Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:16

(And when We intend to destroy a town) – this is an explanation of the manner in which the punishment occurs after the sending of a messenger. The intent here is not the primordial will related to the occurrence of the desired object at its appointed time, for the subsequent retribution is not concomitant with it, nor is the actual realization of it, as the desired object would not then fail to occur. Rather, it means the approach of its time, as in His saying: "The command of Allah has come." That is: when the time draws near for Our will to be attached to its destruction—by punishing its people with the aforementioned exterminating punishment, which We have explained is not valid for Us to inflict before the sending of a messenger, or with a type of absolute punishment (meaning extermination) due to the injustice and sins they possess—at a time dictated by wisdom without a fixed limit.

(We commanded) – meaning, to obedience, as narrated by Ibn Jarir and others from Ibn Abbas and Sa'id ibn Jubayr, through the tongue of the messenger sent to them.

(Its affluent ones) – those living in luxury, its tyrants, and its kings. They are specified by mention, even though the command is directed at all, because they are the leaders of immorality and the heads of misguidance; what occurred from others was by following them, and because directing the command to them is more emphatic. The fact that "immorality" (fisq) and "disobedience" ('isyan) are close in language indicates the implication of obedience, even if fisq is specified in Islamic law for a particular sin. Mentioning the opposite indicates its opposite, just as mentioning a counterpart indicates its counterpart. Thus, mentioning fisq and disobedience implies the estimation of "obedience," as was said regarding His saying: "garments that protect you from the heat"—so it is like saying, "I commanded him, but he did evil," meaning, "I commanded him to do good," by the evidence of the contrast between them, which is supported by the intellect, which indicates that one is not commanded to do evil, just as one is not commanded to do fisq. This is also supported by transmitted evidence, such as His saying: "Verily, Allah does not command indecency." It is also permissible to treat the verb as an intransitive one, as in "he gives and he withholds," meaning: "We directed the command."

(Then they acted immorally therein) – that is, they departed from obedience and rebelled. Al-Zamakhshari chose the view that the original phrasing was "We commanded them to commit fisq, then they acted immorally," but that the literal meaning is impossible due to the evidence, so it is interpreted metaphorically—either by way of a representative metaphor, by likening their state of wallowing in blessings while being disobedient and arrogant to the state of one who is commanded to do so; or by way of a dependent explicit metaphor, by likening the bestowing of blessings that lead them to arrogance and the pouring of them upon them to commanding them to fisq, by the connection of causing and leading to it. The metaphor is completed in both cases in a way that is not hidden. It has been said that the command is a metaphor for compelling and causing, due to their sharing the quality of leading to the thing. He preferred this because he considered the estimation of "We commanded them to obey, then they acted immorally" impermissible, claiming that it deletes something for which there is no evidence; rather, he argued that the evidence contradicts it, for saying "I commanded him, and he stood up" or "I commanded him, and he sat down" is understood only as a command to stand or sit, and if you intended otherwise, you would be asking your addressee to possess knowledge of the unseen. There is no contradiction in their saying "I commanded him, but he disobeyed me" or "he did not follow my command," because since that is contrary to the command, it is known that the context is not suitable for the deleted part, and thus the verb in that instance is of the "gives and withholds" category.

He was countered with the question: Why is it not permissible for it to be of the "I commanded him, but he disobeyed me" category, given the closeness of fisq and 'isyan? And why does the context of "Verily, Allah does not command indecency" not suffice to support the estimation of "We directed the command, and fisq was found from them," rather than estimating the object of the command? And why is it not permissible that the succession of the opposite is evidence for the other opposite? (Examples of this are too numerous to count). In Al-Kashf, he answered this by saying: The response to the first two is that the author of Al-Kashshaf forbade the interpretation of "We commanded to obey." As for directing the command, he did not forbid this approach. The obstacle is that specifying the affluent ones would remain unclear, and likewise the restriction to the time of the will for destruction, for His command—the Almighty—occurs in every time and for every person, and because of its obviousness, he did not address it. Regarding the third, the fame of fisq in one of its two meanings prevents it from being counted as a counterpart in the sense of 'isyan. Furthermore, what we have mentioned regarding the awkwardness of the position in the absolute holds true in the restriction to obedience.

The truth is that what Al-Zamakhshari mentioned regarding the interpretation is a beautiful aspect, except that his refusal to accept what the trustworthy narrated from the Interpreter of the Quran and others regarding the estimation of "obedience," despite the appearance of the evidence and the support of the context of warning against misguidance and urging toward guidance, has no justification, as is not hidden to anyone who has a heart.

