Al-Hajj: (2) "The day you see it, every nursing mother will neglect..."

"The day you see it, every nursing mother will neglect that which she has nursed." The manifest view is that the pronoun attached to “tarawnaha” (you see it) refers to the Zalzalah (earthquake), for it is the subject being discussed. It has been said it refers to the Hour, but you see the nature of that.

“Yawma” (the day) is in the accusative case (mansub) as an object of “tadh-hal” (will neglect), having been brought forward for the sake of importance. It is also said to be governed by an implied “udhkur” (remember), or that it is in apposition (badal) to "the Hour"—taking the fatha as its indeclinable form, similar to what is said regarding His saying: “This is a day [yawma] that benefits...” in the reading where yawma is vowelled with fatha. It has also been said to be in apposition to Zalzalah, or governed by it, if one forgives the separation between the verbal noun and its adverbial predicate by the intervening clause.

The sentence “tadh-hal” in these views is in the place of a state (hal) from the object pronoun, with the referent (to the pronoun) being omitted; that is, “tadh-halu fiha” (she will neglect during it). Adh-dhul (neglect) is a preoccupation that induces grief and forgetfulness.

Al-murdi’ah (the nursing mother) is the one in the state of nursing, with her breast in the child’s mouth. This is different from al-murdi’ (without the ta marbuta), which refers to one whose habit it is to nurse, even if she is not actively nursing at the moment of description. The Kufan grammarians specifically assigned al-murdi’ah to the mother of the child and al-murdi’ to a wet nurse. This is refuted by the poet’s saying: "Like a nurse [murdi’ah] of others’ children, who neglected those of her own womb." This is a deviation from the intent. The expression here is used to indicate the intensity of the affair and the magnitude of the terror.

The manifest view is that “ma” (in “ar-da’at”) is a relative pronoun (mawsulah) and the referent is omitted; that is, “’an alladhi arda’athu” (from that which she nursed). The expression with “ma” emphasizes the neglect and the fact that the nursing infant is such that it does not even cross her mind what it is, because she knows its entity but does not know who it is specifically. It is also said to be the infinitive ma (masdariyyah); that is, she will neglect the nursing itself. The first view indicates the intensity of the terror and the completeness of the agitation. The speech is by way of illustration; even if there were a nursing mother and an infant, the mother would neglect her infant while in the act of nursing it due to the intensity of the terror. The same applies to what follows.

This is manifest if the Zalzalah is at the second blast, or on the Day of Judgment when Adam (peace be upon him) is ordered to send forth the mission of the Fire and the mission of the Garden—if we do not say that everyone is resurrected in the state in which they departed the world, such that the nursing mother is resurrected nursing and the pregnant woman pregnant, as has come in some traditions. As for if we hold that view, or that the Zalzalah is in this world, then it is permissible for the speech to be literal. It does not harm that it is an illustration, even if the affair at that time is more intense, greater, and more terrifying than what is described; for the aforementioned is commonly used for terror, as is not hidden from a fair-minded, noble scholar.

It has been read as tudh-hal (passive voice) from al-idh-hal. Ibn Abi ‘Ablah and al-Yamani read tadh-hal as active, and kulla in the accusative; that is, the day the earthquake—or, it is said, the Hour—causes every nursing mother to neglect.

"And every pregnant woman shall lay down her burden." That is, she shall cast off that which is in her womb before completion. The reason it does not say "every pregnant woman (hamilah) shall lay down her burden (hamlaha)" in the same pattern as the preceding phrase is that the former is not a definitive text for the intended meaning—which is the casting of the fetus—unlike the phrasing in the glorious text, which is definitive. Al-haml (with fatha) is that which is carried in the womb of a child; its application to something like fruit on a tree is by way of comparison to the woman's haml. Because of this specification from the beginning, it did not say "every pregnant woman (hamilah) shall lay down her burden (hamlah)". So it is said, and this has been countered by the claim that there is debate in specifying haml to only that which is in the womb of a child, and that its application to fruit on a tree is by way of comparison. In al-Bahr, al-haml (with fatha) is that which is in the womb or on the top of a tree.

In al-Qamus: Al-haml is that which is carried in the womb of a child; its plurals are hamal and ahmal. Hamalat al-mar'atu means she became pregnant; one does not say hamalat bihi except rarely. She is hamil or hamilah. Al-huml (with damma) is the fruit of trees; or [it is said] fatha for what is in the womb, and kasra for what is on the surface. Others say fatha for what is in the womb or on the top of a tree, and kasra for what is on the back, or the top, or the fruit of trees—if it is not yet large, but when it becomes large, it is fatha. Its plurals are ahmal, humul, hamal.

It is also said: The immediate understanding is the casting of the fetus, by whatever expression used, except that dhat haml (one possessing a burden) is more hyperbolic in terror than hamil or hamilah, because it implies a companionship that suggests attachment. Thus, the speech conveys that she, the possessor of the burden, shall lay down the fetus firmly settled and established in her womb at that time. This is in addition to the subtlety found in combining what implies companionship with what implies separation, which is the "laying down." Reflect upon this, for the path of the intellect is vast.

