Tafsir of Hud 11:71

"And his wife" — Sarah, the daughter of Haran, son of Nahor, who was his cousin — "was standing" in service, as Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Mujahid. Their women did not use to observe veiling, especially the elderly among them, and she, may Allah be pleased with her, was an elderly woman. Wahb said: She was standing behind a curtain, listening to their conversation. Some inferred from this that the veiling of women was mandatory, but the obvious view is that this was not the case, due to the late revelation of the verse of Hijab. It is permissible to say that standing behind a curtain was incidental. It is reported from Ibn Ishaq that she was standing and praying. Al-Mubarrad said: She was standing in search of a child, but this contradicts the well-known usage. Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from al-Mughirah, saying: In the codex of Ibn Mas'ud, it reads: "And his wife was standing while he was sitting." In al-Kashshaf, it is written: "while he was sitting" instead of "while he was seated." Ibn 'Atiyyah records: "And she was standing" instead of "And his wife was standing," which contains a pronoun without a preceding mention; if this is authentic, it is because reliance is placed on the understanding of the referent from the context of the speech. The sentence is either in the position of a state (hal) for the pronoun in "they said," or it is a new sentence intended to inform.

"So she laughed" — out of the well-known laughter. To many, the intended meaning is its literal reality. For some, this was joy at the removal of fear from Abraham, peace be upon him; for women cannot restrain themselves like men when joy overcomes them. It is said: It was joy at the destruction of the people of corruption. It is also said: It was a combination of both. Ibn al-Anbari said: Their laughter was joy at the correctness of her suspicion, for she used to say to Abraham: "Include Lot with you, for I see that the punishment is about to descend upon his people." Lot was his nephew; some say his maternal cousin, and others say he was Sarah’s brother. It was mentioned just now that she was the cousin of Abraham, peace be upon him.

From Ibn Abbas: She laughed at the intensity of Abraham’s fear, while he was among his family and servants, and those who came to him were three, while she knew he usually conquered forty, or it is said, a hundred. Qatadah said: This was due to the negligence of the people of Lot and the proximity of the punishment to them. Al-Suddi said: She laughed at the guests’ refraining from eating, and she said: "How strange are our guests; we serve them ourselves, yet they do not eat our food." Wahb ibn Munabbih said—and it is also narrated from Ibn Abbas—that she laughed at the glad tidings of Isaac, and there is a transposition (precedence and postponement) in the speech regarding that. It is also said: She laughed at the miracle previously narrated from Gabriel, peace be upon him.

Perhaps the most apparent view is what we mentioned first from some. Some scholars went to the view that "laughter" here means smiling, and it is used for pure joy, such as "bright and laughing," and from this is their saying: "A garden is laughing." 'Abd ibn Humayd, Abu al-Shaykh, and others recorded from Ibn Abbas that "laughed" means "menstruated." This is also narrated from Ibn 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, Mujahid, and 'Ikrimah. They also say: "The hare laughed" in this sense. Abu 'Ubaydah, Abu 'Ubayd, and al-Farra' denied the occurrence of "laughing" in the sense of "menstruating," but the majority of linguists affirmed it, citing for it his [the poet's] saying: The laughing of the hares upon the plateau / is like the blood of the interior on the day of the encounter. And his saying: "And my time with Salma... [was] laughing in her youth / her breasts did not deserve to be dreamt of." And his saying: "I surely come to the wedding feast at the time of her purity / and I abandon her for a day when she is 'laughing'." The one who affirms takes precedence over the one who denies, and he who has memorized is a proof against him who has not. Yes, Ibn al-Munir said: Carrying it to this meaning here is made remote by her saying: "Shall I bear a child while I am an old woman?" etc. For if the menstruation had occurred before the glad tidings, she would not have been amazed, as there is no wonder in the pregnancy of one who menstruates, and menstruation in custom is a standard for the possibility of pregnancy. This was countered by saying that menstruation at an unusual time also confirms the amazement, and that she may have thought her blood was not menstruation but rather istihada (dysfunctional uterine bleeding), which is why she was amazed.

Muhammad ibn Ziyad al-A'rabi, one of the reciters of Mecca, recited "fadhahikat" with a fatha on the ha'. al-Mahdawi claimed that this is unknown and that "dahika" (with a kasra) is what is known, its verbal noun being "dahkan" or "dahkan" with a quiescent ha' and a fatha or kasra on the dad, and "dahkan" with a kasra on the ha' with a fatha or kasra on the dad. It is apparent that these are the verbal nouns of "dahika" regardless of the meaning. It is understood from Majma' al-Bayan that the verbal noun of "dahika" in the sense of "menstruated" is specifically "dahkan" with a fatha on the dad and a quiescent ha'. We have not seen this specification elsewhere. From some, it is said that the fatha on the ha' in the past tense is peculiar to "dahika" meaning "menstruated," and based on this, the mentioned reading supports the interpretation of "fadhahikat" in the reading of the majority as "menstruated."

(71) "And We gave her good tidings of Isaac" — it is said: We followed her joy with a greater joy through the tongues of Our messengers — "and after Isaac, Jacob."

