وَقَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا۟ لَوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ مَا عَبَدْنَا مِن دُونِهِۦ مِن شَىْءٍ نَّحْنُ وَلَآ ءَابَآؤُنَا وَلَا حَرَّمْنَا مِن دُونِهِۦ مِن شَىْءٍ كَذَٰلِكَ فَعَلَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَهَلْ عَلَى ٱلرُّسُلِ إِلَّا ٱلْبَلَٰغُ ٱلْمُبِينُ
Wa qāla'lladhīna ashrakū law shāʾa'llāhu mā ʿabadnā min dūnihī min shayʾin naḥnu wa lā ābāʾunā wa lā ḥarramnā min dūnihī min shayʾ, ka-dhālika faʿala'lladhīna min qablihim, fa-hal ʿala'l-rusuli illa'l-balāghu'l-mubīn
"Those who associate said: 'Had God willed, neither we nor our fathers would have served anything besides Him, nor would we have forbidden anything without Him.' Those before them did the same. Is anything laid upon the messengers but plain delivery?"
In the ninth verse the text had said: wa law shāʾa la-hadākum ajmaʿīn — "had He willed He would have guided you all."
In the thirty-fifth the same sentence, in the same form, comes from the mouth of the addressee: law shāʾa'llāhu mā ʿabadnā min dūnihī min shayʾ.
This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and it was pointed to at the ninth verse. The comparison can now be made:
| Verse 9 | Verse 35 | |
|---|---|---|
| Who says it | The text | Those who associate |
| The form | Law shāʾa la-hadākum | Law shāʾa'llāhu mā ʿabadnā |
| Its direction | Positive — guidance could have been given | Negative — we would not have served |
| Its work | A piece of knowledge | A defence |
| What comes after it | The enumeration continues | Fa-hal ʿala'l-rusuli illa'l-balāgh |
The answer is this: fa-hal ʿala'l-rusuli illa'l-balāghu'l-mubīn — "is anything laid upon the messengers but plain delivery?"
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the answer itself: the verse does not say that the sentence "had God willed" is untrue — indeed it said something like it itself in the ninth verse. What it says is that the sentence cannot be used as a means of unloading responsibility.
The same defence occurs word for word at al-Zukhruf, 43/20 (law shāʾa'l-raḥmānu mā ʿabadnāhum) and was treated there: it was recorded that the claim is framed without knowledge (in hum illā yakhruṣūn). I rely on that treatment.
This construction was treated at many places in this commentary: at al-Aḥqāf, 46/35 (balāgh), at Fāṭir, 35/19-23, at al-Zumar, 39/41 (wa mā anta ʿalayhim bi-wakīl), at al-Rūm, 30/52-53. I do not repeat it here.
What belongs here is that the construction has a second occurrence in the sūra: it will come once more in the eighty-second verse (fa-innamā ʿalayka'l-balāghu'l-mubīn). This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and both stand immediately after an objection.