"And you see the people..." with fatha on the ta and ra, addressing each individual among those addressed by the sight of the Zalzalah. The difference between the plural and singular here is that what is seen in the first part is the Zalzalah, which everyone witnesses, while in the second, it is the state of those other than the addressee among them. Therefore, the addressee must be singularized in a way that encompasses each one of them, but without considering him as described by that state. The intent is to clarify the effect of the Zalzalah on the seen, not on the seer, through the variation of his senses; for the focus is on the aspect of his seeing the Zalzalah, not something else. It is as if it were said: "And the people become intoxicated, etc." The reason for choosing the text of the Revelation is to signal the completeness of the appearance of that state in them, and its reaching such a degree of clarity that it is barely hidden from anyone. This has been said by more than one.

Some have permitted the address to be to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the first is more hyperbolic in terror. Ru'yah (seeing) is visual, and al-nas (the people) is its object. His saying: "intoxicated" is a state (hal) from it; that is, everyone sees them appearing like the intoxicated. His saying: "but they are not intoxicated"—that is, in reality—is also a state, but it is an emphatic (mu'akkadah) one. An emphatic state is joined by waw, especially if it is a nominal sentence. Thus, it cannot be said: "If the meaning of His saying 'you see the people intoxicated' is based on analogy, then 'they are not intoxicated' in the aforementioned sense is redundant, and there is no basis for making it an emphatic state due to the waw." It is permitted that tara means "you think" (tazunnu), so sukara is the second object. In that case, it is permissible for the speech to be based on analogy, with the nominal sentence being in the place of an emphatic state; or it is permissible for it to be literal, and its confirmation—so there is no ta'kid (emphasis) here. The matter of the singular address and the hyperbole within it remains as is. In any case, the intent in His saying "but they are not intoxicated" is the continuation of the negation, emphasized by the addition of the ba (in bisukara) to warn that what they are in is not from what is familiar, but rather an affair the like of which they had never known before. Its cause is indicated by His saying: "but the punishment of Allah is severe."

That is, the severity of His punishment makes them as you see. This is a correction (istidrak) of what is in al-Intisaf, referring back to His saying "but they are not intoxicated." Abu Hayyan claimed it is a correction of an implied thought, as if it were said: "These—that is, the neglect, the casting of burdens, and seeing people as intoxicated—are minor states, but the punishment of Allah is severe and is not minor." This is very contrary to the manifest.

Zayd ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) read tura (with damma on the ta and kasra on the ra), meaning: the earthquake makes the creation—all the people—appear intoxicated. Al-Za'farani read tura (with damma on the ta and fatha on the ra) with an-nas in the nominative case, attributing the passive verb to it, and using the feminine [singular verb] based on the interpretation of "the group" (jama'ah). Abu Hurairah, Abu Zur'ah, Ibn Jarir, and Abu Nahik said the same, except they put an-nas in the accusative case; tara in this view is transitive to three objects, as in al-Bahr: the first is the hidden pronoun (the deputy subject), the second is an-nas, and the third is sukara.

Abu Hurairah and Ibn Nahik read sakara with fatha on the sin in both places, which is a broken plural whose singular is sakran. Abu Hatim said: "It is the dialect of Tamim." Al-Tabarani and others reported from ‘Imran ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace be upon him) read sukara—like ‘atsha—in both places; likewise, it was narrated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. This is the reading of ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas’ud] and his companions, and Hudhayfah. It is also the reading of the brothers [Hamzah and al-Kisa'i], Ibn Sa’dan, Mas’ud, and Salih. The adjective is pluralized as fu'la when it is from ailments and occurrences, such as qatla, mawta, and humqa. Because drunkenness is treated in the same manner due to the disruption of faculties and senses it causes, it is pluralized in this way; thus it is the plural of sakran. Abu ‘Ali al-Farisi said: "It is valid to be the plural of sakr like zamni and zamin." Sibawayh reported rajul sakr meaning sakran.

Al-Hasan, al-A’raj, Abu Zur’ah, Ibn Jubayr, and al-A’mash read sukra with damma on the sin in both places. Al-Zamakhshari said: "It is strange." Abu al-Fath said: "It is a singular noun like bushra." Abu ‘Ali agreed with me on this, as I asked him about it.

Abu al-Fadl al-Razi leaned toward it being a singular noun, saying: Fu'la with damma on the fa is a description of the feminine singular. But since it was made a description of "the people" (an-nas)—and they are a group—the group was treated as a feminine singular. From Abu Zur’ah: sukara with fatha on the sin and bisukara with damma [on the sin]. From Ibn Jubayr: sukara with fatha on the sin without an alif, and bisukara with damma and the alif as in the reading of the majority. The disagreement over fu'ala—whether it is a plural or a noun of pluralization—is well known.