Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:88

{لا يأتون} (They will not bring): This is the response to an omitted oath. Were it not for the lām (the al-muwaṭṭiʾah—the particle that prepares the way for the oath), it would have been permissible for it to be the response to the conditional clause, as in the poet’s saying: "He says: 'There is no absent one for me, nor a sanctuary.'"

This is because the condition occurred in the past tense. That is: If they were to join forces to produce the like of this Qur’an in its eloquence, the beauty of its composition, and its structure—even though among them were the pure Arabs, the masters of rhetoric—they would be unable to produce its like.

It is astonishing to consider the Nawābit (the later scholastic theologians) and their claim that the Qur’an is eternal (qadīm), while simultaneously admitting that it is miraculous (muʿjiz). For "inability" (ʿajz) only exists where "power" (qudrah) is possible. Thus, it is said: "Allah is capable of creating bodies, while the servants are unable to do so."

As for that which is impossible (al-muḥāl)—where there is no room for power, nor any entry point for it, such as the existence of a second eternal being—it is not said of the agent that he is "unable" to do it, nor is it called "miraculous." If one were to say that, it would be permissible to describe Allah as having "inability," for He is not described as having power over the impossible—unless they persist in stubbornness and say: "He is capable of the impossible." For their primary capital is stubbornness and the inversion of truths.

{وَلَقَدْ صَرَّفْنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِي هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ مِن كُلِّ مَثَلٍ فَأَبَىٰ أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ إِلَّا كُفُورًا} (And We have certainly diversified for the people in this Qur’an from every example, but most of the people refused except disbelief.)