Tafsir of Ya seen 36:17

That is: Nothing is upon us except conveying the message of their Lord, the Exalted, a conveyance that is manifest and clear, such that it is not hidden from its listener, nor does it admit of interpretation or being construed in a manner contrary to the intended meaning at all. We have fulfilled our responsibility regarding it, so there is no accountability upon us from the side of our Lord.

This is what has been said. However, it is better to interpret "clear conveyance" as that which is accompanied by signs (miracles) testifying to its truthfulness. They did indeed convey it in such a manner, based on what has been narrated: that they cured the blind and the leper and brought the dead to life, or that they performed some other miracle other than what was mentioned, though it has not been transmitted to us—and it is not required in the Sublime Book nor in the traditions to mention the specific miracle of every messenger, as is not hidden.

Furthermore, this [conveyance] was either a miracle for them—according to the view that they were messengers of God, the Exalted, without an intermediary—or it was a karamah (charism) for them that served as a miracle for the one who sent them, Jesus, peace be upon him—according to the view that they were his messengers. The meaning is: "There is nothing upon us from the side of our Lord except the conveyance that is made clear by signs, and we have done so; therefore, there is no accountability upon us." Or: "There is nothing you require of us from your side except the conveyance of the message in the manner mentioned, and we have conveyed it thus; so what is it that you demand of us in order for you to believe our claim?" And because their conveyance was clear in this sense, their appeal to [divine] knowledge was appropriate, so do not overlook this.

The speech of the messengers came a second time with the utmost emphasis due to the extreme exaggeration of the disbelievers in their denial, as they brought three [types of] sentences, each one indicating the intensity of the denial, as is not hidden from one who has the slightest reflection.

Al-Sakkaki said: "They emphasized the first time because the denial of the two is a denial of the third due to the unity of the statement. So, when they exaggerated in their denial, they [the messengers] increased the emphasis."

Al-Zamakhshari said: "The first speech was an initial statement of information, and the second was a response to their denial." The Master, the Pillar [Al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani], explained this by stating that the first was an initial statement of information considering that the total of three had not previously informed them, so there was no denial of them at the first instance; thus, the emphasis there is interpreted as indicating their concern and care for the matter of the news."

This is countered by the fact that the three were aware of the denial, and speech directed toward a denier is not called an "initial statement of information." The author of Al-Kashf said: "He [Al-Zamakhshari] meant that it was not preceded by previous information, and he did not mean that it was speech addressed to someone with a vacant mind; or he made the 'initial' nature of it relative to the speech of the third [messenger] or the whole group."

Al-Chalabi said: "Perhaps his intent is that it is in the position of an initial statement of information relative to their second denial, in that it does not require such emphatic particles, so their first denial was not considered a denial relative to their second denial, not that it was literally an initial statement of information." The weakness of this is not hidden.

The learned Yemeni said: "The first statement was emphasized because the disbelievers were treated as those who denied the sending of the three, for that had become apparent from the denial of the two. According to this, it is an initial statement of information regarding the delivery of speech according to the dictates of the apparent, while its denial is regarding the delivery of speech not according to the dictates of the apparent." Thus, the view of Al-Zamakhshari is more subtle than the view of Al-Sakkaki, even if the Master, the Pillar, said the opposite—and what is in that is known from what has preceded with the slightest consideration.

The most excellent of the later scholars, the learned 'Abd al-Hakim al-Sialkoti, said: "In my opinion, what Al-Sakkaki mentioned is based on connecting 'They said, "Indeed, we are messengers to you"’ to 'So they denied both of them, and We strengthened [them] with a third.' The fa (so) is for consequence, so the speech was issued by the three after the denial of the two and the strengthening with a third; thus, it was speech with deniers, so it came emphasized.

As for the statement of Al-Zamakhshari, it is based on it being connected to 'When there came to it the messengers' and that it is an elaboration of the story mentioned summarily in His saying, the Sublime: 'When there came to it the messengers' up to His saying, the Exalted: 'And We strengthened with a third.' Thus, the fa is for elaboration. So His saying, the Exalted: 'They said, "Indeed, we are messengers to you"’ is an explanation of His saying, the Mighty and Majestic: 'When We sent to them two,' so it is an initial statement of information issued by the two—they spoke in the plural form to underscore the status of the news. And His saying, the Exalted: 'They said, "You are not but human beings like us,"' etc., is an explanation of His saying, the Exalted: 'So they denied both of them.' And His saying, the Sublimely Powerful: 'Our Lord knows that we are indeed messengers to you. And there is no [duty] upon us except the clear conveyance,' is an explanation of His saying, the Mighty and Majestic: 'And We strengthened with a third,' for the 'clear conveyance' is their proving the message through miracles, which is the 'strengthening' and the victory."

Then he said: "The beauty of this interpretation is not hidden, due to its agreement with the story mentioned in the tafsirs and its suitability for the flow of the verse, as it was mentioned first in summary by His saying, the Exalted: 'And present to them an example: the people of the city,' then it was elaborated with some detail by His saying, the Exalted: 'When there came to it the messengers' up to His saying, the Exalted: 'And [he] was strengthened with a third.' Then it was elaborated with full detail by His saying, the Exalted: 'They said, "Indeed, we are messengers to you"’ up to His saying, the Exalted: 'are praising.' And it [this interpretation] does not require making the fa in 'So they denied both of them' to be consequential [in the way Al-Sakkaki suggests], so it is sound, unlike the interpretation of Al-Sakkaki, for it requires estimating [missing words like] 'they were invited to monotheism'."

It is not hidden to any fair-minded person that this is an interpretation of extreme remoteness, and the discourse upon it reaches the level of riddles; even so, it contains what it contains. And I say: It is not unlikely that Al-Zamakhshari intended by his speech one of the possibilities that were mentioned in justifying it, but what Al-Sakkaki went to is further from affectation and safer from back-and-forth arguments.