This is in the accusative case (nasb), which is the reading of Ibn 'Amir, Hamzah, Hafs, and Zayd ibn 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with them, on the basis that it is in the accusative by the estimation of a verb which the speech indicates, i.e., "And We gifted her, after Isaac, Jacob." Abu 'Ali supported this, and some objected that in that case, what is mentioned would not be included under the "glad tidings." This was refuted by saying that mentioning this gift before the existence of the gifted is in itself a form of glad tidings. It is also said: It is conjoined to the place of "bi-Is-haq" (with Isaac) because it is in the place of an accusative. It was objected that conjunction to the "place" only succeeds if the appearance of the place is permissible in eloquent speech, as in his [the poet's] saying: And we are not [made] of mountains nor [of] iron. The "ba" (preposition) of the thing promised does not fall away in eloquent speech. Some claimed that the conjunction is to "bi-Is-haq" based on the assumption of its accusative, as if it meant "We gave her Isaac," so it would be like his saying: "They are ill-omened; they do not reform the tribe / nor a she-camel except by the disappearance of its raven," except that he imagined the existence of the "ba" in the conjoined-to item, contrary to what is in the noble verse. Such a thing is called "conjunction of illusion." It is not hidden how ugly such a designation is here, especially since this is anomalous and should not be used as a derivation when others exist. This is how al-Zamakhshari was criticized when he said: "It is read in the accusative as if it were said: 'We gifted her Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob,' after the fashion of his [the poet's] saying: 'Ill-omened...'" The criticism was because that is the appearance of it. In al-Kashf, he [al-Zamakhshari] said he meant it is a semantic conjunction, and the like is common and prevalent in conjunction and ellipsis under the condition of explanation and others, and he only likened it to his saying "nor a crier..." to alert that although it is remote, since it occurs, this is more worthy. The purpose of the comparison is that what is not present in the wording is treated as if it were present and made operative. It is not hidden that this is contrary to what is immediately understood from his expression.

It is said: It is conjoined to the word "Is-haq," and its fatha is for the genitive case because it is diptote (ghayr munsarif) due to being a proper noun and non-Arabic. Based on this, its inclusion in the glad tidings is apparent. However, it was objected that this requires separating between the deputy of the genitive and its genitive, which is more remote than the separation between the preposition and its genitive. In al-Bahr, it is stated that whoever holds that it is conjoined to what was mentioned, his view is weak, because it is not permissible to separate with an adverb or a prepositional phrase between the conjunction and its genitive object. Thus, one cannot say: "I passed by Zayd today, and yesterday by 'Amr." If it appears in poetry, it is permissible, but if the conjoined is accusative or nominative, there is a difference of opinion regarding the permissibility, such as: "Zayd stood and today 'Amr," and "I hit Zayd and today 'Amr."

The two Haram-residents [Meccan and Medinan], the two grammarians [Basran and Kufan], and Abu Bakr read "Ya'qub" with the nominative case (raf') as an incipient (mubtada'), and "wa min wara'i" (and after) as the predicate, as if it were said: "And after Isaac, Jacob is present, existing, or born." Al-Nahhas said: The sentence is a state (hal) included in the glad tidings, i.e., "We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, with Jacob connected to him." Abu 'Ali permitted it to be elevated by the prepositional phrase, as al-Akhfash also permitted. It is said that it is permissible according to the school of the majority as well, because it relies on the owner of the state. This was countered by saying it is a delusion, because if a prepositional phrase is a state, it is not permissible to accompany it with "wa" (the waw of state), so let this be considered. Al-Nahhas also permitted it to be the subject of a hidden verb, the estimation being: "And there shall occur, after Isaac, Jacob."

Ibn 'Atiyyah said: According to this, it is not included in the glad tidings. The answer to this has already been passed. "Wara'a" here means "behind," and it is with this that al-Raghib and others interpreted it here, and it is a narration from Ibn Abbas. In another narration from him, it is interpreted as "son of the son," which is one of its meanings as in al-Sihah and al-Qamus. al-Sha'bi said this, and Abu 'Ubaydah chose it. It was considered problematic because Jacob is the son of Isaac, peace be upon him, from his loins, not the son of his son. To refute this, al-Zamakhshari said—in what is narrated from him—that the aspect of this interpretation is that "Jacob" is meant to be his children, as it is said "Hashim" and his children are intended. So it is as if it were said: "From the children of the children of Isaac, the children of Jacob," and this includes the glad tidings of Jacob by way of the first [the elder]. It is said: The aspect of this is that the son of Isaac was called "behind" in relation to her, i.e., behind her from Isaac, as if they gave her glad tidings that she would live until she saw the son of her son, or that a son would be born to her son. It is said: This is closer, and what is narrated from al-Zamakhshari is more apparent. What is relied upon is its interpretation in the sense of "behind," for in both aspects there is an affectation that is not hidden. Both names are likely to occur in the glad tidings, as in the saying of the Almighty: "We give you glad tidings of a boy whose name is Yahya," and this is the more apparent.

It is narrated from al-Suddi: It is possible she was given glad tidings of a child and the child of a child without naming, then they were named after birth. Directing the glad tidings to her, even though the basis for that is Abraham, peace be upon him—and it has been directed to him in the verses of Al-Hijr and Al-Dhariyat—is to indicate that what was promised would be from both of them, and because she was barren, eager for a child, and had wished for it when Hajar gave birth to Ishmael, peace be upon him.