Ash-Shura: (9) Or have they taken…

(Or have they taken besides Him protectors?) This is an initiating sentence that confirms the preceding negation of the wrongdoers having any protector or helper. The commentary of al-Kashshaf implies that it is connected to His, the Almighty’s, saying: "And those who take protectors besides Him..." meaning: leave off concern for them and cease hope for their faith, and such and such. Are they not the ones who took protectors besides Him, the Almighty, while He, glory be to Him, is the true Protector, capable of all things, and they turned away from Him, the Exalted and Majestic, to that which has no relation to Him whatsoever? And that His, the Glorified’s, saying: "And thus We have revealed..." is a parenthetical clause confirming the content of the two verses.

The Am (Or), according to both positions, is munqati’ah (disjunctive), which is usually estimated as bal (nay/rather) and the interrogative hamza. A group has estimated it here as both, except that on the second position it is for idrab (refutation/turning away), and on the first, it is for transitioning from the explanation of what preceded it to the explanation of what follows it. The hamza is said to be for denouncing an actuality and finding it repugnant. It is also said: nay, it is for denying the occurrence and rejecting it in the most eloquent and emphatic manner, as the intent is to clarify that what they have done does not constitute "taking protectors" at all, because that would require the idols to be protectors, which is among the most manifest of impossibilities. That is: rather, they have taken—transgressing against Allah, the Almighty—protectors from the idols and others.

(For Allah is the Protector) It is said: it is the response to a suppressed conditional clause; meaning, if they desire a protector in truth, then Allah, the Almighty, is the Protector in truth, and there is no protector in truth other than Him, the Exalted. His being the response to the conditional clause is in the sense of informing and the like.

It is stated in al-Bahr: There is no need to assume a suppressed condition, as the speech is complete without it. Perhaps he [the author of al-Bahr] intends what has been said: that it is a conjunction to what preceded it, or that it is an explanation for the denial derived from the interrogation, like your saying: "Do you strike Zayd? He is your brother," meaning: you should not strike him, for he is your brother. This was contested on the grounds that what is known in such a case is the use of the waw (conjunction), and that explanation is only appropriate in explicit denial, nor does it suit the meaning of the past tense.

(And He gives life to the dead) Meaning, this is His nature, similar to [saying]: "So-and-so hosts the guest and protects the sanctuary."

(And He is over all things powerful)

For He, glory be to Him, is the One worthy of being taken as a protector; so let them reserve the taking for Him, rather than for one who is not capable of anything whatsoever.