45: {فَكَأَيِّن مِّن قَرْيَةٍ}

His saying—the Exalted—{فَكَأَيِّن مِّن قَرْيَةٍ} is in the accusative case due to an implicit verb explained by His saying—the Exalted—{أَهْلَكْنَاهَا}. That is: "We have destroyed many a village, We destroyed it." The sentence is an appositive (badal) to His saying—the Exalted—{فَكَيْفَ كَانَ نَكِيرِ}, or it is in the nominative case as an incipient (mubtada'), and the sentence {أَهْلَكْنَاهَا} is its predicate; meaning: "Many a village, We destroyed it." Abu Hayyan chose this, saying: The superior choice in the parsing of {كَأَيِّن} is that it be an incipient, and its being in the accusative case due to an implicit verb is rare.

Abu ‘Amr and a group read it as {أَهْلَكْتُهَا} with the first-person singular 'ta', in accordance with {فَأَمْلَيْتُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ} and then {أَخَذْتُهُمْ}. The attribution of destruction to the villages is metaphorical, the intended meaning being the destruction of their inhabitants. It is also possible that the speech is constructed with an implicit additive (mudaf). It is said: The "destruction" is a metaphor for the lack of benefit derived from them due to the destruction of their inhabitants.

His saying—the Exalted—{وَهِيَ ظَالِمَةٌ} is a circumstantial (haliyah) sentence regarding the object of {أَهْلَكْنَا}. His saying—the Exalted—{فَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ} is conjoined to {أَهْلَكْنَاهَا}, so it has no place in parsing, or its place is the nominative, like the one conjoined to it. It is permissible to conjoin it to the nominal sentence {فَكَأَيِّن} and so forth; some have chosen this due to the issue of parallelism (tashakul), and the particle 'fa' is not a hindrance, based on the sequential nature of 'khawa' (emptiness/collapse) to destruction.

It is permissible to conjoin it to the circumstantial sentence, though it is objected that its 'khawa' is not during the destruction of its inhabitants, but rather after it. It was answered that it is a "prospective" state (hal muqaddarah), or it is valid to conjoin it to the concurrent state (al-hal al-muqaranah). Or, it is said: It is also a concurrent state, in that the destruction of the inhabitants is concomitant with its 'khawa' upon them. It is not hidden that both answers are contrary to the manifest (zahir).

'Khawa' is either in the sense of falling, from the saying "the star 'khawa' (fell)," meaning it collapsed. His saying—the Exalted—{عَلَى عُرُوشِهَا} is connected to it. The 'urush' (arches/roofs) refers to the ceilings. The meaning is: its walls fell upon its roofs, such that its structure became disabled; its roofs collapsed, then its walls demolished and fell on top of the roofs. The attribution of falling upon the 'urush' to the villages is to treat the walls as the entirety of the building, as they are the pillar of it.

Or, it means emptiness (khulw), from the saying "the house 'khawa' (became empty)," meaning it was emptied of its inhabitants. It is said: "The stomach 'khawa' (became empty)," meaning it was emptied of food. Al-Raghib considered this the original meaning of 'khawa', and considered the "falling star" to be derived from it, saying: "It is said 'the star khawa and akhwa' when no rain comes from it upon its setting, as a simile for that." Thus, His saying—the Exalted—{عَلَى عُرُوشِهَا} is either connected to it or connected to an implicit item that occurs as a state. 'Ala' (upon) is in the sense of 'ma'a' (with); i.e., it is empty while its roofs remain and are sound.

It is also permissible, according to the interpretation of 'khawa' as emptiness, for {عَلَى عُرُوشِهَا} to be a predicate after a predicate; i.e., "it is empty while it is upon its roofs," meaning it is standing, overlooking its roofs, on the basis that the roofs fell to the ground while the walls remained standing, overlooking the collapsed roofs. The attribution of "overlooking" to the whole, despite it being a state of the walls, is for the reason previously mentioned.

{وَبِئْرٍ مُّعَطَّلَةٍ} is also conjoined to {قَرْيَةٍ}. The 'bi'r' (well) is from 'ba'artu', meaning "I dug." It is feminine, on the scale of 'fi'l' in the sense of 'maf'ul' (passive). It is sometimes made masculine based on the sense of 'qalib' (water pit). It has various plurals: 'abar', 'a'bar', 'ab'ur', 'a'ur', and 'biyar'. 'Ta'til' (disabling) of a thing is the nullification of its benefits; i.e., "How many a well once inhabited in the deserts was left, with no one drinking from it due to the destruction of its inhabitants." Al-Jahdari, al-Hasan, and a group read {مُعَطَّلَة} with a 'ta' (ta' at-ta'nith) to lighten the 'ta' from 'a'talahu' in the sense of 'a'talahu' (to disable).

{وَقَصْرٍ مَّشِيدٍ} is also conjoined to what preceded; i.e., "How many a palace with raised structure," or built with 'jass' (plaster). We emptied it of its inhabitants, as the context indicates. The description of the well as 'mu'attalah' (disabled) is said to support the meaning that {خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَى عُرُوشِهَا} means "empty while the roofs remain." In al-Bahr, it is stated that {بِئْرٍ} and {قَصْرٍ}, by virtue of their conjunction to {قَرْيَةٍ}, are included with it in the scope of destruction, and the predicate is applied to them through a kind of metaphorical extension; i.e., "How many a disabled well and elevated palace [did we destroy their inhabitants]." Some claimed they are conjoined to {عُرُوشِهَا}, but that is nothing. The apparent nature of the indefiniteness in them suggests that no specific ones are intended.

From Ibn ‘Abbas, it is said that the well belonged to the people of 'Adan in Yemen, and it is 'ar-Rass.' From Ka'b al-Ahbar, it is said that the palace was built by the second 'Ad. From ad-Dahhak and others, the palace was on a mountain peak in Hadhramaut, and the well was at its foot, and that Salih—peace be upon him—settled there with four thousand people who believed in him, and God—the Exalted—saved them from the torment. Hadhramaut is named as such (with fathah or dammah on the 'ra' and 'mim', or built, or added) because when Salih—peace be upon him—arrived there, he died. Near the well was a town called 'Hadhura', built by the people of Salih, and they appointed over it Jahlus ibn Jallas. They resided there for a time, then disbelieved and worshipped an idol. God—the Exalted—sent to them Hanzala ibn Safwan as a prophet, but they killed him in the marketplace. Thus, God—the Exalted—destroyed them to the last one and disabled their well and their palace. It is permissible that this is intended by way of allusion, though there is remoteness in that.