and obeyed his devil.” Ibn Zayd said: “His desires lay with those people,” meaning those who fought Moses and his people. Ibn Yamān said: “He followed his wife, for she was the one who induced him to do what he did.”

If it is objected: Introducing a contrast with “but” requires affirming what was previously negated, or negating what was previously affirmed. For example, one says: “Had I willed, I would have given it to him, but I did not give it to him,” or: “Had I willed, I would not have done such-and-such, but I did it.” The contrast would therefore require: “Had We willed, We would have raised him through them, but We did not will it,” or “We did not raise him.” How, then, does “But he clung to the earth” provide a contrast to “Had We willed, We would have raised him through them”?

The answer is: This is an instance of speech in which meaning takes precedence over the wording. The implication of His words, “Had We willed, We would have raised him through them,” is that the man did not pursue the means by which the signs would have raised him: preferring Allah and His pleasure over his own desires. Instead, he preferred this world, clung to the earth, and followed his own desires.

Al-Zamakhsharī said: “The meaning is: ‘Had he adhered to Our signs, We would have raised him through them.’ Willing is mentioned, but what is intended is that which it follows and from which it results, as though it were said: ‘Had he adhered to them, We would have raised him through them.’” He continued:

“Do you not see His words, ‘But he clung’? Willing is contrasted with his clinging, which is his own action. Thus, ‘Had We willed’ must refer in meaning to an action of his. Had the wording been intended in its apparent sense, it would necessarily have read: ‘Had We willed, We would have raised him, but We did not will it.’”

Here al-Zamakhsharī displays a trait «1» we recognize in a Qadarī who denies Allah’s all-encompassing will, going to far-fetched lengths to impose a Mu‘tazilī, Qadarī meaning on Allah’s words.

How far removed are His words, “Had We willed,” from “Had he adhered to them”! Moreover, if adherence to them depends upon Allah’s will—as indeed it does—then his foundational premise collapses.

His claim that Allah’s will follows adherence to the signs is among the most corrupt and false statements. Rather, the man’s adherence to His signs follows Allah’s will. Allah’s will—glory be to Him—is followed; it does not follow. It is a cause