Tafsir of Hud 11:81

"They said, 'O Lut, we are the messengers of your Lord; they will never reach you [with harm or annoyance]. So set out with your family during a portion of the night, and let not any one of you look back, except your wife; indeed, she will be struck by what strikes them. Indeed, their appointment is [for] the morning. Is not the morning near?'"

The messengers said, "[They] will not reach you with harm or annoyance." So he opened the door, and they entered. Then Jibril (peace be upon him) sought permission from the Lord of Might to punish them, and He granted it to him. When they drew near, he blinded their eyes, so they departed, bumping into one another, while saying, "Escape, escape! For in the house of Lut are a people of sorcerers." In another narration, when the messengers (peace be upon them) entered, Lut (peace be upon him) locked the door behind his guests. The people came and broke down the door, at which point Jibril blinded their eyes. They said, "O Lut, you have brought us sorcerers!" and they threatened him. He felt fear within himself, thinking, "These people will go away and leave me." Thereupon, Jibril (peace be upon him) said, "Do not fear, we are the messengers of your Lord."

"Set out" (fa-asri): It is read by breaking the hamza (bi-qat') from al-isra'. Ibn Kathir and Nafi' read it with the wasl (connecting) hamza, as it appears elsewhere in the Quran, from the verb sara. It has come as sara (he traveled) and sara (he traveled). They are synonymous according to Abu Ubaidah and al-Azhari. Al-Layth states that asra and sara mean traveling at the beginning of the night, while sara means traveling at the end of it; it is not said during the day except as sara. It is not a metathesis of sara. The fa' is for ordering the isra' (night journey) following the news of their messengership, which signals the reception of commands and prohibitions from His Presence (Almighty and Exalted). The ba' is for transit or accompaniment—meaning: travel accompanied by your family in a portion of the night.

Ibn Abbas said: "In a part of it." Qatada said: "After the beginning of it has passed." It is also said: "Half of it." Another narration from the Master [Ibn Abbas] suggests: "The end of it." He cited the words of Malik bin Kinana: "And a wailing woman rising in a portion of the night / over a saddle that the tribes have humiliated."

This is not a matter of linguistic deduction. Muhammad bin Ziyad inclined toward this because of the Almighty's saying: "We saved them in the dawn" (bi-sahar). Ibn Atiyya countered this, saying it is possible that he took his family by night from the beginning of the night until they passed the city to be destroyed, and their salvation occurred at dawn. The root of qat' is a "piece" of a thing, but Ibn al-Anbari said: "This is specific to the night; one does not say 'I have a piece of cloth' (qat' min al-thawb)." Some interpreted the qat' of the night as a portion of its darkness. It is also narrated from the Master [Ibn Abbas] that he interpreted it as the blackness itself, though perhaps that is by way of simplification.

"And let not any one of you look back": This means, do not fall behind, as narrated from Ibn Abbas; or, do not look behind you, as narrated from Qatada. It is said that this is the well-known, literal meaning of iltifat (looking back). As for the first meaning, it is because it is said: "You turned him away from the matter" (laftahu 'an al-amr) if you diverted him from it. Thus, iltafata means he turned away. Falling behind is a form of turning away from the path. The Almighty says: "Have you come to us to turn us away (li-talfitana) from what we found our fathers upon?"—meaning, to divert us. So said al-Raghib.

In the Asas, it states that this is a metaphorical meaning. The prohibition in the wording is for "any one," but in meaning, it is for Lut (peace be upon him), as reported from al-Mubarrad. This is like saying to your servant, "Let no one stand," where the prohibition is apparently for "anyone," but in reality, it is for the servant not to let anyone stand. Thus the meaning here is: "Take your family, and do not let any one of them look back." It is clear that in this way, the consistency between the conjoined and the conjunction is maintained, as the first is a command for him, and the second is a prohibition for him. From this, it is known that the pronoun in minkum (among you) refers to the family.

