Tafsir of An-Naml 27:55

(Do you indeed approach men with lust): This is a repetition of the denunciation and an exposition of the indecency (fahisha) they commit, moving from ambiguity to explicit declaration. The sentence is adorned with two particles of emphasis (hamzah of inquiry and lam of oath) to signify that its content is something no one would believe could occur due to the perfection of its repulsiveness. The object is referred to by the title of "manhood" (rijuliyyah) rather than "maleness" (dhukuriyyah) to intensify the condemnation and to specify that it pertains to the sons of Adam. Attributing this approach to "lust" is an added layer of condemnation, for it is not in its proper place; therein lies an indication that they are misguided in the place of their act. In the words of the Exalted, (instead of women)—meaning, bypassing women who are the rightful place for lust—there is an indication that they are misguided in their abandonment of them. From what we have mentioned, it is known that "lust" is the maful lahu (object for which the action is done) for "approaching," though it is also permissible that it be a state (hal).

(Nay, you are a people who behave ignorantly): That is, you perform the deed of those who are ignorant of its repulsiveness, or those who are ignorant of the consequence, or "ignorance" in the sense of foolishness and lewdness; meaning, "Nay, you are a foolish, lewd people." Such is stated in al-Kashshaf. Whatever the case, it does not contradict His words: (while you see).

Al-Tibi did not approve of this, claiming that the word of interruption (idrab) rejects it. He explained the verse by saying that when the Exalted denounced their action generally and named it an indecency, and qualified it with the state established for the aspect of the problem—completing the denunciation with His words: (while you see)—He intended to increase that reproach and denial. Thus, He unveiled the reality of that indecency and indicated what He indicated, then interrupted the whole with His words: (Nay, you are a people...) etc. That is: How can it be said to one who commits this indecency, "while you know"? Thus, the letter of interruption (bal) takes the pronoun "you," and renders them a people who are ignorant. He shifted in (tajahalun - you act ignorantly) to reproach and taunt them.

In this there is a view; the statement regarding the shift (iltifat) here is also made by others. It is a shift from the third person in "people" (qawm) to the second person in "you act ignorantly" (tajahalun). The learned al-Sialkuti countered this by saying it is a delusion, for the "people" intended are not the people of Lot such that the one referred to in both styles would be one—which is the condition of a shift—but rather the meaning of each is applied to the people of Lot (peace be upon him).

Some prominent scholars said: The address in it, even though it is an adjective for "people" (which is a noun representing the third person), is for the sake of observing the meaning, because it is identical with "you" (antum) since it is predicated upon it. Others made it a case of the dominant address (taghlib). It was objected that taghlib involves metaphorical usage, and there is no metaphor here. It was replied that such as "you act ignorantly" is constructed for address with a group that has not been mentioned by a third-person pronoun, and here it is not the case; how then could it not involve a metaphor? It was said that their statement "there is a metaphor in taghlib" is a general rule.

The learned al-Sialkuti said that His words, (Nay, you are a people...) etc., are from the category of metaphor regarding what once was (al-majaz bi-itibar ma kana), for the addressee in "you act ignorantly" is considered such by virtue of the "people" being addressed in the expression "you" (antum). Thus, it does not hold that the word was used for other than what it was placed for, nor the compositional structure.