Tafsir of Sad 38:3

This is a warning to them regarding their disbelief and arrogance, by clarifying what befell those like them. "How many" (كم) is the object of "We have destroyed" (أهلكنا), and "a generation" (من قرن) is its specification (tamyīz). The meaning is: "We have destroyed many generations from the past."

"Lat" (لات) is "La" (لا)—the particle similar to "laysa" (ليس)—to which the feminine "ta" (ت) has been suffixed to emphasize its meaning, which is negation. This is because adding to a structure indicates an increase in meaning, or because the "ta" serves for intensification, as in ‘allāmah (علامة), or to emphasize its similarity to "laysa" by making it three letters long with a quiescent middle. Al-Radi said: It is for the feminization of the word, thus serving to emphasize the feminine; it is uniquely bound to the word al-ḥīn (الأحيان). The explicit mentioning of the word al-ḥīn is not strictly required, according to some—though this is contested by reports of it entering upon its synonym, as in the statement of al-Mutanabbi: "I have persevered until there was no time for perseverance" (حتى لات مصطبر). The phrase al-muṣṭabir (مصطبر) and al-muqtaḥim (مقتحم) are interpreted either as nouns of time or by assuming the word ḥīn is implied after lat.

They have strictly adhered to deleting one of the two parts of the sentence. Most commonly, the nominative is deleted, as is the case here according to the reading of the majority. The meaning is: "The time is not a time of escape."

The school of al-Akhfash holds that it is the "La" that negates the genus (nāfiyah lil-jins), acting like "inna" (إن), to which the "ta" is suffixed; thus, ḥīna manāṣ is its accusative noun, and the predicate is deleted—meaning "for them."

It has also been said that it is the "La" that negates the verb, with the "ta" suffixed to it, having no grammatical influence at all. If it is followed by a nominative, it is a subject whose predicate is deleted; if it is followed by an accusative, as is the case here, there is an implicit verb following it that governs it—meaning: "And you do not see a time of escape."

Abu al-Summal read it as wa-lāta ḥīnu (nominative "nun") with the "ta" having a ḍamma. According to the school of Sibawayh, ḥīnu is the noun of lat and the predicate is deleted, meaning: "The time of escape is not obtained for them." According to the final opinion mentioned, it is a subject whose predicate is deleted. Similarly, according to the school of al-Akhfash—since it is his doctrine, as found in al-Baḥr, that if what follows is nominative, it is an initial subject (ibtidā’), meaning: "There is no time of escape existing for them."

Isa ibn Umar read it as wa-lāta ḥīni (genitive "nun") with the "ta" having a kasra, as in the statement of al-Mundhir ibn Harmalah al-Ta'i: "They sought our peace, but it was not a time of reconciliation / So we replied that it was not a time of survival."

This is explained either by saying that lat governs the genitive for times—just as lawlā (لولا) governs pronouns according to Sibawayh—or by assuming an implied min (من), as if to say: "It was not [from] a time of escape, and not [from] a time of peace," just as they used the genitive with an implied min in their saying: "On how many trunks is your house?" (على كم جذع بيتك)—meaning from a trunk, according to the most correct of two opinions. And their saying: "Is there no man?" (ألا رجل), which means is there no one from among the men. The position of ḥīni manāṣ would be nominative as the noun of lat (in the sense of "not"), as one says: "It is not a man standing" (ليس من رجل قائما), with the predicate deleted according to Sibawayh, or as an initial subject with a deleted predicate according to others.

Al-Akhfash explained wa-lāta awāni by assuming an implied ḥīn, meaning: "And it was not a time [during] a period of peace," so ḥīn was deleted and awān remained in the genitive. It is said that awān in the verse is indeclinable (mabni) on the kasra, being likened to idh (إذ) in the statement of Abu Dhu'ayb: "I forbade you from your seeking... while you were [at a time when] you were sound." The aspect of the comparison is that it is a time from which the possessive (muḍāf ilayh) was severed, because the original is awānu ṣulḥin, and the tanwīn was compensation; it was given a kasra due to the meeting of two quiescent letters because it is indeclinable like the former. They are both similar in that they are indeclinable while having a tanwīn at the end for compensation, which necessitates moving the end with a kasra. Even if the reason for the indeclinability in awān differs from idh in terms of the "ultimate boundaries" (ghāyāt), where it was made a time severed from its possessive—which is the intent—the tanwīn for compensation is not a hindrance to that attribution. They become indeclinable when there is no tanwīn because the cause is the need for the deleted word, just as a particle needs that which completes it. This meaning exists whether it is declined with nūn or not. The tanwīn is a phonetic, not semantic, compensation, so there is no contradiction between compensation and indeclinability. It happened that they did not compensate with tanwīn except in the state of its declension; it is as if that is purely for compensation, or rather, it retains the meaning of "possibility" (tamakkun) as well, so there is no contradiction.

The indeclinability is proven in the case before us by the kasra, and the cause that was present in the "ultimate boundaries" existed, so the indeclinability was referred back to it. It happened that they compensated with tanwīn here, likened to idh, in that when it was severed from the annexation, it was given tanwīn, or to fulfill the right of the expression since the right of the meaning was lost.