Shihab al-Din al-Khafaji stated this explicitly, saying: "There is a subtlety here, which is that later scholars of rhetoric invented a type of rhetoric they called 'naming the genre,' where something of rhetoric is brought and its name is mentioned by way of tawriya (double entendre)... I say, by the grace of Allah, that this occurred in the Quran in this verse; for in His saying, 'Set out with your family,' the pronoun 'among you' refers to the family, so His saying 'let not look back' is an example of naming the genre. This is one of the subtle, masterful points."

The secret of the prohibition against "looking back" in the sense of falling behind is clear. As for its secret when it means looking behind, it is that they should exert themselves in traveling, for whoever looks behind cannot be free of the slightest pause, or that they should not see the punishment descending upon their people and thus feel pity for them. Some mentioned that the prohibition, and likewise the pronoun, refers to Lut (peace be upon him) and his family—meaning: let no one look back, neither you nor your family.

"Except your wife": This is in the accusative case (nasb), which is the reading of most of the seven. Ibn Kathir and Abu Amr read it in the nominative (raf'). Much has been said about this. Al-Zamakhshari said: "He (the Almighty) excluded her from His saying 'Set out with your family,' and the reading of Abdullah points to this: 'Set out with your family in a portion of the night, except your wife.' It is permissible for it to be in the accusative case from 'let no one look back' based on the principle of exception, even if the most eloquent is substitution—that is, the reading of those who read it in the nominative, substituting it for 'anyone.' There are two narrations regarding her departure with his family: it is narrated that he took her with them and was ordered that none of them look back except her, but when she heard the sound of the punishment, she looked back and said, 'O my people!'—whereupon a stone overtook her and killed her. And it is narrated that when he was ordered to take his family, he was ordered to leave her behind with her people, as her inclination was toward them, so he did not take her with him. The difference between the two readings is due to the difference between the two narrations."

Ibn al-Hajib objected to this, the gist of which is: either he took her with him—in which case the exception from 'any one' is fixed—or he did not, in which case it is fixed from 'Set out with your family.' The story is one; therefore, one of the two interpretations is definitely false. The two established readings cannot be interpreted in a way that causes one to be false. It is better that 'except your wife'—both in nominative and accusative—be like 'they did not do it, except for a few of them.' It is not far-fetched that some reciters used the stronger way and most used the less strong, or even that the reciters might agree on reading with the less strong.

Some North Africans answered this by pointing toward what is in the Kashshaf: that there is no contradiction. The exclusion from 'the family' implies that Lut (peace be upon him) was not commanded to take her, but it does not prevent her from following by herself. This much is sufficient for the validity of the two exceptions. Moreover, he was not forbidden from taking her, but was commanded to take others. Indeed, to his saying, "The difference between the two readings is due to the difference between the two narrations," it is objected that this necessitates doubt in a speech that is free of doubt from the Lord of the Worlds. The answer is that it means the difference between the two readings is a cause and reason for the difference between the two narrations, just as you might say, "The weapon is for battle," meaning it is a tool and fit for it; he did not mean that the difference between the readings happened because of the difference between the narrations. Every narration fits a reading, even if a synthesis is possible. As for his saying, "And he was ordered that none of them look back except her," that is a report of a narration, not an interpretation of the Quranic wording. Rather, what is in the Quran is her exclusion from the ruling of being saved, as she was not intended [to be saved].

Abu Shama pointed to a meaning similar to the one the author of the Kashshaf indicated regarding the prevention of contradiction, saying: "There occurred a correctness in what the grammarians parsed, which is a good meaning: that the speech is abbreviated, as indicated by the difference in the two readings. It is as if it were said: 'Set out with your family, except your wife,' as Abdullah read it, and Abu Ubaidah narrated from his codex. This is evidence that her exception is from the isra' (night journey) with them. Then, it is as if the Almighty said: 'If she leaves with you and follows you without you having taken her, then she is your family, but [warn her] against looking back, for she will perish and suffer what befalls her people.' Thus, the reading of the accusative indicates the former meaning, and the reading of the nominative indicates this later meaning, and together they indicate the whole of the explained meaning." The affectation in this is not hidden, as Ibn Malik said. Therefore, he chose that the nominative is because the exception is disconnected (munqati'), and "your wife" is the subject (mubtada') and the sentence after it is the predicate, and "except" (illa) has the meaning of "but" (lakin).

