Tafsir of Ya seen 36:31

"Have they not seen how many generations We destroyed before them?" The pronoun refers to the people of Mecca, and the interrogation is for the purpose of affirmation (taqrir). Kam (how many) is a quantitative noun (khabariyyah) in the accusative position, governed by ahlakna (We destroyed), and al-qurun (the generations) is an explication (bayan) for kam. Some later scholars allowed for kam to be an initial subject (mubtada') with the sentence following it as its predicate; this is the statement of one who possesses no knowledge of the discipline. The sentence is governed by yaraw (they see), and its meaning penetrates it. Kam suspends yaraw from acting upon the wording because, even though it is a quantitative noun, it holds the precedence of discourse just like an interrogative noun. Therefore, no preceding agent can act upon it in eloquent language unless it is a preposition or a possessive noun—for example: "Ala kam faqir tasaddaqtu arju al-thawab" (To how many a poor person did I give charity, hoping for reward) and "Ibn kam ra'is sahibtuhu" (The son of how many a leader have I accompanied).

Al-Akhfash related, based on what is in al-Bahr, the permissibility of a governing agent preceding it other than those mentioned—such as in the view of some: "Malaktu kam ghulaman" (I possessed how many a servant), meaning "I possessed many servants," treating it as one would treat kathir (many). The "seeing" (ru'yah) is intellectual, not visual—contrary to Ibn 'Atiyyah—because, according to the well-known position, it (the verb ra'a) does not undergo suspension, and also because the people of Mecca were not present at the destruction of those before them to witness it. Rather, they knew of it through reports and the observation of the ruins. Al-Qurun is the plural of qarn, referring to those who are gathered together in one era, such as 'Ad, Thamud, and others.

"That they..."—the pronoun refers to the meaning of kam, which is the generations. That is: that the destroyed generations "...to them"—meaning to the people of Mecca—"...do not return."

(31)

"And that..." and what follows is, in the interpretation of a single noun, a substitute (badal) for the sentence "how many We destroyed" in terms of meaning, as narrated from Sibawayh and followed by al-Zajjaj. That is: "Have they not seen the abundance of Our destruction before them, and the fact that they do not return to them?" It is said that this is regarding the meaning, because between the mentioned abundance of destruction and the lack of return, there is no unity of part-to-whole, totality, or association, as is the requirement for a substitute. However, since it is in the sense of "those whom We destroyed" and "they do not return" (in the sense of "not being returners"), the substitution becomes clear as a substitute of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal) or a substitute of the whole for the whole (badal kull min kull), as stated by al-Khafaji. The author of al-Kashf suggested that it is a substitute of the whole by treating their lack of return as a form of "abundance of destruction" metaphorically. In my view, although this approach lacks the substitution of a single noun for a sentence and fails to fulfill the condition for substitution as I have heard it described, it is not without artifice; and Sibawayh is not a prophet of grammar such that his path must be followed.

Al-Sirafi said: It is permissible to make "that they..." etc., a relative clause linked to "We destroyed them" (ahlaknahum). That is: "We destroyed them in that they do not return," meaning by this type of destruction. Ibn Hisham allowed in al-Mughni for "that" and its clause to be the object of yaraw, with the sentence "how many We destroyed" acting as a parenthetical phrase between them, or for it to be suspended from "how many We destroyed," with "they do not return to them" being an accusative of cause (maf'ul li-ajlihi). Al-Shamni said: (It is related to) yaraw, and the meaning is: They knew of their destruction for the sake of the fact that they would not return. This was refuted on the grounds that there is no recognized benefit in what was mentioned in al-Mughni. Al-Khafaji criticized it, saying: It is not hidden that what was mentioned also applies to the substitution theory. The apparent meaning is that the intent behind mentioning it is either to mock and humble them, or to convey the restriction implied by placing "to them" first—i.e., they do not return to them, but rather to Us; so what follows is an affirmation of that. It is as you see. Al-Jalabi said: Perhaps the truth is to make the first of the two pronouns refer to the meaning of kam, and the second to the messengers, and that "that" and its clause are the cause for "We destroyed them." The meaning would be: "We destroyed them because of their persistence in not returning from their corrupt beliefs to the messengers and what they called them to." The choice of "do not return" (la yarji'un) over "did not return" (lam yarji'u) is to indicate the continuity of the negation while observing the rhyme. This, despite its distance, is weak in meaning. Even weaker is what was said: that both pronouns refer to what is immediately apparent—the first to the meaning of kam, and the second to those to whom the "seeing" is attributed—and that "that" and its clause are the cause for the destruction. The meaning: They do not return to them to inform them of the punishment that befell them, and the recompense for mockery is that these people should be restrained; hence We destroyed them.

It is narrated from al-Farra' that he makes yaraw act upon "how many We destroyed" and upon "that they..." etc., without substitution, though he did not explain how this is done. Ibn 'Atiyyah claimed that "that" and its clause are a substitute for kam. It is not hidden that he treated it as governed by "We destroyed," as is well-known; this is not permissible because a substitute is on the intent of repeating the agent, and there is no meaning to saying "We destroyed that they do not return." Perhaps he was loose in this, and the intent is a substitute for "how many We destroyed" in terms of meaning, as narrated from Sibawayh. As for making kam governed by yaraw and the substitution being from it itself, the status of that is clear.

Abu Hayyan said: What the craft of Arabic requires is that "that they..." etc., is governed by an omitted verb indicated by the meaning, and its estimation is: "We ordained" or "We decreed that they to them do not return." The sentence is a circumstantial clause (hal) from the agent of "We destroyed," as al-Khafaji stated. I see it as further removed from controversy, although there is a hidden quality in indicating the omitted verb. If this does not adhere to your heart, then the various opinions are before you, and there is no restriction upon you. It is as if I see you choosing what was narrated from al-Sirafi, and there is no harm in it.

According to some views, it is permissible for the pronoun in "that they" to refer to those to whom the "seeing" is attributed, and in "to them" to refer to the destroyed ones. The meaning would be: The remaining ones do not return to the destroyed ones by lineage or birth; that is, "We destroyed them and severed their progeny," and destruction combined with the severing of progeny is more complete and general. This fits well with the view narrated from al-Sirafi. Ibn 'Abbas and al-Hasan read "Innahum" (Indeed, they...) with a kasra on the hamza, as an inception (isti'naf) and a break of the sentence from what precedes it in the grammar of the sentence. 'Abdullah read: "Have they not seen whom We destroyed, for indeed they..." etc. According to the reading with the fatha, it is a substitute of inclusion, and the verse is used to refute those who believe in the Raj'ah (Return), as the Shi'a hold.

'Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Abu Ishaq, who said: It was said to Ibn 'Abbas that some people claim that 'Ali—may Allah honor his countenance—is to be resurrected before the Day of Resurrection. He remained silent for a while, then said: "What a wretched people we would be if we married his wives and divided his inheritance! Do you not read...?"