Al-Hijr: 72

(La-‘amrika): This is an oath from Allah, the Exalted, by the life of our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This is the view of the majority of the exegetes. Al-Bayhaqi in al-Dala’il, Abu Nu’aym, Ibn Marduyah, and others narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that he said: "Allah, the Exalted, has not created, dispersed, or formed any soul more noble to Him than Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and I have not heard that Allah, the Exalted, swore by the life of anyone other than him." He said: (La-‘amrika), and so on.

It is also said that it is an oath from the angels, peace be upon them, by the life of Lot, peace be upon him. Although this contradicts the transmitted evidence (al-ma’thur), it requires the postulation of an implied speech; meaning, the angels said to Lot, peace be upon them: (La-‘amrika), etc. This is contrary to the original principle, even if the context of the story bears witness to it and serves as an indication for it. Therefore, the statement of the author of al-Fara’id—that this is an estimation without necessity, and that if something like it were permitted, every text could be taken out of its meaning by estimating something, thus rendering the reliability of the meanings of the text void—is not rejected.

In any case, ‘amruka (your life) is a subject whose predicate is obligatorily omitted; meaning: "my oath" or "my solemn word," or something similar. ‘Amr (with fatha or damma) means remaining and life. However, they adhered to the fatha in an oath due to its frequent usage, so lightness became appropriate. When the lam enters it, the fatha is strictly required, and the predicate is omitted in the oath. Without the lam, both the accusative (nasb) and nominative (raf’) cases are permissible; it is explicit and is a verbal noun (masdar) attributed to the subject or the object. It has been heard with the entry of the ba’, and the mention of the predicate is rare. It has been stated that if it is devoid of the lam, it is not exclusively for an oath, a view reported from al-Jawhari. Ibn Ya’ish said: "It is not used except for that either," and it came anomalously as ‘amali. They counted it as an inversion (qalb).

Abu al-Haytham said: The meaning of (La-‘amrika) is "by your religion which you practice." It is interpreted as worship. He cited: "O you who marries the Pleiades to Suhail, ‘amruka Allah, how can they meet?" He meant: "I beseech your worship of Allah, the Exalted." For it is said, as reported from Ibn al-A’rabi: ‘amarta rabbi, meaning: "I worshipped Him." Such-and-such is ‘amir to his Lord, meaning: "a worshipper," and "I left so-and-so ya’muru his Lord," meaning: "worshipping Him." This is strange. There are various interpretations regarding the verse: Sibawayh said: "The origin is ‘amartuka Allah ta’ala ta’miran, then the extra letters were removed from the masdar and it was placed in the position of the verb, added to its first object. The meaning of ‘amartuka is 'I gave you life' by asking Allah, the Exalted, to give you life." When ‘amara was made to imply the meaning of asking, it took a second object—the Majestic Name. According to this, it is in the accusative case. al-Akhfash permitted it in the nominative case to be the subject, meaning: "May Allah, the Exalted, give you life." al-Radi permitted that ‘amruka be in the accusative as a direct object to an omitted verb, meaning: "I ask Allah, the Exalted, for your life," and "I ask" (as’alu) takes two objects. Or the meaning is: "I ask you by the right of your worshipping Allah, the Exalted," meaning: "your belief in His persistence and His eternity." Thus, its accusative case would be due to the omission of the particle of oath, like Allah la-af’alanna. It is a verbal noun with its extra letters omitted, attributed to the subject, and the Majestic Name is its direct object.

There is no harm in attributing ‘amr to Him, the Exalted, and it has come attributed in that way. The poet said: "When you are pleased with the sons of Qushayr, by the life of Allah (la-‘amru Allah), their pleasure pleased me." And al-A’sha said: "By the life of Him Who made the months a sign, from which their decrease and perfection are known." Some claimed that it is not permissible to say la-‘amru Allah ta’ala because He, the Exalted, is eternal and everlasting, as if they imagined that ‘amr is only said for that which has an end, which is not the case. It also appeared in their speech attributed to the first-person pronoun. Al-Nabigha said: "By my life, and my life is not trivial to me." al-Nakha’i disliked that because it is an oath by the life of the one being sworn by. I do not know the reason for this specification, for in (La-‘amrika) there is an address to a person, swearing by the life of the addressee. The ruling on swearing by other than Allah, the Exalted, is established in the most perfect way in its proper place.

Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, read: (‘Amruka) without the lam.

(Innahum lafi sakratihim): Meaning, they are in their delusion, or the intensity of their carnal desire which has stripped away their intellects and their ability to distinguish between their error and the truth towards which they are being pointed.

(Ya’mahun): They are confused. So how could they listen to counsel? The origin of ‘amah is blindness of the sight, which is inherited by confusion; in this regard, it is interpreted as such. The pronouns refer to the people of the city. The use of the present tense, based on the transmitted report in the address, is to narrate a past state. It is said—and attributed to Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both—that the pronouns refer to the Quraysh. Ibn Atiyya and others considered this unlikely due to the lack of suitability regarding the context and sequence. Hence, it is said: The sentence is an interpolation, and the sentence (ya’mahun) is a state (hal) from the pronoun in the prepositional phrase. It is permitted that it be a state from the pronoun governed by the genitive in (sakratihim), and the agent is the sakra or the meaning of the annexation (idafa). You know the state of that. Al-Ashhab read (sukratihim) with a damma on the sin, Ibn Abi ‘Abla read (sakaratihim) in the plural, al-A’mash read (sakrihim) without the ta’, and Abu ‘Amr, in the narration of al-Jahdami, read (annahum) with a fatha on the hamza. Abu al-Baqa’ said: This is based on the postulation that the lam is an addition. Similar to this is the reading of Sa’id ibn Jubayr: (Ala annahum la-ya’kuluna al-ta’am) with a fatha [on the hamza], based on the fact that the lam of inception (lam al-ibtida’) only accompanies inna with the kasra on the hamza. It is as if the postulation, according to this reading, is: La-‘amrika—my oath—that they... So understand.