Tafsir of Al-`Ankabut 29:35

Ibn Abbas said: It refers to the ruins of their devastated dwellings. Mujahid said: It is the black water upon the face of the earth. Qatadah said: It is the stones that were rained down upon them, which the early generations of this community have seen. Abu Sulayman al-Dimashqi said: It is that its foundation is its top and its roofs are its bottom to this day, though those with insight have rejected this. Al-Farra’ said: The meaning is "We left it as a sign," as one says, "There is a sign in the sky," intending that it is a sign. Abu Hayyan critiqued this by stating that it is not grammatically sound unless one considers the particle (min) to be an unnecessary addition in an affirmative context, similar to the line: "I gave as a dowry from it a coat and a he-goat," intending "I gave it as a dowry." Others said: It is analogous to your saying, "I saw from him a lion." It is also said that the sign is the strange, widely-known story, or that the pronoun in "thereof" refers to the act committed by them, with the sign being the stones or the black water. The apparent meaning is that which the majority holds, and the significance of (min) in these views is not hidden.

"For a people who use reason" i.e., who employ their intellects in gaining insight and taking warning. The verb is treated as if it were intransitive. "For a people" relates to "We have left" or to "a sign," with the latter being the more probable.

In these verses, there is a clear indication of the condemnation and repugnance of sodomy; it is a major sin by consensus, and they have explicitly stated that it is more severely prohibited than adultery. In the Sharh al-Mashariq by al-Akmal, it is stated that it is prohibited by intellect, scripture, and nature. As for the lack of a mandatory prescribed punishment (hadd) according to Imam Abu Hanifa—may Allah be pleased with him—it is due to the absence of evidence for it in his view, not because of the lightness of the sin. Some scholars have said that the absence of a specific hadd is for the purpose of intensification, because the hadd is a purifier.

There is disagreement regarding the possibility of its occurrence in Paradise. In al-Fath, it is stated: If its prohibition is both intellectual and scriptural, it cannot exist in Paradise; but if it is only scriptural, it is possible for it to exist there. The correct view is that it will not exist, because Allah the Almighty deemed it far-fetched and repulsive, saying: "Indeed, you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with among the worlds," and He named it impure, saying: "They used to commit impure deeds," and Paradise is purified from such things. Al-Hamawi critiqued this by saying that it does not necessarily follow that because something is impure in this world, it cannot have an existence in Paradise; do you not see that wine is the mother of all impurities in this world, yet it has an existence in Paradise? There is a debate here, for the impurity of wine in this world is due to its removal of the intellect, which is the tether against all ugliness, and this attribute does not remain with it in Paradise. The same cannot be said for sodomy.

In al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, concerning the description of the people of Paradise, it is stated that they have no posterior parts, for the posterior was only created in this world for the evacuation of excrement, and Paradise is not a place for filth. Based on this, the non-existence of such an act in Paradise is evident. I do not think any person of sincere zeal would permit his soul to be sodomized in Paradise, secretly or openly. The permissibility of its occurrence therein might lead to one permitting it for himself or deeming it permissible if one desires to sodomize another, for one must attain what he desires. Even if this is not definitive proof against the occurrence of sodomy absolutely in Paradise, it strengthens the view that it will not happen. So, contemplate this.