Abu Hatim narrated from Abu Zayd that "We commanded" (amarna) means "We increased" (katharna). Al-Farisi chose this, and Abu Ubaydah argued for the validity of this usage with what Ahmad and Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded in their Musnads, and Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabir, from the hadith of Suwayd ibn Hubayrah: "The best wealth is a planted palm tree and a productive mare (muhratun ma'murah)," meaning abundant in offspring. Amara is, as it is said, of the category of what is both intransitive and transitive with a change in vowel; one says amartuhu (with a fathah on the mim), and it is also amir (with a kasrah), similar to shatara Allahu 'aynahu (Allah blinded his eye) and shad'a anfahu (his nose was cut off). It is said that the form with the kasrah can also be transitive. Al-Hasan, Yahya ibn Ya'mar, and Ikrimah read it thus, and Al-Nahhas and the author of Al-Lawamih narrated it from Ibn Abbas, and Al-Farra's rejection of it is not to be heeded due to the soundness of the transmission. In Al-Kashf, it is stated that amara in the sense of "to increase" is frequent. As for the transitive amartuhu, Al-Zamakhshari said in Al-Fa'iq: The meaning is that this narrator relied only on what came in the report, meaning "a productive mare," and it is nothing but from the amr (command) which is the opposite of prohibition, and it is also metaphorical, as in the verse; it is as if Allah—the Almighty—said to it: "Be abundant in offspring," and it was, so it is ma'murah (commanded) as opposed to manhiyyah (prohibited). It is said that its origin was ma'murah, then it was changed to ma'murah seeking parallelism, like his saying—peace be upon him—"they are ma'zurat (burdened with sin), not ma'jurat (rewarded)," where he did not say mawzurat.

Ali—may Allah honor his countenance—and others read it as amarna (with a long alif), as did Ibn Abbas, Al-Hasan, and others. The meaning for all of them is "We increased." This supports the previous interpretation regarding the famous reading.

Others read it as ammarna (with a shaddah). Some said this also means "We increased," while others said it means "We made them leaders/governors." The implication of this is amir (with a dammah), as in "he became a leader." The intended meaning is the one who is ordered and obeyed, whether a king or not. If it is meant to imply a king, it is problematic, contrary to Al-Farisi, because if a town is ruled by an affluent one who acts immorally, then another who acts immorally, and so on, corruption multiplies, disbelief follows, and the punishment descends upon the last of their kings.

(Then the word became justified against it) – meaning, the decree of punishment by its arrival, or by the manifestation of their sins, or by their deep immersion in them.

(Then We destroyed it with a [complete] destruction) – one whose depths cannot be fathomed and cannot be described. Destruction is to perish while erasing the trace and demolishing the structure. The verse indicates the destruction of the people of the town in the most perfect way, and the destruction of all of them due to the occurrence of fisq from all of them, for the non-affluent usually follow the affluent, especially if the affluent one is from the scholars of evil. Hence it was said: The meaning is "And when We intend to destroy a town, We command its affluent ones, then they act immorally therein, and others follow them, then the word becomes justified against it," the verse. It is also said: The destruction of all does not depend on following; for the Almighty has said: "And fear a trial that will not strike those who have wronged among you exclusively." It is authentically narrated from the Mother of the Believers, Zaynab bint Jahsh, that the Prophet—peace be upon him—entered upon her in alarm, saying: "There is no god but Allah; woe to the Arabs from an evil that has drawn near! Today, a hole has been opened in the barrier of Gog and Magog like this," and he circled with his thumb and the finger next to it. Zaynab said: I asked, "O Messenger of Allah, shall we be destroyed while among us are the righteous?" He said: "Yes, if wickedness increases."

The apparent meaning is that "We commanded" is the answer to "When," and there is no advancement or postponement in the verse. The well-known difficulty regarding this assumption—that it indicates He—the Almighty—intends to destroy a people primarily, so He resorts to commanding them to act immorally, then destroys them, and desiring harm for another primarily without the desert of harm is like the harm itself, which is something the Almighty is exalted above as it contradicts wisdom—the reference to its answer has already passed. Some answered it by saying that there is advancement and postponement in the verse, and the origin is: "When We command the affluent of a town and they act immorally therein, We intend to destroy it, then the word becomes justified against it." Another group said that His saying "We commanded..." is in the position of an adjective for "town," and the answer to "When" is omitted, being dispensed with because of the indication of it within the speech.