Al-Isra: (59) "And nothing has prevented Us..."

(And nothing has prevented Us from sending the signs)—meaning the signs requested by the Quraysh, for Ahmad, an-Nasa'i, al-Hakim (who authenticated it), al-Tabarani, and others reported from Ibn Abbas that the people of Makkah asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to turn Safa into gold for them and to move the mountains away so they could farm. It was said to him: "If you wish, We shall grant you respite regarding them, and if you wish, We shall give them what they asked for, but if they disbelieve thereafter, they will be destroyed just as the nations before them were destroyed." The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "No, rather grant them respite."

Allah the Exalted revealed this verse. The phrase “an tursila” (to send) is an interpretation of a masdar (infinitive) in the accusative case, functioning as the object of “mana’ana” (prevented us), as stated explicitly by al-Tabarsi. Or, it is in the accusative due to the removal of a preposition, as it is said that the verb extends to its second object through a preposition, similar to the saying of the Exalted: "Have we not power over you and restrain you from the believers?" meaning: "And nothing has prevented us from the sending of the signs, or from sending the signs, except that the earlier ones denied them"—meaning the people of the preceding nations who requested them.

The exception is mufarragh (vacuous) from the most general of things, and the phrase “an kadhaba” is an interpretation of a masdar functioning as the agent of “mana’ana” (prevented). That is: "Nothing prevented us from doing anything except the denial of the earlier ones." Abu al-Baqa’ claimed that it is based on the assumption of an omitted term, meaning: "Except the destruction caused by the denial of the earlier ones." However, others argue there is no need for this.

Lexically, al-man’ (prevention) is the restraining of another and compelling them against an action they wish to perform. Since this is impossible for the Exalted—as it would imply the incapacity that is impossible and contradictory to Lordship—they said that it is a metaphor for al-sarf (turning away/averting). The meaning is: "We have not averted the sending of the requested signs except because of the denial of the earlier requesters, which necessitated their eradication." For this [the fulfillment of the request] would lead to the denial of the later requesters—by virtue of their shared insolence and stubbornness—and this leads to them suffering what those [earlier ones] suffered, due to their partnership in the sin and corruption, and the flowing of the divine custom and the Lordly habit in that regard. To do so to them would contradict what was written in the Tablet of Decree with the ink of wisdom regarding the delaying of their punishment. In summary: We refrained from sending the signs because Our will had already decreed the delay of the punishment for them, for reasons We know.

Some sensed a level of impropriety in [interpreting it as] al-sarf (averting), so they interpreted al-man’ (prevention) as a metaphor for al-tark (leaving/omitting). This was countered by the argument that this is not valid when the agent is "denial" [in the syntactic reading], for the One who omits is Allah the Exalted. It was answered that the claim that the agent must be unified in the literal and metaphorical meaning is something for which no evidence has been established; rather, the opposite is apparent.

Some researchers—and may Allah grant his father reward—mentioned, even if debated, that the denial of the earlier ones—which entails eradication and implies the denial of the later ones, leading to the descent of doom—is contrary to sending the requested signs, because of the certainty of the denial that invites what contradicts the wisdom of delaying the punishment of this nation. Thus, he expressed that contradiction through al-man’ (prevention) by way of metaphor, indicating the interaction of the factors of sending [the signs]—not as they claimed regarding His lack of desire, the Exalted, to support His Messenger (peace be upon him) with miracles. This is the secret behind preferring the term "sending" (irsal) over "giving" (ita'), for it contains an indication of the signs clamoring to descend, had it not been for the hand of decree holding them back.

Attributing the prevention to the denial of the earlier ones, rather than to His knowledge of what the later requesters would do—as in the saying of the Exalted: "If Allah had known any good in them, He would have made them hear"—is to establish the proof against them by presenting the model, and to indicate that the basis for not answering the granting of their request is solely their own doing.

As for the wisdom of the delay, it is said it is to manifest the increased honor of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is also said it is out of care for those who will be born from some of them who will be believers, and for those who will believe from among them. To each of these, one should add "and others like it," for there is no limitation. It is also said the meaning of the verse is: We do not send the requested signs because We know that they will not believe upon seeing them, just as those who requested them before them did not believe; thus, sending them would be vain and purposeless, and the Wise one does not do that. You know that if the sending of a request, when the requester does not believe upon seeing it, is vain—and the Wise one does not do it—then it complicates [the question of] His doing it the first time. Moreover, what is narrated in the sabab al-nuzul (reason for revelation) necessitates the first interpretation, as is not hidden. The signs were interpreted as "requested" because the signs through which the claim of the message is proven are from the requirements of sending, and whatever exceeds that, and was not by request, is a grace from the Sovereign, the Exalted.

