Al-Qasas: (64) And it was said, "Call upon your partners..."

(And it was said) as a rebuke to them and a mockery of them, (Call upon your partners) whom you claimed (then they called them) due to the intensity of their confusion; otherwise, there is no real request for them to call upon them. It is said: Call them due to the necessity of compliance, assuming that there is a request. The purpose of requesting this from them is to expose them before all the witnesses by having them call upon those who possess no benefit for themselves. It is said: The apparent implication of following the imperative form with the particle fa in the words of the Almighty (then they called them) is to demand and mandate the calling. The first view is more eloquent in portraying the horror of the state of those disbelievers and indicating their wretched condition, and the matter of the succession with fa is simple.

(So they did not answer them) due to the necessity of their inability to answer or provide victory. It is permitted that the meaning is "so they did not answer them" because they were preoccupied with what concerned them, and perhaps their mouths were sealed at that time.

(And they saw the punishment) The apparent view is that the pronoun refers to the callers. Al-Dahhak said: It refers to both the callers and the called collectively. It is said: It refers only to the called, but this is baseless. The apparent view is that the vision of the punishment is either in the sense of seeing its precursors, or in the sense of seeing it itself by treating it as if it were witnessed. It is also permitted that it refers to intellectual perception (vision of the heart), and the second object is elided; meaning, they saw the punishment as attached to them, or covering them, or something similar. You know that the omission of one of the two objects of the verbs of the heart is debated regarding its permissibility, and it was mentioned earlier from some that the majority holds the view of its prohibition. Thus, whoever prohibits it and says in explaining the meaning: "And they saw the punishment as attached to them," makes "attached" a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from the punishment.

(If they had been rightly guided) Law is conditional, and its consequent is elided; meaning: If they had been rightly guided in any of the ways of subterfuge by which they could avert the punishment, they would have averted the punishment with it; or, if they had been rightly guided believers in the world, they would not have seen the punishment. It was objected that the indicator for the elided part is "they saw the punishment," which is affirmative, so the elided part should not be estimated as negative. This is not valid because the focus is on the meaning; and if omission is permissible merely for the indication of the context, then when the testimony of the text is added to it, it is even more appropriate.

It is permitted that law is for wishing; meaning, they wished they had been rightly guided, so it does not require a consequent. The author of Al-Taqrib said: This is problematic, as it ought to be said, "If only we were," unless it is on the basis of quotation (as in "He swore to me that he would strike") or on the interpretation that "they saw" implies "wishing for their guidance." It is also permitted, on the basis of it being for wishing, that "if only they were rightly guided" was placed in the stead of "they were confused at seeing it," as everyone would wish for guidance for them at that moment of horror and confusion out of pity for them. Or, it is from Allah—Exalted is His Majesty—metaphorically, as it is said regarding His words: (And if they had believed and feared, a reward from Allah would have been better). Al-Tibi attributed the placing of it in that position to the expression of the effect for the cause, because their confusion is the cause leading to this statement.

The master of mercy said: The composition in this way is accurate. Imam Al-Razi chose that it is conditional, but he did not approve of what they said regarding the estimation of the consequent. After quoting what they said, he stated: "In my view, the consequent is not elided. There are ways to structure it: First, when Allah addresses them saying (Call your partners), intense fear seizes them, and something like vertigo and dizziness overtakes them so that they see nothing. Thus, the Almighty said: 'They saw the punishment, if only they had been able to see anything'—meaning, they did not see the punishment because they became unable to see anything. Second, when the Almighty mentioned regarding the partners—the idols—that they do not answer those who called them, He said regarding them: (And they saw the punishment, if only they had been rightly guided)—meaning, these idols would have witnessed the punishment if they were living, rightly guided beings, but they are not so. The use of the pronoun for rational beings is in accordance with the people’s belief regarding them. Third, that the meaning of 'vision' is the vision of the heart; meaning, the disbelievers knew the truth of this punishment if only they were rightly guided."

These ways, in my view, are better than the ways built upon the idea that the consequent of law is elided, for that necessitates dismantling the structure of the verse. I swear by my life, he did not produce anything, and what is refuted against him is more apparent than to be hidden from anyone who has the slightest distinction between the living and the dead.