Tafsir of Hud 11:111

"Wa inna kullan": The tanwin (nunation) is a substitute for the mudaf ilayh (possessive genitive), as is known among some grammarians regarding the tanwin of kull. It is also said to be a tanwin of tamkin (definiteness), but this does not prevent the estimation of the mudaf ilayh as well—meaning, "And every one of those who differ, both the believers and the disbelievers." Muqatil said it refers specifically to the disbelievers of this nation.

"Lamma layuwaffiyannahum rabbuka a’malahum": That is, the recompense for their deeds. The lam in layuwaffiyannahum is the lam of an oath, serving as the answer to an implied oath; that is, "By Allah, He will surely recompense them."

Lamma with a shaddah (doubled mim), along with the shaddah on inna, is the reading of Ibn Amir, Hamza, Hafs, and Abu Ja'far. Deriving the grammar of this verse according to this reading is problematic, to the extent that al-Mubarrad claimed it was a grammatical error (lahn). This is an act of great boldness, given the tawatur (consecutive transmission) of the reading. It would have been better had he said, like al-Kisa'i: "I do not know the path of this reading."

They differed in their explanation. Abu Ubaydah said the root of lamma here is lam with tanwin (as it has been read that way), then it was constructed as fa’la, derived from lamamtu (I gathered/collected). It should not be argued that it is lamma with tanwin paused upon with an alif, treating the connection like a pause, because—as Abu Hayyan stated—this only occurs in poetry. This derivation is considered remote because there is no known construction of fa’la from lam, and because if one were to perform imalah (inclination) on fa’la, those who allow it would have to imalah it, yet no one has done so by consensus. Furthermore, the standard orthography would require it to be written with a ya (i.e., lamya), but it was not. The parsing of the verse according to this view will be known from what follows, if Allah wills.

It is said that it is lamma (lightly voiced) that was doubled during a pause, and then the connection was treated like a pause. In that case, the parsing is what you will also learn, if Allah wills, though this is very far-fetched.

It is also said that it means illa (except), and illa can be used as an za'idah (expletive/supplementary particle), as in the saying: "I swore an oath without any deviation; the oath of a man except that he is sinless." So, it is not improbable that lamma, which carries its meaning, is also za'idah. However, this is a weak view built upon a weak view regarding illa.

Al-Mazini held that inna (with shaddah) here is negative, and lamma means illa and is not za'idah. This is incorrect because it is not established that the negative inna can be doubled, and the negative does not govern the accusative kull.

Al-Hufi said that inna remains on its literal meaning, and lamma means illa, as in your saying, "I adjure you by Allah illa (except) you do [so-and-so]." Abu Ali weakened this by stating that this lamma never parts from the oath preceding it, though it is not as he mentioned, for it may part. Rather, what weakens—or invalidates—it, as Abu Hayyan said, is that the position is not one where illa can enter. Do you not see that if you said, "Verily, Zayd illa I hit," it would not be an Arabic construction?

It is said that the origin of lamma is li-man-ma; it is composed of the lam, the man (relative or descriptive), and the ma (expletive). The nun was changed to a mim for assimilation (idgham), resulting in three mims, so the middle one was deleted, and then the identical sounds were assimilated. Al-Mahdawi held this view. Al-Farra, followed by a group including Nasr al-Shirazi, said its origin is li-man-ma with the preposition min and the relative ma. Under both interpretations, it applies to rational beings. This origin has appeared in the verse: "And I am li-man-ma (from he who) strikes the ram a blow... upon his head, the tongue is struck from the mouth."

On these two views, the lam is said to be muwati'ah (preparatory) for the oath. It is reported from al-Farisi—who disagrees with what is famous among grammarians—that the muwati'ah is the one entering upon a conditional clause preceding the answer of an oath mentioned explicitly or implicitly, to signal that the answer belongs to it, like "By Allah, la-in you honor me, I will honor you." It is not that which it entered upon that is the answer to the oath, but what comes after it. His view was like that of al-Akhfash: it is not obligatory for it to enter upon the condition; rather, it is that which indicates that what follows it is fit to be the answer to an oath absolutely.

