed, in the most complete manner. It is initiated with the independent imperative to manifest the perfection of concern for its status and to signal its independence in meaning and style. It is an argument demonstrating that it is by the command of Allah, the Exalted, and His will, as you shall learn if Allah, the Exalted, wills. What preceded was merely an announcement of the impossibility of what they proposed.

The object of the "will" is elided, indicated by the consequence (the jaza’), as is customary in such instances. It is understood from the apparent speech of some that it is other than that, but that is not the case—the matter is clear. The meaning is that the entire affair is contingent upon His will, Exalted is He, and I have no share in it at all. Had He, Exalted is He, willed that I do not recite it to you, and that you do not know of it through me—by not revealing it to me and not commanding me to recite it—I would not have recited it to you, "nor would He have made it known to you," meaning: nor would I have informed you of it through myself.

The consequent—the absence of recitation and the absence of making it known—is negated, therefore the antecedent is negated, which is His will for [that] non-existence. This necessitates that He did not will its existence. Its negation (the absence of the consequence) is contingent upon the realization of the will for its existence. Thus, it is proven that his recitation (peace and blessings be upon him) of the Qur’an and His making it known through him are by the will of Allah, the Exalted.

Restricting the "making known" (idra’) to this is what the context necessitates. Where some limited the object in the conditional clause to the "absence of recitation," they justified this restriction by saying that the absence of informing [you] absolutely is not of the requirements of the condition—which is the absence of the will for his recitation (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, it is not permissible to arrange it in the sequence of the consequence. However, the aspect of this limitation and not including the absence of "making it known" with it is not apparent, especially since the conjunction ('atf) is explicit in it, and the attribution of the absence of "making it known" to Him, the Exalted—which indicates that the "making known" is attributed to Him, Exalted is He—is an announcement that he (peace and blessings be upon him) has no role in that, just as the context requires.

In the narration of Abu Rabi’ah from Ibn Kathir: "Nor would He have made it known to you (wa-la-adrakum)," with the emphatic lam (the one that occurs in the answer to law). Meaning: If Allah had willed, I would not have recited it to you, and He would have informed you of it upon the tongue of another, in the sense that it is the Truth from which there is no escape, even if He had not sent it through me. The lam was brought here to signal that their being informed of it through the tongue of another (peace and blessings be upon him) is more severely negated and stronger.

Perhaps the la (in the first reading) is because what is permissible in a follower is not permissible in that which is followed. Otherwise, it does not occur in the answer to law. One does not say: "If Zayd stood, 'la' Amr stood," but rather "ma [did not] stand." Hence, al-Sameen asserted that it is an augmentative particle, emphasizing the negation.

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, and Ibn Sirin that they read: "Nor did I make it known to you (wa-la-adra'tukum)," attributing the verb to his own pronoun (peace and blessings be upon him), like the previous verb. The origin is la-adraytukum, then the ya was changed into an alif according to the dialect of those who change the quiescent ya (preceded by a fatha) into an alif. This is the dialect of Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b and tribes of Yemen, to the extent that they changed the ya of the dual into an alif and made the dual in all states one form. Qutrub narrated this from 'Aqil.

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others narrated from al-Hasan that he read (wa-la-adra'tukum) with a quiescent hamza. It is said: it is a substitution for the alif that was changed from the ya, as you heard. It is also said: it is a substitution for the ya originally, as one says for labaytu—lab’tu. According to both views, it is not original. This occurred in some dialects, as affirmed by more than one [scholar]. It was suggested that it might be original, on the basis that the verb is from dar’ (to push/prevent). It is said adra’tuhu, meaning: I made him a dara’ (a shield/deflector). The meaning would be: "And I did not make you, by my recitation of it, adversaries who deflect me with argumentation."

It was also read (wa-la-adrakum) with and without a hamza, while attributing the verb to the pronoun of Allah, the Exalted. Sa’id ibn Mansur and Ibn Jarir narrated that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) used to read: "And I did not warn you with it (wa-la-andhartukum bihi)."

"For I have lived among you a lifetime..." is a type of justification for the concomitance that necessitates that this is by the will of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, as has passed just now. Al-labth is dwelling. ‘Umran is in the accusative case by assimilation to the adverb of time; the intended meaning is a duration. It is said: it is based on an elided genitive (mudaf), meaning "the measure of a life," and it is with a damma on the mim. Al-A’mash read it with a sukun for ease. The meaning is: I have resided among you for a long duration, estimated at forty years, during which you observe the details of my circumstances and encompass with knowledge my sayings and actions.

"Before it," meaning before the descent of the Qur’an or before the time of its descent. The return of the pronoun to the recitation is not substantial. "...I did not engage in anything related to that," neither in terms of its miraculous structure nor its meaning, which reveals the secrets of realities and the rulings of the laws. "Will you not then understand?" (16), meaning: Do you not observe this, and therefore do not understand the impossibility of its issuing from the likes of me, and the necessity of it being revealed from Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise? For that is not hidden from one who possesses a sound intellect and a straight mind.

Indeed, by my life, whoever possesses the slightest grasp of intellect, when he reflects upon his affair (peace and blessings be upon him)—that he grew up among them for this long duration without companionship with scholars in any of the affairs, nor referring to them in any of the arts, nor mingling with the eloquent in dialogue and deliberation, nor delving with them into the composition of orations and refutations—and then he brought a Book whose eloquence stunned every person of letters, whose rhetoric bewildered the masters of the Arabs, which contained the wonders of various sciences and the subtleties of the truths of the spoken and implied, and which became a revealer of the secrets of the Unseen which conjectures do not reach, an explainer of the tales of the ancients and the accounts of the later generations of the centuries, a confirmer of what is before it of the revealed Books, and a guardian over them in its general and detailed rulings... for him, there remains no doubt that it is a revelation sent down from Allah, Whose Majesty is immense and Whose bounty is vast.

This is what the word of the majority has agreed upon, and it is more appropriate in refuting them, as is not hidden from the one who reflects.

It is said that what is more appropriate is that the basis of the response in what preceded [was built] upon the impossibility of alteration and substitution occurring from him (peace and blessings be upon him) because it is an act of disobedience entailing great punishment, and his (peace and blessings be upon him) limitation to following the revelation and the impossibility of acting on [his own] opinion—without mentioning there or here that the Qur’an is in itself a matter beyond the capacity of human beings, nor that he (peace and blessings be upon him) is incapable of producing its like—is to cite here what is appropriate from his circumstances (peace and blessings be upon him) which were continuous during that long period, regarding his perfect integrity (peace and blessings be upon him) from what would suggest a stain of lying or fabrication against anyone, whoever they may be, as indicated by his following it up with [mentioning] the injustice of the one who fabricates against Allah, the Exalted.

The meaning is: I have resided among you before the revelation, never bothering anyone with coercion or argument, nor hovering around any statement that has a taint of suspicion, let alone what contains lying and fabrication. Do you not observe this? Will you not understand that one whose state is this, consistently throughout this long era, it is impossible for him to fabricate against Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, or to impose his will upon all creation with commands and prohibitions that entail the stripping of wealth, the shedding of blood, and other such things? And that what he brought is a clear revelation, a descent from the Lord of the worlds. Ended.

You know that this does not flow easily into the mind, and that the first speech indicates, in summary, that the Qur’an is a matter beyond the capacity of human beings and that he (peace and blessings be upon him) is incapable of producing its like. Moreover, it [the second view] is not devoid of debate, so reflect.