Al-An'am (The Cattle): (131) That is because your Lord would not destroy...

Know that when the Almighty explained that He only punished the disbelievers after sending Prophets and Messengers to them, He clarifies with this verse that this is justice, truth, and what is obligatory.

There are several issues in the verse:

The author of Al-Kashshaf said: The word {That is} (ذالك) is a demonstrative pronoun referring to what preceded it—the sending of Messengers to them and warning them of the evil consequence. It is the predicate of an omitted subject. The meaning is: "The matter is that."

As for the phrase {because your Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly} (أن لم يكن ربك مهلك القرى بظلم), there are several interpretations:

1. Causality: It functions as a cause (تعليل). The meaning is: "The matter we narrated to you is because your Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly." The particle an (أن) here is the one that governs the accusative case (i.e., an al-nāṣibah).
2. Lightened inna: It is permissible for it to be the lightened form of the heavy inna. The meaning is: "Because your Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly." The pronoun in {because} (لأنه) refers to the state of affairs (ضمير الشأن والحديث). The meaning is: "Because the state of affairs is that your Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly."
3. Apposition (Badal): The phrase {because your Lord would not...} (أن لم يكن ربك) is made an apposition to {That is} (ذالك), similar to His saying: {And We decreed to him that matter: Indeed, the end of those people is to be cut off by the morning} (Al-Hijr: 66).

There are two views regarding this:

1. The meaning is: "Your Lord would not destroy the towns because of an injustice they committed."
2. The meaning is: "Your Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly against them." This is like His saying in Surah Hud: {And your Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly while their people were righteous} (Hud: 117).

Under the first view, the injustice (الظلم) is an act committed by the disbelievers. Under the second view, it relates to the action of God Almighty.

The first view is more appropriate to our position because the second view implies that if God had destroyed them before sending Messengers, He would have been unjust. This is not our view, as He judges as He wills and does what He wills, and no one can object to any of His actions.

However, for the Mu'tazila, this second view aligns perfectly with their doctrine and belief.

As for our scholars (Ahl al-Sunnah) who adopted this second view, they said that if God had done that, He would not have been unjust, but He would have appeared as if He were unjust (in appearance). Therefore, He is described as being unjust metaphorically. The full discussion of these two views is mentioned in Surah Hud concerning the verse {unjustly while their people were righteous}.

The meaning of this heedlessness (الغفلة) is not that a person ignores what he is advised about. Rather, it means that God does not clarify the nature of the situation to them, nor does He remove their excuse or pretext.

Know that our scholars use this verse to establish that obligation (الوجوب) does not occur before the Law (الشرع), and that pure reason (العقل المحض) does not indicate obligation at all. They argue this because the verse indicates that God Almighty does not punish anyone for any matter except after sending a Messenger.

The Mu'tazila, however, argue that this verse indicates, from another perspective, that obligation can be established before the arrival of the Law. They say: God Almighty said, {because your Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly and their people heedless}. This injustice (الظلم) must either relate to the servant or to God.

• If it relates to the servant, it indicates the possibility that injustice can issue from him before the mission. An act is only considered injustice before the mission if it was inherently ugly (قبيح) and a sin before the Messengers were sent—and this is what they seek to prove.
• If it relates to God, then this necessitates that this act be ugly on the part of God, which is only possible if one admits that reason determines what is good and what is ugly.