Others said it is the lam entering upon the predicate of inna, and man as a relative or descriptive, where the first of the two interpretations is the predicate, and the oath and its answer are the silah (relative clause) or the attribute. The meaning is: "And verily, every one of those—or of the creation—by Allah, He will surely recompense them." On the second view, man and its prepositional phrase are in the position of the predicate, and the oath sentence and its answer are also the silah or attribute. The meaning is: "And verily, every one of those who—or of the creation—by Allah, He will surely recompense them."

Al-Bahr al-Muhit said: "These two views are very weak. It is not known to delete the nun of min, nor the nun of the preposition min, except in poetry when meeting the lam of definition (the definite article) or its likeness when not assimilated, like their saying mil-mal (from the wealth)." In the Tafsir of the Qadi and others, it is stated that the origin is li-man-ma with the preposition min, the nun was changed to mim, three mims gathered, and the first was deleted. This also has its issues, for the claim that this mim was deleted due to heaviness is not proven. Al-Dimamini said: "How can the justification of deletion due to heaviness hold when eight mims gathered in His saying, 'Upon nations mim-man (from those) who are with you'?"

Al-Farra cited, in support of his view, the poet's saying: "And I am lamma (from he who) causes his face to turn away, when he is wearied by the path, he turns away."

Some claimed that lamma means hina (when), and there is an omission in the speech, i.e., "When they did what they did..." Omission in speech is frequent, like the saying: "If you say 'march on,' inna Layla... mayhaps there passed before Layla..." He meant "mayhaps she will meet me or reach me." This, as you can see, is weak.

Abu Hayyan said, after mentioning that these derivations are such that the dignity of the Revelation is exalted above them: "It had occurred to me a view consistent with the rules of Arabic, without affectation, which is that this lamma is the jazimah (jussive), and its verb has been deleted due to the meaning indicating it, just as they deleted it in their saying, 'I approached the city wa-lamma (and not yet),' meaning 'and not yet have I entered it.' The estimation here is: 'And every one lamma (not yet) is deprived of the reward of his deeds.' This is indicated by 'Your Lord will surely recompense them their deeds.' I believed I was not preceded in this until I verified that Ibn al-Hajib succeeded in this. I saw in the book al-Tahrir a report from him stating: 'This lamma is the jazimah, its verb deleted because of the indication. The deletion is established in their saying: 'I went out wa-lamma,' 'I traveled wa-lamma,' and its like, which is permissible and eloquent.' The estimation would be 'not yet have they been left' or 'not yet have they been neglected,' indicated by the detailing of those who are gathered and their recompense." Then he said: "I know of no view more similar to this, even if people find it strange because the like has not occurred in the Quran."

It is not hidden from you that it is better to estimate: "Not yet have they been recompensed their deeds"—that is, until now they have not been fully recompensed, and they will be recompensed. Ibn Hisham opted for this, given what is required by the previous estimations—as it is famous regarding the meaning of lamma that they will be deprived of the reward of their deeds, or that they will be left and neglected, and that is far from what is intended. This is the obvious view, and this is the aspect of the consideration that Ibn Hisham meant when he said, objecting to Ibn al-Hajib: "There is consideration in this estimation."

Al-Jalabi said: "Its method is that the indicator of the deleted element is far preceding it, and the deleted element is not from the wording of what is said to be the indicator. It is not that." Then, the preferred view for many commentators is what al-Farra went to.

Nafi' and Ibn Kathir read wa-in-na with light nun (in), and lamma with shaddah. This reading is derived by considering in as functioning (like inna), even if lightened, in consideration of the origin of its function, which is its resemblance to the verb. The disappearance of the phonetic resemblance does no harm. The Basrians went to this. Abu Hayyan mentioned that their school allows its functioning when lightened, but rarely, unless with a pronoun; it is not permissible unless it occurs in poetry. He reported from Sibawayh that he said: "A trustworthy person informed me that he heard some of the Arabs say: In-a ‘amran la-munṭaliq (Verily, Amr is departing)."

Some grammarians claimed that when the broken (kasra) inna is lightened, it does not function, and they interpreted the verse by making kullan accusative by an implied verb, i.e., "I see every one, for example," but this is nothing. This is stated in al-Bahr as the school of the Kufans. In al-Irtishaf, it is said that the Kufans do not permit the lightening of the broken inna either as idle or functioning. Some mentioned the like, and that what the Basrians consider lightened, the Kufans consider negative. Al-Kisa'i excepted himself from them, as he agreed with the Basrians, and their school in this is the truth. Kullan is its noun, the lam is the one entering the predicate of inna, and ma is relative—the predicate of inna—and the oath sentence and its answer is the silah. Al-Farra went to this, and al-Tabari chose his school regarding the lam, and regarding ma being an indefinite noun qualified, with the sentence being its attribute, i.e., "Verily every one is a creation—or a group—being recompensed his deed." Abu Ali chose in the lam what they chose, and made the oath sentence the predicate, and ma as za'idah between the two lams, as its addition has been known in more than one place.

