If not for the first being prohibitive and its response being omitted, and the second being exhortative, and one of the two 'fa's being for conjunction, while the other is a response to 'lawla', since it is in the ruling of command, because the command is a motivator for action, and the motivator and the exhortation are from the same valley. The meaning is: And if not for them saying when they were punished for what they had brought forth of polytheism and sins: Why did You not send to us a messenger, arguing against us with that: We would not have sent to them, meaning: That sending the messenger to them is only to hold them accountable for the proof and not to hold it against them, as His saying: 'So that there will be no proof for the people against Allah after the messengers, that you say: No bearer of good news or warner came to us. If only You had sent to us a messenger so we could follow Your signs.' If you say: How does this meaning stand when you have made the punishment the reason for the sending and not the saying, due to the entry of the prohibitive particle upon it instead? I say: The saying is the intended cause for sending the messengers, but since the punishment was the cause for the saying and its existence is by its existence, the punishment was made as if it were the cause for the sending through the saying, so 'lawla' was introduced upon it, and the saying was brought in conjunction with it by the 'fa' that gives the meaning of causation. [Mawlana said: 'The first 'lawla' is prohibitive, and the second is exhortative. The first 'fa' is conjunctive and the second is a response to 'lawla.' The meaning is: If not for them saying when they were punished: If only You had sent to us a messenger, arguing with that, we would not have sent anyone to them. If you say: How does this meaning stand when you have made the punishment a cause for the sending and not the saying, due to the entry of the prohibitive particle upon it instead? I say: The punishment is the cause for the saying, and it is the cause of the cause, so I made it a cause and conjoined the original cause to it with the 'fa' of causation.' Ahmad said: 'And this is like His saying: 'So that one of them may go astray and the other may remind her.' The secret in making the cause of the cause a cause, and in conjoining the original cause to it, are two matters. One of them is that increased attention necessitates precedence, and this is the secret that Sibawayh revealed. The second is that in this arrangement there is a hint at the causality of each one of them: As for the first, it is due to its conjunction with the particle of reasoning, which is 'an', and as for the second, it is due to its conjunction with the 'fa' of causation. And this meaning cannot be engaged in except from your saying: 'So that one of them may go astray and the other may remind her,' not from the saying of the speaker: 'That one may remind the other if she goes astray.' And some grammarians would present this verse as a problem to the grammarians and to the people of the Sunnah from the theologians, saying: 'Lawla' for the people of the art indicates the impossibility of its response due to the existence of what follows it. Then what occurs after it in the verse is present, which is the punishment of those mentioned, assuming the non-sending of the messengers. And its omitted response does not occur, which is the non-sending, because it is impossible by the first. And whenever the non-sending does not occur, the sending is necessarily occurring, thus the occurrence after it becomes problematic for the people of the Sunnah, because they say: There is no injustice before the sending of the messengers, so punishment cannot be imagined assuming the non-sending, because it is an occurrence of recompense for violating the rulings of the Shari'ah. If there is no Shari'ah, then there is no violation and no punishment. And the response becomes problematic for the grammarians, because it necessitates that the non-sending of the messengers is not occurring, but what occurs after it necessitates its occurrence. Then the source of this problem is answered by assuming an omitted phrase. The original is: If not for the dislike that a calamity should befall them, then the problem is resolved for both groups. And the truth, in my view, in the response is contrary to that, and the problem arose from the fact that the grammarians did not permit the meaning of 'lawla' to say:

It indicates that what follows it exists and that its response is impossible due to it. The clarification in its meaning is that it indicates that what follows it prevents its response, which is the opposite of 'if', for its meaning is that a response is necessary for what follows it. Then the preventing factor may be present or it may be hypothetical. The verse is of the kind that assumes the existence of the preventing factor. Likewise, the necessity in 'if' may be such that one thing is necessary for two things, so negating it does not negate one of its necessities. Based on this clarification, the issue raised regarding 'if' in the saying: 'Yes, the servant is Suhayb, if he did not fear Allah, he would not disobey Him,' is resolved. Reflect on this section, for it opens up benefits for the contemplative, and Allah is the Grantor of success. Its meaning amounts to your saying: 'And if it were not for their saying this, when a calamity befell them, we would not have sent.' However, this method was chosen for a reason: that if they were not punished, for example, for their disbelief, having witnessed what compelled them to certain knowledge, they would not have said, 'If only You had sent us a messenger.' Rather, the reason for their saying this is solely the punishment, not regret for what they missed of faith in their Creator. In this, there is strong testimony to the firmness and deep-rootedness of their disbelief, which is evident, as His saying: 'And if they were returned, they would return to what they were forbidden.' Since most actions are performed by hands, every action is expressed by the exertion of hands and the advancement of hands, even if it is from the actions of the hearts. This is an expansion in speech, making the lesser dependent on the greater and prioritizing the greater over the lesser.