ﳍ ﳎ ﳏ ﳐ ﳑ ﳒ ﳓ ﳔ ﳕ ﳖ ﳗ ﳘ ﳙ ﳚ
And how many have We destroyed from the generations after Noah. And sufficient is your Lord, concerning the sins of His servants, as Acquainted and Seeing.
ﳍ ﳎ ﳏ ﳐ ﳑ ﳒ ﳓ ﳔ ﳕ ﳖ ﳗ ﳘ ﳙ ﳚ
And how many have We destroyed from the generations after Noah. And sufficient is your Lord, concerning the sins of His servants, as Acquainted and Seeing.
Tafsir
Verse range: 17:17
{And how many have We destroyed of the generations} (17:17): That is, We have destroyed many generations. {of the generations} serves as the tamyiz (specifier) for kam (how many). A qarn (generation), according to Al-Raghib, refers to a group of people associated with one another in a single time. From Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa, it is a period of one hundred and twenty years. From Muhammad ibn al-Qasim al-Mazini—and it is narrated as a marfu’ hadith—it is one hundred years. It is reported that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prayed for a man, saying, “Live for a qarn,” and he lived for one hundred or one hundred and twenty years. Al-Kalbi states it is eighty years, and Ibn Sirin states it is forty years.
{after Noah}: That is, after his era, peace be upon him, such as ‘Ad, Thamud, and those after them whose accounts were told in the Great Quran, as well as those whose accounts were not told. Noah, peace be upon him, was specifically mentioned—rather than saying "after Adam"—because he was the first messenger whose people harmed him, causing the punishment to annihilate them. Therein lies a threat and warning to the polytheists. Furthermore, due to the fame of his people’s condition, they were not categorized among the destroyed generations, though mentioning him, peace be upon him, is a symbol referring to them. The first min (from) is for explication (tabyin), not an additional particle, and the second min is for the beginning of an extent (ibtida’ al-ghayah); thus, it is permissible for them to share the same object of attachment. Al-Hawfi stated that the second min is a substitute (badal) for the first, but this is not sound.
{And sufficient is your Lord}: That is, your Lord suffices. A detailed discussion on this construction has preceded.
{with the sins of His servants as All-Knowing, All-Seeing}: He encompasses their outward and inward aspects, and thus He punishes for them. Khabir (All-Knowing) is placed first because its object—which includes beliefs and intentions—precedes external deeds in terms of existence, or because it precedes them in terms of importance/order; for the consideration is upon what is in the heart, as indicated by: "Indeed, Allah does not look at your appearances and your deeds, but He looks at your hearts and your intentions," and "Deeds are but by intentions," and "The intention of the believer is better than his deed," and other such texts. Alternatively, [it is placed first] due to its generality, as it relates to things that are not visible. The prepositional phrases are attached to Khabir and Basir on the basis of tanazu’ (mutual vying).
Al-Hawfi said it is attached to kafa (sufficient), but this is a misconception. The appending of what has preceded with what is mentioned serves as an indication—as has been said—that the sending of the resurrection, the command, and what follows them concerning their corruption is not to gain knowledge of the sins they committed, for that knowledge was already attained before that. Rather, it is to sever excuses and establish proof from every angle.
In Al-Kashshaf, it is stated that by His saying, “And sufficient is your Lord...” etc., He, Glory be to Him, alerts us that sins are the destructive causes, and nothing else. Its explanation, as in Al-Kashf, is that since He, Majestic is His glory, followed their destruction with His knowledge of their sins—a most perfect knowledge—it indicates that He, Exalted is He, punished them on account of these sins; otherwise, the speech would not be coherent. As for the exclusivity (hasr), it is because if something else had a role, it would have been expected to be mentioned in the context of the warning; otherwise, the cause would not be complete, and the speech would fall short of fulfilling the intended meaning. Thus, exclusivity becomes necessary, and that is what is sought. I do not see his [Al-Zamakhshari’s] statement as free from a trace of Mu'tazilism, which becomes apparent upon contemplation; perhaps that is why Al-Baidawi did not address it.