Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:134

{And if We had destroyed them with a punishment from before it} — this is a new sentence to confirm what preceded it, namely that the Qur’an is a clear sign that cannot be denied, by explaining that they will admit to it on the Day of Resurrection. The meaning is: And if We had destroyed them in the world with an eradicating punishment {from before it} — "from" is connected to "destroyed them" or to an omitted term serving as an adjective for the punishment, meaning a punishment occurring from before it. The pronoun refers to "the clear sign" (al-bayyinah), using the masculine form because it is considered a demonstration (burhan) and evidence, or it refers to "the coming" (al-ityan) understood from the verb, meaning before the coming of the clear sign. Abu Hayyan said: It refers to the Messenger, given the context of the subsequent mention of the Messenger, and this is what was intended by those who said: "meaning before the sending of Muhammad (may Allah grant him peace and blessings)."

{They would have said} — meaning on the Day of Resurrection — {Our Lord, why did You not send} — in the world — {to us a messenger} — along with signs — {so that we might follow Your verses} — which he brought us — {before we were humiliated} — with punishment in the world — {and disgraced} — by entering the Fire today. Abu Hayyan said: Both humiliation and disgrace refer to the punishment of the Hereafter, and he relayed the interpretation of humiliation as abasement and disgrace as exposure. The point is that if We had destroyed them before that, they would have said so; but We did not destroy them before it, so their excuse was severed. At that point, they will say: "Yes, a warner had come to us, but we denied and said, 'Allah has not sent down anything.'"

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, Zayd ibn Ali, al-Hasan (in a narration by Abbad, al-Umari, Dawud, al-Fazari, Abu Hatim, and Ya'qub) recited: {nudhalla wa nukhza} (we are humiliated and disgraced) in the passive voice. The Ash'arites used this verse as evidence that obligation is only realized through religious law, and al-Jubba'i used it to argue for the obligation of "grace" (lutf) upon the Almighty, though there is a difference of opinion regarding this.