(And We gave Thamud the she-camel)—this is a conjunction to what the noble structure implies, as if it were said: "And nothing has prevented Us from sending the signs except that the earlier ones denied them, where We gave them what they requested from their prophets (peace be upon them) of the dazzling signs, yet they denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel by their request to their prophet Salih (peace be upon him), and We brought it forth for them from the rock. (as a visible sign)—in the form of an active participle, it is a state (hal) of the she-camel. The meaning is: possessed of sight, or possessed of insight, which others see and gain insight through; the form is thus for attribution. Or, it makes people possessors of insight, as it is an active participle from absara (to cause to see), and the hamza is for transitivity, meaning: it made him a possessor of insight and perception. It is possible that the attribution of sight to it is metaphorical, and it is in reality a state of the one who witnesses it. A group recited mubsiratan (passive participle), meaning: people see it, and there is no hiddenness in that. Qatada recited mabasiratan (with a fatha on the mem and sad), meaning: a place of sight, by making the thing that carries the effect the place of it, like walad mubkhalah mujbinah (a child makes one stingy and cowardly). Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) recited it as an active participle, in the nominative, implying an omitted subject: "It is mubsirah (a visible sign)."

The majority recited Thamud as a diptote (non-declinable). Harun said: The people of Kufa use nunation in all aspects. Abu Hatim said: The masses and the scholars of the Quran do not use nunation for Thamud in any way. In four places it is written [in the Mushaf] and we read it without an alif. This is as al-Raghib said: it is non-Arabic, and it is said it is Arabic, and the omission of its declension is because it is a tribal name; it is fa’ul from al-thamd, which is the small amount of water that has no source. From this it is said: "So-and-so is mathmud (drained), his water source was drained by women," meaning they cut off the source of his water due to his frequent intimacy with them. And mathmud is used when one is asked so frequently that the source of his wealth is depleted. Many authenticated its Arabic origin, meaning: We gave that tribe the she-camel.

(And they wronged it)—meaning they disbelieved in it and denied it was from Allah the Exalted to verify His messenger, or they disbelieved in it while wronging [themselves], meaning they were not satisfied with mere disbelief in it, but they did to it what they did of hamstringing it, or they wronged their own selves and exposed them to destruction due to hamstringing it. Perhaps the specific mention of giving it is because Thamud were Arabs like the people of Makkah who were making the request, and they [the Makkans] have complete knowledge of their situation, as they witness the ruins of their destruction due to the proximity of their lands to them, in their travels back and forth. It is possible this is because the she-camel, in terms of being an animal brought forth from rock, is the clearest proof of the realization of the saying of the Exalted: "Say: 'Be you stones or iron'..." The first [interpretation] is closer.

(And We send not the signs except as a warning)—meaning for those upon whom they are sent. What is meant by them is either the requested ones, so the warning is of eradication, as it is a warning of that in the custom of Allah the Exalted, meaning: We do not send them except as a warning of the eradicating punishment, like a vanguard for it. If they do not fear, what happened to others happens to them. As for others, like the signs of the Quran and the miracles, the warning is of the punishment of the Hereafter, not the worldly punishment of eradication, meaning: We do not send them except as a warning and an admonition of the punishment of the Hereafter.

Abu Hayyan favored the view that what is intended are the signs accompanied by respite, such as solar and lunar eclipses, intense thunder and lightning, winds, earthquakes, and the drying up or overflowing of water springs beyond the limit such that some lands are drowned. Al-Hasan included sudden death among that, meaning: We do not send them except to warn of what is greater than them.

Ibn Jarir reported from Qatada who said: Allah the Exalted frightens people with what He wills of His signs so that they might repent or remember and return. Ibn Atiyyah mentioned that the signs of Allah the Exalted from which one can learn are of three categories: a general category in everything: "And in everything is a sign / pointing that He is One / And there is the thought of the scholars." A customary category like thunder and eclipses, and that is the thought of the ignorant. And a category that breaks the habit (miraculous), and that has ended with the end of prophecy; today one only learns through imagining and conceptualizing the like of it.

Therein is neglect regarding karamah (the miracles of saints), for the people of Sunnah establish it for the saint in every era. The sentence is an isti'naf (new beginning) and has no place in grammatical analysis. On the first view, it is allowed to be a hal (state) of the pronoun in “zalamu” (they wronged), meaning: they wronged it and did not fear the consequence, while the state was that We do not send the signs—of which it is one—except as a warning of the punishment that follows it, and so what befell them, befell them. “Takhwifan” is in the accusative as a maf'ul lahu (object for which the action is done).

It is also allowed that it be a hal, meaning: "frightening." The ba in both places is sayf khatib (irrelevant). “Al-ayat” is the object of nursil (We send), or [it is] for association and the object is omitted, meaning: "We do not send a prophet associated with them." It is said that it is for transitivity and that arsala is transitive by itself and with the ba; this was rejected because it has not been reported from any reliable source. Al-Khafaji said: "There is no proof in the saying of Kuthayyir: 'The slanderers lied, I did not reveal a secret to them, nor did I send them with a messenger,' because of the possibility of it being an addition, and also because the messenger therein is in the sense of a message, so it is a maf'ul mutlaq (cognate accusative), and the discussion is regarding its entry upon the maf'ul bihi (direct object)." It is not hidden that making the messenger a direct object and the addition of the ba in it is something no scholar would commit to.