Tafsir of An-Naml 27:49

(They said) is an initiation of a statement explaining some of the corruption they committed. That is, some of them said to others while deliberating the affair of Salih—peace be upon him. This occurred, as narrated from Ibn Abbas, after they had hamstrung the she-camel, and he had warned them of the punishment, and his saying: "Enjoy yourselves in your homes for three days" (Hud: 65), etc.

(Swear by Allah) is an imperative derived from al-taqāsum (to swear mutually/make a covenant). It serves as the content of the statement, which is the opinion of the majority. It is also permissible that it is a past tense verb serving as a substitute for "said," or as a state (ḥāl) from its subject, with or without an implied "already" (qad). That is, "They said, swearing mutually to one another..." The content of the oath is: "We will surely attack him and his family by night..." etc. Abu Hayyan permitted, in this reading, that "by Allah" be part of the content of the statement.

Al-bayāt (attacking by night) is the act of taking an enemy by surprise and catching them off guard by striking them at night while they are oblivious. They intended to kill him—peace be upon him—and his family at night while they were unaware. It is narrated of Alexander that when it was suggested to him to conduct a night attack, he said: "It is not the custom of kings to steal victory."

Ibn Abi Layla read it as (taqasamū) without the alif and with a shaddah on the sīn; the meaning is the same as the majority reading. Al-Hasan, Hamza, and al-Kisa’i read it as (latubayyitunnahu) with a tā’, addressing one another. Mujahid, Ibn Waththab, Talha, and al-A’mash read it as (layubayyitunnahu) with a yā’ of the third person. According to this reading, "swear" (taqāsamū) cannot be correct unless it is a declarative statement (past tense), unlike the first two readings where it can be an imperative or a declarative statement. This is because the imperative is an address, and if the subject of the oath following it is viewed in light of the address, the tā’ of address is required; if it is viewed in light of the formulation of their statement when swearing, the nūn is required. As for the yā’ of the third person, it has no basis. However, if it is made a declarative statement, it is in the third person, as one says: "He swore that he would surely do [it]."

(Then we will surely say to his wali)—that is, the wali (heir/avenger) of Salih; meaning the person seeking blood-revenge from among his relatives if he were to be killed. Some read it (lataqūlunna) with the tā’, as did those who read (latubayyitunnahu). Others read (layaqūlunna) with the yā’ of the third person, consistent with their previous reading. Humayd ibn Qays read it with the yā’ of the third person and the nūn. It is said: The meaning is that they said, while swearing by Allah, "Some of us will attack him by night, then we will all say to his wali, 'We did not witness the destruction of his family'."

(The destruction of his family): Mahlik is an infinitive (verbal noun) like marji’, or a place of destruction if it refers to the location, or a time of destruction if it refers to the time. The intent is to deny witnessing the destruction that occurred therein. They chose to deny witnessing the "destruction of his family" rather than denying their killing of them, as an exaggeration—as if they said: "We did not even witness it, let alone carry out their destruction!" From this, the denial of their killing of Salih—peace be upon him—is also understood, for one who does not kill his followers, how could he kill him? It is said that there is an ellipsis in the speech; that is: "We did not witness the destruction of his family, nor his own destruction." Abu Hayyan favored this, adding: "The omission of such a conjoined element is permissible in eloquent speech, as in His saying: '...garments to protect you from the heat' (i.e., and the cold)."

(And we are truthful) is a conjunction to "we did not witness," as held by al-Zajjaj. The meaning is: "And we swear that we are truthful." It is also permitted that the wāw is for the state (ḥāl), i.e., "in a state of being truthful in what we mentioned."

A problem arises: how could they claim truthfulness when they are rational beings who avoid lying whenever possible? It is answered that, by convention, being present at an event is not the same as actively participating in it; for one who kills a man is not said to have merely "witnessed his killing," even if presence is a prerequisite for participation. Thus, they swore based on this conventional meaning, in accordance with the habit of oaths, and misled their opponent into thinking they meant the linguistic meaning, so they were "truthful" without breaking their oath. That they were people of convention does not harm their position but rather serves a complete purpose.

Al-Zamakhshari said: "It is as if they believed that if they attacked Salih by night and attacked his family by night, combining both attacks, then said 'we did not witness the destruction of his family' (mentioning only one of them), they would be truthful because they performed both acts and not just one." This is countered by the fact that he who performs two acts and denies one is not free from the stigma of lying. The deception would only be complete if they had performed only one act, or if they were accused of both and denied the totality. Therefore, scholars do not disagree that he who swears "I will not strike Zayd" and strikes both Zayd and 'Amr is a breaker of his oath, unlike one who swears "I will not strike Zayd and 'Amr, nor eat two loaves," and eats only one of them; that is a matter of disagreement among scholars regarding whether the oath is broken or not.

The truth is that their exoneration from lying in what was mentioned is not necessary to justify, as they are the ones who lied about Allah and His Messenger—peace be upon him—and committed things far uglier than lying in this instance. The intention of al-Zamakhshari is to support what he and his group claim regarding the principle of "rational goodness and badness" (al-taḥsīn wa al-taqbīḥ) by using the agreement of the people of Salih upon it; however, that is hardly established for him.