Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:129

This is a resumed statement brought forth to explain the wisdom behind why that which is indicated by the words of the Exalted, "Has it not become clear to them..." (i.e., that they might be afflicted with the likes of what afflicted the destroyed generations), has not yet occurred. The "preceded word" is the promise to delay the punishment of total annihilation for this nation—either out of honor for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as is indicated by mentioning the title of Lordship with the attribution to his pronoun (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in the words of the Exalted, "And Allah would not punish them while you are among them," or because there are those among their descendants who will believe, or for some other wisdom known only to Allah the Exalted.

The meaning is: Were it not for the preceded word and the promise to delay the punishment, the punishment for their crimes would have been lizam—that is, incumbent and inevitable upon these disbelievers, such that it would not be delayed from their crimes even for an hour, just as what befell their counterparts among the past generations was inevitable. Al-lizam is either an infinitive of lazama (to be inevitable), like khisam (disputation), used as a description for emphasis, or it is a noun for an instrument, like hizam (belt) and rikab (stirrup), and its use as a description is also for emphasis—meaning one who persists against his adversary.

Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be the plural of lazim (inevitable), like qiyam being the plural of qa’im (standing), but this is contrary to the apparent meaning.

“...and a specified term,” is a conjunction to "word," as Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Qatadah and al-Suddi. That is: were it not for the promise to delay their punishment and the specified term set for their lifespans, their punishment would not have been delayed at all. It was separated from what it was conjoined to in order to hasten towards stating the answer to "were it not for," to signify the independence of each of them in negating the necessity of the punishment, and to observe the rhymes of the noble verses.

It has been said: The meaning is, "And were it not for a specified term for their punishment," which is the Day of Resurrection. This is countered by the argument that it would then be identical to the "preceded word," and thus it would not be valid to include the independence of each of them in the negation as a rhetorical point of the separation. It was answered that it does not follow from the delay of punishment in this world that there must be a time from which it cannot be delayed or skipped; thus, there is no obstacle to their independence.

Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Mujahid that the "specified term" is the very word that preceded. It has also been said that the "specified term" for the punishment is the Day of Badr; this is countered by the fact that it contradicts the notion that the "word" is the promise to delay the punishment of this nation. It was answered that the intended punishment here is the punishment of total annihilation, which did not occur on the Day of Badr.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted the conjunction to be to the implicit pronoun in kana, which refers back to the "immediate seizing" understood from the context, treating the separation by the predicate as a form of emphasis. That is: the immediate seizing and the specified term would have both been incumbent upon them, just like the case of 'Ad, Thamud, and their counterparts, rather than the specified term being separate from the immediate seizing. You know, however, that this does not hold if lizam is an instrument noun, due to the requirement of dualizing it in that case.