Ibn Hisham said in al-Mughni, in the eighth part of the fifth chapter: "What al-Zamakhshari mentioned—and others preceded him in it—regarding the verse is contrary to the apparent meaning. What drove those who hold it to this is that the accusative is the reading of the majority. So, if the exception is estimated from 'any one,' their reading would be on the less preferred way. Some of them committed themselves to the permissibility of both things coming together, citing the Almighty's saying: 'Indeed, everything We created with a measure,' for the accusative in that is, according to Sibawayh, like their saying, 'Zayd, I hit him,' and he did not see the fear of confusing the qualifier with the description as a polarizer, as some of the later scholars saw." Then he said: "What I am certain of is that the reading of the majority is not the less preferred, and the exception in both readings is from the command, evidenced by the omission of 'let not look back' in the reading of Ibn Mas'ud, and the exception is disconnected, evidenced by its omission in the Surah of al-Hijr, and because what is intended by 'family' are the believers, even if they are not of his household, not his household if they are not believers, as in the Almighty's saying to Nuh (peace be upon him): 'Indeed, he is not of your family.' The aspect of the nominative is that it is an inception, and what is after it is the predicate, and the excluded part is the sentence. An example of this is: 'You are not over them as a controller, except for him who turns away and disbelieves, then Allah will punish him.'"

Abu Shama chose what I chose, that the exception is disconnected, but he said: "The accusative came according to the Hijazi dialect, and the nominative according to the Tamimi dialect." This indicates that he made the exception part of the prohibition. What I presented is better, due to the weakness of the Tamimi dialect and because of the omission of the prohibition sentence in the reading of Abdullah.

Al-Himsi favored this in his footnotes on the Tashih, and more than one praised it. Abu Hayyan reported the opinion of disconnection in both readings and explained the accusative according to the Hijazi dialect and the nominative from the other, then said: "This is speech without verification, for if it was not intended to exclude her from those commanded to travel by night, nor from those forbidden to look back, and the meaning was 'but your wife will suffer such and such,' then it would be of the exception to which the agent cannot be directed. This type of disconnected exception must be in the accusative case by the consensus of the Arabs. The disagreement is only in the disconnected one where the agent could potentially be directed to it."

There is investigation into this. In the Tawdih by Ibn Malik, it says: "The right of the excluded part by illa in a positive, complete sentence—whether singular or completed in meaning by what follows—is the accusative, such as the Almighty's saying: 'We will surely save them all, except his wife; We have decreed that she is of the lingering ones.' The majority of later scholars of the Basrans know only the accusative, and they have neglected its appearance in the nominative, as an inception with a fixed predicate, like the saying of Abu Qatada: 'They all entered the state of ihram, except Abu Qatada did not enter the state of ihram.' Its omitted [part] is like: 'No soul knows in what land it will die, except Allah,' and 'except' (illa) in that means 'but' (lakin)—meaning: 'But Abu Qatada did not enter the state of ihram,' and 'But Allah knows.'" This is what we are dealing with.

In the footnotes of al-Badr al-Damamini and Taqi al-Din al-Shumni, it states that al-Radi answered in a way that implies the exception is connected and there is no contradiction. He said: "When it was established that following [the case] is the path with the mentioned conditions, and the majority of reciters were on the accusative in 'let not look back,' etc., al-Zamakhshari took pains so that the reading of the majority would not be construed as a non-preferred way, by what he took pains with. Ibn al-Hajib objected to it with the necessity of contradiction, because the exception from 'Set out with your family' requires that she not be someone to be traveled with, and 'let not any one of you look back' requires that she be someone to be traveled with, because 'looking back' is by the traveling. The answer is that traveling, although absolute in appearance, is in meaning qualified by the absence of looking back. So the end result is: 'Set out with your family, a journey in which there is no looking back, except your wife, for you will take her in a journey with looking back.' So exclude, based on this, if you wish, from 'set out' or from 'do not look back,' and there is no contradiction. This is like saying, 'Walk, do not strut,' meaning 'walk a walk in which you do not strut.' It is as if it were said: 'Let not any one of you look back in the journey,' and likewise 'walk, and do not strut in the walk.' He omitted the preposition and the governed noun because it is known."

