"So when the fear had left Abraham..."

Meaning: the fright and terror. The poet says: "If a tremor of fear (al-raw‘) seizes her, she clings to the shoulder of a leader who is bold in the face of terror." The verb is ra‘a, and it is transitive, as in the saying: "Nothing startled me (ra‘ani) except the caravan of its people in the middle of the abode, pecking at the seeds of the bitter colocynth." Al-raw‘ (with a damma on the ra) is the soul, which is the locus of fear.

The fa (in falamma) is for connecting some of the states of Abraham—peace be upon him—to others, following their separation, using something that is not foreign in any way but rather has an entry point into the context and the sequence. The agent is delayed after the prepositional phrase because it is the focus of the benefit. The meaning is: when that which he had felt of fear from them departed from him, and his soul was calmed by coming to know the truth of their affair, "and the good tidings had come to him, he began to argue with Us concerning the people of Lot."

Meaning: he argued with Our messengers regarding their state and their affair. Thus, there is a metaphor in the attribution (majaz fi al-isnad). His—peace be upon him—argumentation with them was what Allah—the Glorified—recounted in His saying in Surah Al-Ankabut: "And when Our messengers came to Abraham with the good tidings, they said, 'Indeed, we are going to destroy the people of this town. Indeed, its people have been wrongdoers.' He said, 'Indeed, within it is Lot.'" Thus, his saying—peace be upon him—"Indeed, within it is Lot" is an argument. It is considered an argument because its conclusion, as has been said, is: How can a town be destroyed when it contains one who is a believer, not deserving of punishment? Therefore, they answered him by saying: "We are more knowing of who is within it; we will surely save him and his family, except his wife." This amount of speech is what is certain.

It is reported from Hudhayfah that when they said to him—peace be upon him—what they said, he replied: "What do you think, if there were fifty Muslims among them, would you destroy them?" They said: "No." He said: "Then thirty?" They said: "No." He said: "Then twenty?" They said: "No." He said: "If there were ten or five—the narrator doubted—in them?" They said: "No." He said: "What do you think, if there were one man of the Muslims among them, would you destroy them?" They said: "No." It was then that he said: "Indeed, within it is Lot." So they answered him as they did. Several accounts of this nature are reported, and Allah the Exalted knows best their authenticity.

Some interpreted the argumentation as seeking intercession. It is also said: it is his questioning about the punishment—is it inevitably befalling them, or is it by way of frightening them so that they might return to obedience?

Regardless, yujadiluna (he argues with us) is the answer to lamma (when). Although the apparent form is jadala (past tense), he used the present tense to narrate the past event and present its image. It is said that lamma transforms the present into the past, just as an transforms the past into the future. It is also said that the answer is omitted. This sentence is in the position of a state (hal) from its agent; that is, he began or came forward arguing with us. Sibawayh preferred this view, but he combined it with the narration of the state, because he said: "He did not mention akhadha (began) in the speech, because when speech is intended to narrate a past state, akhadha and aqbala are implied within it; for when you say 'Zayd stood,' it denotes a past action, and when you say 'Zayd began to stand,' it denotes a continuous state." Because of this, akhadha and aqbala are mentioned. Al-Zamakhshari’s practice indicates that these are two different views. Its investigation, as found in al-Kashf, is that if the continuity of the past is intended, it is as Al-Zamakhshari mentioned; if mere depiction is intended, it is not. It is also said the answer is omitted, and the sentence is a new beginning, either grammatically or rhetorically, and it acts as evidence for it; the estimation being: "He dared to address us, or he became astute in arguing with us and said such and such." This was chosen in al-Kashshaf.

It is also said that this sentence, as well as the one preceding it, is in the position of a state (hal) from Abraham, either in synonymy or inclusion. The answer to lamma we said is estimated before: "O Abraham, give this up." The closest of these views is the first one.

If "the good tidings" is interpreted as their saying: "Fear not," then the causality of the departure of fear and the arrival of joy for the argumentation is clear. But if it is interpreted as the good tidings of the child, as Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded from Qatadah (and a group chose this), or as that which encompasses both, then perhaps its causality is because it provides an increase in the tranquility of his heart—peace be upon him—regarding his safety and the safety of all his people. This is what our master, the Shaykh al-Islam, said.

Then he said: If it is said that what is apparent from this speech is that Abraham—peace be upon him—knew that they were sent to destroy the people of Lot before the fear left him, but he was unable to argue with them regarding them because of his preoccupation with his own affair, then "When the fear had left him," he became free for them. However, the departure of fear only occurs before knowing that, because of His saying—the Exalted: "They said, 'Fear not, indeed we have been sent to the people of Lot.'"

We reply: Lot—peace be upon him—was on the law of Abraham—peace be upon him—and his people were bound by it. So when he saw from the angels—peace be upon them—what he saw, he feared for himself and for all his community, among whom were the people of Lot. There is no doubt that this fear preceded their saying: "Fear not." As for that which he knew—peace be upon him—after the prohibition, it is the specificity of the people of Lot for destruction, not that they fall under the general category. Reflect upon this. It is finished.

In this [argument] is that the notion that "all of them were his community" is in the realm of prohibition. As for what he pointed out regarding the unity of the two laws, if he meant by it the unity of the fundamentals, like the unity of the law of our Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—with the law of Abraham, then it is conceded, but it does not follow from it that [all were his community]. If he meant the unity of the fundamentals and the branches, then it is not conceded. Even if it were conceded, there is hesitation regarding the necessity of all of them being his community. Moreover, if we concede all of that, a speaker might say: We concede that when he—peace be upon him—saw from the angels what he saw, a fear overcame him for himself and for all his community, including the people of Lot, but we do not concede that this fear was from knowledge that those angels were sent to destroy all included under that category, but rather from hesitation and confusion about their affair. In that case, the question is not resolved by this answer, as is not hidden to the discerning. It is as if he was commanded to reflect because of this.

It may be said: What is understood from the speech is that the argumentation took place after the realization of both matters: the departure of fear and the arrival of the good tidings. This only requires the prior knowledge that they were sent to destroy the people of Lot upon the realization of the total, and it is sufficient for that to precede the realization of the good tidings. This knowledge is derived from their saying to him: "Fear not, indeed we have been sent to the people of Lot." It is as if he—peace be upon him—did not argue after this knowledge and delayed the argumentation until the arrival of the good tidings to see what the speech of the angels—peace be upon them—would lead to, or because there was no gap of silence in between for him to argue. However, this is only valid if the news of being sent to the people of Lot preceded the good tidings of the child, and there is hesitation in that.

Some verses appear to show the priority of the good tidings over that news. Yes, it is possible to maintain the priority of the news over the good tidings and say: They informed him first, then gave him good tidings second, and then after the total of both matters was realized, he said: "What is your business, O messengers?" It is also said that it means asking about the state of the punishment—is it inevitably befalling them, or is it by way of frightening them so that they might return to belief? Interpreting the argumentation this way, as passed from some, is valid. Reflect upon that, and Allah—the Exalted—will take charge of your guidance.