Tafsir of Al-Qasas 28:47

(And were it not that a calamity should strike them—meaning a punishment; and it is, according to what is narrated from Abu Muslim, the punishment of this world and the Hereafter; and it is said: the punishment of extermination—(because of what their hands have put forth)—meaning because of what they have committed of disbelief and sins. Every action is expressed as the act of the hands, even if it did not proceed from the hands, because most actions are performed with them—(they would say, "Our Lord, why did You not send to us a messenger?")—meaning: Why did You not send us a messenger supported by signs from You, (so that we might follow Your verses)—those which appear at his hand—(and be among the believers)—in what he brought.

The second "lawla" (in "why did You not send") is for incitement (tahdid), as we have indicated. The saying of the Exalted, "(so that we might follow...)," is its response. Because incitement is a request, like a command, it is answered in the manner that a command is answered. As for the first "lawla," it is for negation (imtinaiyyah), and its response is omitted, relying on the indication of the situation; the estimate is: "Had it not been for that [the possibility of their excuse], We would not have sent you."

The fa in (they would say) is a conjunction connecting "they would say" to "strike them." The intent regarding causality is the negation of the response, and the essential pillar of this is their saying that if a calamity were to strike them. Thus, the meaning is: If it were not for their saying—when they are punished for what they committed—"Why did You not send us a messenger so that we might follow him and be among the believers?"—[if not for that] We would not have sent you to them. Since it [the saying] is the cause for the [hypothetical] saying, and its existence is tied to its existence, it was made as if it were the cause for the sending via the medium of the saying. Thus, "lawla" was introduced to it, and the saying was brought conjoined to it with the fa, which imparts the meaning of causality.

The point of choosing this style—and not making the punishment a mere restriction—is that if they were not punished for their disbelief, and they had witnessed what compelled them to certain knowledge, they would not say, "Why did You not send us a messenger?" The only cause for this saying of theirs is the punishment, nothing else—not regret for the faith in their Creator that they missed. In this, there is strong testimony to the fortification and rootedness of their disbelief, which is not hidden, similar to the saying of the Exalted: "But if they were returned, they would return to that which they were forbidden." This is what the author of al-Kashshaf intended, and there is no estimation of an added noun in the text regarding it, as is apparent.

Some have argued that the speech relies on an added estimation: "Out of dislike that a calamity should strike them..." etc. The cause for sending is the dislike of that, because of the establishment of the argument contained within it, and to Allah belongs the conclusive argument. This dislike is something whose realization—which "lawla" necessitates—is beyond doubt. By this estimation, they avoided the necessity of the occurrence of the strike and the aforementioned saying, and the negation of the non-sending, as is the requirement of "lawla." There is much to be said about this.

Ibn al-Munir said: The verification, in my view, is that "lawla," contrary to what the grammarians say, does not indicate that what comes after it exists or that its response is impossible. The precise meaning is that it indicates that what follows it is a preventer of its response, the opposite of "aw" (or). Sometimes the preventer is real, and sometimes it is hypothetical. What is in the verse is of the second type, so there is no difficulty in it.

The verse has been used as evidence that the plea of one to whom a messenger has not been sent, if he is punished—"Our Lord, why did You not send me a messenger?"—is something that qualifies as an argument. Otherwise, it would not have been fit to be a cause for sending [a messenger]. Therein lies proof that intellect is not sufficient without a messenger. The investigation into this is famous, and the discourse upon it is extensive.