Al-Sayyid al-Sanad objected to this in his footnotes, saying that if the exception returns to the qualifier, the meaning is: "Set out with all your family, a journey in which there is no looking back, except your wife," so the journeying with her is included in what is commanded. If it returns to the qualified, the journeying with her is not included in what is commanded, so the difficulty remains as it is, and there is no way out of it except by saying: "The inclusion of the universal pronoun regarding her is not categorical, as it is possible that it is specific, so it does not necessitate from the return of the exception to His saying 'and let not look back' that he (peace be upon him) was commanded to take her." At that point, the exception is directed by what was mentioned: that she followed them or he took her while not being commanded to do so, for not being commanded does not necessitate prohibition. Reflect on this.

Shihab investigated this and did not approve the possibility of specification, because there is no evidence for it. His work implies the approval of al-Radi’s speech. Then he said: "His intent by qualification is that two things were mentioned conjoined, so the apparent meaning is the collection of both, not that the sentence is circumstantial (haliyya), so it cannot be objected to that the burden of qualification while the waw is for coordination is forbidden, as is making it circumstantial with the prohibitive la." Also, the reading by dropping it indicates the non-consideration of that qualification. It is not without [some] issue. Several treatises have been written on verifying this exception: among them, a treatise by al-Himsi and another by the scholar al-Kafiji, which he wrote for one of the sultans of the House of Osman (may Allah surround them with various types of grace and goodness) when it was requested of him for a debate that occurred in his assembly.

In summary, the opinion of disconnection is less labored in what appears. The opinion that, in that case, no connection remains for His saying, "Indeed, she will be struck by what strikes them," is born from the lack of looking back, so one should not look toward it, as is not hidden to those who have surrounded themselves with knowledge of what was previously quoted. Reflect.

The pronoun in "indeed" (innahu) is for the [nature of the] situation, and "what strikes them" is the subject (mubtada') and "is striking her" (musibuha) is the predicate. The sentence is the predicate of inna whose name is the pronoun of the situation. In al-Bahr, it says "is striking her" is the subject and "what strikes them" is the predicate, and the sentence is the predicate of inna. It is permissible, according to the school of the Kufans, that "is striking her" is the predicate of inna and "what" is the agent acting upon it, because they permit that "is standing" acts as the agent for "your two brothers." The school of the Basrans is that the pronoun of the situation cannot have a predicate except a sentence with its two parts declared, so this parsing is not permissible for them. The first is better, and the sentence is either an explanation by way of commencement or a predicate for "your wife" according to the reading of the nominative. What is intended by "what" is the punishment, and by "strikes them" is "will strike them." Its expression in the past tense is to signal the certainty of occurrence, and in the ambiguity, the nominal nature of the sentence, and the emphasis, is what is not hidden.

"Indeed, their appointment is [for] the morning"—meaning the appointment for their punishment and destruction is then. It is as if this, as it is said, is an explanation for the command to set out and the prohibition against looking back, which signals the urging to hasten. And His saying, "Is not the morning near?" is an emphasis for the explanation, for the nearness of the morning is a call to hasten in order to move away from the sites of the punishment. It is narrated that he (peace be upon him) asked the angels (peace be upon them) about the time of their destruction, and they said: "Their appointment is the morning." He said: "I desire [it] faster than that." They said to him: "Is not the morning near?" Perhaps the morning was made the time of their destruction because it is a time of ease and rest, so the arrival of the punishment then is more terrible, and because it is more suitable for being a lesson to the onlookers. Isa bin Umar read "the morning" (al-subh) with a damma on the ba'. It is said that it is a dialect, so it is not an assimilation.