Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:15

Al-Harithi, Al-Zamakhshari, and Abu al-Baqa’ permitted that "tilka" (that) is the noun of zala, and "da'wahum" (their claim) is its predicate, and vice versa. Abu Hayyan stated: "Al-Zajjaj said this before them." As for our later scholars, they maintain that the noun and predicate of kana are analogous to the agent (fa'il) and the object (maf'ul); therefore, just as it is not permissible for the agent and object to switch places—when confusion occurs due to the lack of visible inflection—it is not permissible in the chapter of kana. No one disputed this except Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn al-Hajj, one of the brilliant students of Al-Shalubin.

The honorable Al-Khafaji stated that what Ibn al-Hajj mentioned in his book Al-Madkhal—that there is no confusion in it—stems from a failure to distinguish between "confusion" (iltibas)—which is when the opposite of the intended meaning is understood—and "ambiguity" (ijmal)—which is when neither side is determined. Because of this, he permitted it. What he mentioned is subject to discussion and contemplation.

In the marginal notes of the honorable Al-Pahlawani on the Tafsir of Al-Baydawi, it is stated: "This rule regarding the agent, the object, the subject, and the predicate when inflection and context are absent is accepted and explicitly stated. However, in the chapter of kana and its sisters, it is not accepted."

The apparent view is that there is no difference between the chapter of kana and the others mentioned, even if one concedes the lack of explicit text, due to the shared underlying cause for the prohibition. Furthermore, that instance is closer to confusion than to ambiguity, especially in the context of the verse, in my opinion. So understand this.

It is not considered a case of tashbih (explicit simile), like "They are deaf, dumb, and blind," because the pluralization of "khamidin" (extinguished) as a plural for rational beings contradicts tashbih, as we do not have a group of "extinguished ones" to whom the people of the city are likened; for extinguishment is a property of fire, unlike deafness, for instance, which is treated as if it were "They are like the deaf." Similarly, "hasidan" (harvested) is considered in the sense of mahsudin (harvested ones), with the plural and singular being equal in the pattern of fa'il in the sense of maf'ul.

Yes, it is permissible to liken the destruction of the people to the cutting of vegetation and the extinguishing of fire, in which case it would be a dependent explicit metaphor (istia'ra tasrihiyya taba'iyya) in both descriptions.

The same appears in the commentary of the Honorable Master on Al-Miftah, except that he permitted hasidan alone to be treated as a tashbih based on what is in Al-Kashshaf—i.e., "We made them like the harvest," just as you say, "We made them ash," meaning "like ash." Many have treated the singular hasid as following this interpretation, since the masdar (verbal noun), being a source, is applied to the singular and others; and it is the predicate in truth for tashbih baligh (the eloquent simile). However, this would necessitate the validity of saying "The men are lions," and it is as you see it.

Objection was raised against the statement of the two commentators—"as we do not have a group..."—on the grounds that it is open to debate. Moreover, the premise of their argument—that "khamidin" does not admit tashbih because it is pluralized as a plural for rational beings, which prevents it from being an adjective for fire—is such that if it were said "khamida" (feminine singular), it would be a tashbih. The Sharif explicitly stated this in his marginal notes. But this is a matter of hesitation; for if literal predication is valid, then tashbih by claim is valid, so why would its pluralization not be valid for that reason? If it were not, even the metaphor would not be valid.

Al-Allamah Al-Tibi and the honorable Yemeni scholar opted for tashbih in both places. Thus, there are four possibilities in the verse. Contemplate all of this. "Khamidin," along with "hasidan," is in the position of the second object of "ja'ala" (as in "I made it sweet, sour"). The meaning is that We made them combining both harvesting and extinguishment, or likening them to the extinguished harvest, or likening them to the harvest and the extinguishment, or We made them perished in the most complete manner. Thus, the objection that ja'ala would then be governing three objects—when it only governs two—does not apply. Or it is a hal (state) of the pronoun in "ja'alnahum," or of the hidden pronoun in "hasidan," or it is an adjective for "hasidan," and it is plural in meaning. Some objected that for it to be an adjective while being a tashbih intended for the non-rational is refuted by its being intended for rational beings.