In 3:93 we read:
۞ كُلُّ ٱلطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّۭا لِّبَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِۦ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةُ ۗ قُلْ فَأْتُوا۟ بِٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ فَٱتْلُوهَآ إِن كُنتُمْ صَـٰدِقِينَ ٩٣
When I read it, based on the particular literary style of the Quran, and based on the
ان کنتم صادقین I expect the first part not to be a piece of factual information but to be a claim made by Jews, yet the subject is hidden (this is common in the Quran). I understand the meaning to be:
(Jews claimed) every food was permissible before Torah (while it was not so in fact, and they also had prohibited food too. In fact, Allah prohibits bad food for all nations.). Tell them: Read Torah to support your claim if you are right.
The reason I understand it like that is the challenge. It says ان کنتم صادقین, but nobody has said anything yet. That's why I assume the first part to be the claim of the Jews and the subject to be hidden.
However, in almost all translations it seems that they have translated the first part as a piece of factual information, and the second part as a challenge for refuting this information, like:
(The truth is) every food was permissible before Torah, (if you claim that it's otherwise and there were food prohibitions for you too like for Muslims) then bring the Torah forward and read it
But based on the Kahf story [18:25-26], it seems to me that it's a literary style of the Quran. I think sometimes Quran presents the opponents' claims first, without quoting them, then challenges them, or corrects them.
What linguistic or general reasoning (semantic or pragmatic) is in this verse for the interpretation or translation of the first part as factual information and not the claim of Jews?
ان کنتم صادقینat the end? Please search all of the places where this phrase is used.
ان کنتم صادقینwhere there is no claim of any kind?