Tafsir of Al-Qasas 28:47

{And were it not that...} The first "lawla" (were it not) is for imtina’iyyah (denoting that the occurrence of the consequence is prevented by the existence of the condition), and its response (the jawab) is omitted. The second "lawla" is for tahdid (incitement/urging). One of the two fa’s (in the verse) is for conjunction, and the other is the response to the lawla, because it functions as a command; for a command is an incitement to action, and the inciter and the one who urges are from the same category.

The Meaning: "Were it not that they would say, when punished for the polytheism and sins they committed: 'Why did You not send us a messenger?'—using that as an argument against Us—We would not have sent a messenger to them."

This means that the sending of a messenger to them is only to establish the proof against them, not for them to establish it against God. This is like His saying: "So that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers" (An-Nisa: 165), "Lest you say, 'There came not to us any bringer of good tidings or a warner'" (Al-Ma'idah: 19), and "Why did You not send us a messenger so we could follow Your verses?"

If you ask: How is this meaning consistent, given that you have made the punishment the cause for the sending, rather than the saying (the speech), since the particle of prevention (lawla) was attached to the punishment rather than the speech?

I say: The speech is indeed the intended cause for sending the messengers. However, because the punishment is the cause for that speech—and its existence is tied to the existence of the punishment—the punishment was treated as if it were the cause for the sending, by way of the speech. Thus, lawla was attached to it, and the speech was brought in, conjoined to it by the fa, which imparts the meaning of causality. The meaning resolves to: "Were it not for this speech of theirs when a calamity befalls them, We would not have sent [a messenger]."

The Nuance: This method was chosen for a subtle point: if they were not punished for their disbelief—having witnessed that which compelled them to certain knowledge—they would not have said, "Why did You not send us a messenger?" The only cause for their saying this is the punishment, and nothing else; it is not out of regret for the faith in their Creator that they missed. In this lies a powerful testimony to the entrenchment and depth of their disbelief, which is not hidden, similar to His saying: "But even if they were returned, they would return to that which they were forbidden" (Al-An'am: 28).

Regarding "what their hands have put forth": Since most actions are performed with the hands, every action is expressed as "the committing of the hands" (ijtirah al-aydi) and "what the hands have put forth," even if it pertains to the actions of the heart. This is part of the breadth of language, making the minority subordinate to the majority, and giving precedence to the majority over the minority.

{But when the truth came to them from Us, they said, "Why was he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses before? They said, "Two works of magic supporting each other," and said, "Indeed we are, in both, disbelievers."}