Abu Bakr narrated from 'Asim the lightening of inna and the doubling of lamma. Al-Kisa'i and Abu 'Amr read the opposite. The derivation of these two readings is not hidden to one who has comprehended what was mentioned in the derivation of the two readings before.

Ubayy and al-Hasan—with a difference reported from him—and Aban ibn Taghlib read wa-an with lightening, kullan in the nominative (kullun), and lamma with shaddah. It is derived by considering an as negative, kullun as a subject (mubtada'), and the oath sentence and its answer as its predicate, and lamma as meaning illa, i.e., "There is no one except that I swear by Allah, He will surely recompense them." Abu Ubaydah denied the arrival of lamma in the meaning of illa in the speech of the Arabs. Al-Farra said: "If he meant its arrival here in this meaning, we do not know it. The Arabs have said with the oath by Allah: lamma qumta ‘anna (Except you stood/departed from us), and illa qumta ‘anna. But otherwise, we have not heard its arrival in the meaning of illa, neither in prose nor poetry." The one who says so would be compelled to permit "The people stood lamma Zayd" in the meaning of "except Zayd." There is no attention to be paid to their denial. The consecutive reading in "And every one lamma (except that) they are gathered before Us," and "And there is no soul lamma (except that) it has a guardian over it," proves what they denied.

Al-Khalil, Sibawayh, and al-Kisa'i have explicitly stated that this occurs, and one who has memorized is proof against one who has not. The fact that the Arabs specialized its arrival in this way to some constructions does no harm; how many things are restricted to a construction to the exclusion of what resembles it.

Al-Zuhri and Sulayman ibn Arqam read wa-inna kullan lamma with the doubling of the mim and the tanwin. They did not address in the transmission from them the doubling of inna nor its lightening. In this reading, it is a verbal noun (masdar) from their saying lamamtu al-shay' (I gathered the thing), as passed. Its accusative case is as a state (hal) from the pronoun of the object in layuwaffiyannahum according to Abu al-Baqa', but he weakened it. Abu Ali said: "It is an attribute to kull, and a mudaf is estimated to an indefinite noun so that its being described by an indefinite is valid, and the verbal noun then has the meaning of the passive participle." Al-Zamakhshari mentioned in the meaning of the verse according to this reading that it is "And every one gathered," meaning assembled, as if it were said: "And every one together," like His saying, "The angels prostrated, all of them together." Al-Tayyibi considered this a leaning towards the opinion of emphasis (tawkid).

Ibn Jinni said: "It is in the accusative by layuwaffiyannahum, like their saying 'standing, I will surely stand'—the estimation being 'a gathering recompense of their deeds (He will surely recompense them)'." The predicate of inna in that is the oath sentence and its answer. Abu Hatim narrated that in the codex of Ubayy it is "And min (of) every one illa (except) He will surely recompense them," which is derived by considering an as negative and min as za'idah.

Al-A'mash read the like, except he omitted min, which is the reading of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him). The aspect is clear. It is said that this sentence has included several confirmers—from inna, the lam, the ma if it is za'idah, the oath, and the nun of emphasis—and this is for the sake of exaggeration in the promise to the obedient and the threat to the disobedient.

"Innahu bima ya'maluna khabir" (111): That is, He, glory be to Him, regarding what is done by every individual of those who differ—of good and evil—is All-Knowing in the most perfect way, such that nothing of its greatness or its subtleties is hidden from Him. It is said the sentence is a confirmation of the promise and the threat; for since He, glory be to Him, is knowledgeable of all known things, He is knowledgeable of the measures of obedience and sins, and what each individual requires in terms of recompense according to the requirements of wisdom. In that case, the recompensing of every possessor of a right with his right comes to pass—if good, then good; and if evil, then evil. Ibn Hurmuz read "ta'maluna" (you do) as an iltifat (shift) from the third person to the second person address.