{ And We did not destroy any city } (i.e., any of the cities by causing them and their people to sink into the earth, or by emptying them of their inhabitants after destroying them, as was done with others) { except that it had } (in that matter) { a book } (a determined term written in the Preserved Tablet) { known } (that is not forgotten, nor is it overlooked, so that it could be imagined that it might deviate by coming earlier or later).

This initiates the explanation of the reason for delaying their punishment. The word "book" is a nominative noun whose predicate is the prepositional phrase, and the sentence is a circumstantial clause describing "city." It is not necessary for the antecedent to be definite for this, as the noun is preceded by a negation, which justifies the arrival of a circumstantial clause because it functions in the sense of a descriptor, especially since it is emphasized by the particle "min." The meaning is: "We have not destroyed any city of the cities in any state of affairs except in the state of its having a known book, so that we do not destroy it before the arrival of that term, nor do we overlook it such that it could be violated." Alternatively, it is in the nominative case by virtue of the prepositional phrase, and the sentence, as it is, is also circumstantial; meaning: "We have not destroyed any city of the cities in any state of affairs but that it had, regarding its destruction, a determined term that is not overlooked."

Al-Zamakhshari said: "The sentence is an adjective for 'city,' and the standard rule is that the waw (and) should not intervene between them, as in His saying: { And We did not destroy any city except that it had messengers }. It only intervened to emphasize the tightness of the bond between the adjective and the qualified noun, just as it is said in a circumstantial clause: 'Zayd came to me, and he had a garment on,' or 'Zayd came to me, and on him was a garment.'" Abu al-Baqa' agreed with him on this. However, it was challenged in Al-Bahr on the grounds that we know of no grammarian who stated this, and it is based on the claim that what follows "except" (illa) may be an adjective, while al-Akhfash and al-Farisi explicitly forbade that. Ibn Malik said: "Making what follows illa an adjective for what precedes it is a doctrine not known to any Basran or Kufan, and thus it should not be heeded." He invalidated the claim that the waw intervened to emphasize the bond.

It is reported from Mundhir ibn Sa'id that this waw is one that indicates the state mentioned after it in wording precedes in time the state mentioned before the waw, such as His saying: { Until, when they reached it and its gates were opened }. Al-Sakkaki excused this by calling it a slip, stating there is no shame in it. But the author of Al-Kashf was not satisfied with that and defended al-Zamakhshari, saying: "This meaning has recurred from them in this Book, so there is no slip as the author of Al-Miftah claimed." If the interpolation of the waw is established, as the Kufans hold, then the standard rule does not refute it because it is established in circumstantial clauses and in instances where the preposition is elided after it, such as "I sold the sheep, a sheep and a dirham" (meaning: a sheep for a dirham). These indicate that the metaphorical use of the waw is widespread—indeed, generic—so we do not consider the specific transmission, nor does this constitute establishing language by analogy, due to the transmission from the masters of Kufa and its support by analogy and meaning. It is not far-fetched for a master of semantics to prefer the Kufan school if the context requires it, just as they preferred the Tamimi school over the Hijazi in the chapter on exceptions. There is no doubt that the meaning, if interpreted as an adjective, is more eloquent, and that this description is more firmly bonded to the qualified noun than in His saying: { ...except that it had messengers }, because it is a rational, customary necessity that follows the sunnah of Allah, the Exalted.

In Al-Durr al-Masun, it is mentioned that Ibn Jinni preceded al-Zamakhshari in what he said, and he is sufficient as a guide.

Some investigators said: "The qualified noun is not the city mentioned; rather, it is an implied city that takes the place of the mentioned one according to the preferred view. Thus, it is like the adjective being for it." That is: "We did not destroy any city of the cities except a city that had a known book," just as in His saying: { They have no food except from a thorny plant that neither fattens nor avails against hunger }. For { that neither fattens... } is an adjective, but not for the food mentioned, because that only indicates the restriction of their food—the one that does not fatten—to that plant, which is not the intended meaning. Rather, it is for the food implied after illa; i.e., "They have no food from anything at all except food that does not fatten, etc." Thus, there is no separation between the qualified and the adjective by illa. As for the intervention of the waw, even if the rule is its absence, it is to signal the completeness of the connection.

It is clear that he did not provide, regarding the intervention, anything that would push away criticism. And what he mentioned regarding the implication of the qualified noun after illa pushes away the issue of separation, but Abu Hayyan reported from al-Akhfash that he said—after forbidding the separation between the adjective and the qualified by illa: "And expressions like 'No man came to me except a rider,' its implication is 'except a man who is a rider.'" In this there is ugliness, for making the adjective like the noun. Perhaps the answer to this is easy. Ibn Abi 'Ablah recited { illa laha } omitting the waw, which, as is said, supports the claim that it is superfluous.