Tafsir of Hud 11:100

(That) is a demonstrative pronoun referring to what has been recounted of the tidings of the nations, and it is remote in consideration of its having passed, or in consideration of what has been said elsewhere. The address is to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it is the subject, whose predicate is (from the tidings of the cities)—those destroyed by what their inhabitants’ hands committed. The definite article 'al' (in al-qura) is for a preceding reference, by implication, to the mention of their masters. [The meaning is:] "We recount it to you, tidings after tidings," meaning that this narrative is, among the tidings of the cities, recounted to you. It is also permitted that (from the tidings) be in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (hal), and this then serves as the predicate. The reverse is also permitted.

(Of them), that is, of those cities, (is standing and harvested). (Meaning: And of them is harvested.) The conjunction is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, which is what the meaning requires, as is not hidden. That which remained of them has been likened to crops standing on their stalks, and that which perished and vanished to the harvested crop. The meaning is: "Some of them remain, and some have perished." This is what has been narrated from Qatadah, and similar to it is what has been narrated from al-Dahhak: (standing), [meaning] not sunken into the earth; (and harvested), [meaning] it has been sunken. It has been said: (and harvested) [derived from] the crop, which occurs in their speech with the meaning of annihilation, as in his saying: "And people, regarding the division of death among them, are like a crop; of which some is standing and some is harvested." The form fa’il is in the sense of the passive participle (maf’ul), meaning "mown," as al-Akhfash said. Its plural is hasada and hasad, like marda and marad.

The sentence (of them is standing), etc., is a new sentence—either grammatically, to incite consideration of that and to learn a lesson from it; or explanatorily, as if it were asked, "What is their state?" and thus it was answered. Abu al-Baqa’ said: It is in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the pronoun in "We recount it to you" (naqussuhu). al-Tibi permitted it to be a circumstantial qualifier for the cities. The author of al-Kashf claimed that making it a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in "We recount it to you" is corrupt in phrasing and meaning, and likewise for the cities. In the al-Hawashi al-Shihabiyyah, he intended by the "phrasal corruption" in the first case that the sentence lacks the waw and a pronoun [linking it to the antecedent], and in the second, that the circumstantial qualifier appears in a form that is not conventional for a genitive construction. As for the "meaning-based corruption," it implies that this state is not part of what is being recounted, but rather an external circumstance—which is not intended—and it is not permissible to make what follows it the beginning of that which is being recounted, for that also contains phrasal corruption.

Some have claimed that he intended by the first "corruption" in the first case what was mentioned, and in the second case, the occurrence of a nominal sentence as a circumstantial qualifier with only a pronoun, and that by the pronoun, [the state of] being recounted is restricted to that condition; for the state of being recounted is established for them and for the tidings even at the time when some of them are still standing. He hit the mark in some and missed in others. al-Jalabi addressed the absence of the waw and the pronoun by arguing that the intent of the pronoun is connection, which is achieved by the connection of that [sentence] to the referent of the possessor of the state (dhu al-hal), which is "the cities." The meaning is: "We recount to you some of the tidings of the cities, and they are in this state [while] you witness the action of Allah the Exalted upon them." This is countered by the fact that relying on what was mentioned for the connection, despite its obscurity, is a position unique to al-Akhfash; he did not mention it regarding the circumstantial qualifier, but only regarding the predicate of the subject. Abu Hayyan's statement—that the circumstantial qualifier is more eloquent in warning and providing an example for those present—is of no benefit alongside what you have heard. The truth is that there is no argument for what Abu al-Baqa’ mentioned that can be relied upon, other than sheer oversight.