The reading is explained by taking manāṣ to be like awān in the verse, treating the adverb that was annexed to—which is ḥīn—as an adverb itself, because the possessor and the possessed are like one thing. Thus, its adverbial nature was estimated, and it was already annexed—if its origin was manāṣuhum—so it was severed and became as if it were an indeclinable adverb severed from annexation, given tanwīn for its severance. Then what was annexed to it, which is ḥīn, was made indeclinable on a kasra because it was annexed to an indeclinable—supposedly and conceptually—which is manāṣ, resembling awān. It has been argued against this that the aforementioned carrying-over did not affect the "carrier" itself, so how could it affect what is annexed to it? Furthermore, there is contention regarding explaining the genitive in the verse in that way, and one is astonished at whoever accepts it.

The ḍamma on the "ta" in the reading of Abu al-Summal and its kasra in the reading of Isa are for indeclinability. It is narrated from Isa: wa-lāta ḥīnu (with ḍamma) manāṣa (with fatḥa). The author of al-Lawāmiḥ said: If this is authentic, perhaps ḥīn was made indeclinable with ḍamma to resemble the "ultimate boundaries," and manāṣa was made indeclinable with fatḥa along with lat. There is a transposition in the statement, meaning: "And it was not a time of escape," but "La" (لا) only operates on indefinite nouns that are connected, not those separated from it, even by an adverb. It is possible that this has a meaning I do not know.

More trivial than this, in my view, is that ḥīn is defined by manāṣ and the fatḥa is due to the proximity of the conjunction "wa" in the Almighty's saying, "And they were amazed" (wa-‘ajibū), similar to the fatḥa of the rā’ in "other than" (ghayri) in the saying: "It did not prevent drinking from it other than that a dove spoke..." according to one opinion. Most likely, the authenticity of this reading is incorrect.

Isa also read it like the majority, except he gave the "ta" of lat a kasra. It is known from these readings that there are three dialects regarding its "ta." They disagreed on the pause (waqf) on it; Sibawayh, al-Farra', Ibn Kaysan, and al-Zajjaj said: It is paused upon with a "ta." Al-Kisa'i and al-Mubarrad said: It is paused upon with a "ha." Abu Ali said: There should be no disagreement that the pause is with a "ta," because changing the "ta" into a "ha" is specific to nouns. Some claimed that the "ta" is not suffixed to "La," but is an extra letter added to the beginning of what follows it. Abu Ubaydah chose this and mentioned that he saw in the Imam (Uthman's codex): wa-lā taḥīna manāṣ written as one word, with the "ta" mixed into the beginning of ḥīn. This is not refuted by saying that the script of the codex is outside the rules of orthography, as it does not appear in the Imam in any other place written contrary to this, such that one could say "this is contrary to rule." Its consideration is only where the evidence specifies. Hence, al-Sakhawi said in his commentary on al-Ra’iyyah: "I prefer pausing on 'La' after what I witnessed in the codex of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. We have heard them say: 'Go taḥīna and taḥīna' without 'La', and this is frequent in prose and verse." Included in this is his saying: "Those who show affection at the time [taḥīna] of no affection, and those who feed at the time [zamāna] of no one who feeds." The fact that its origin is al-‘āṭifūna with a pause, and when it was fixed in the continuity of speech, it was changed into a "ta," is not something to be inclined toward. Yes, it is better to consider the "ta" with "La" due to the fame of ḥīn, not taḥīn.

Some said: Lat is "Laysa" itself; the origin of laysa is with a kasra on the yā’, then it was replaced by an alif because it was moved after a fatḥa, and the sīn was replaced by a ta, as in sittah (ست), for its origin is sudus. It is also said that it is a past tense verb and lat means "diminished and decreased," so it was used in negation like "qalla." This is not relied upon.

Al-Manāṣ is the place of escape (al-manjā) and passing (al-fawt). It is said: nāṣahu yanūṣuhu if he missed it. Al-Farra' said: al-nawṣ is delaying. It is said: nāṣa ‘an qarnihi yanūṣu nawṣan wa-manāṣan, meaning he fled and veered away. It is said: "The eradication seeks the manāṣ." Harithah ibn Badr said, describing his horse: "Deep of girth, when I pulled its reins with my hands, it veered (istanāṣa) and sought to run..."

Regarding the first meaning, some have taken it here, saying: The meaning is that they cried out and sought help, seeking survival, and the state was that the time was not a time of passing and survival. Regarding Mujahid, it is interpreted as fleeing. Al-Thalabi extracted from Ibn Abbas that Nafi' ibn al-Azraq said to him: "Inform me about the Almighty's saying, 'And it was not a time of escape (lat ḥīna manāṣ).' He said: It is not a time of fleeing," and recited to him the statement of al-A'sha: "I remembered Layla, but it was not a time for remembering, for she had departed from him, and the place of escape (manāṣ) was far." From al-Kalbi, he said: They used to say to one another when they fought and were compelled: "Manāṣ!" meaning "You must flee!" So when the punishment came upon them, they said: "Manāṣ!" Allah, the Almighty, said: wa-lāta ḥīna manāṣ. Al-Qushayri said: Based on this, the estimation is: "They cried out, 'Manāṣ!', so it was deleted due to the indication of what follows it." Meaning: The time is not the time for your calling for it.

It is apparent that the sentence, according to this interpretation, is a circumstantial clause (ḥāliyyah), meaning: They cried out for fleeing, and the time was not a time for fleeing. Abu Hayyan said: "In establishing the circumstantial clause, there is an error: lat ḥīna manāṣ... [the 'for them' is implied]." Al-Jurjani said: Meaning, they cried out at a time when there was no escape, meaning an hour when there was no salvation and no passing. When "La" was moved to the front and "ḥīn" to the back, that necessitated the "wa" (conjunction), just as the circumstantial clause necessitates it when it is made a subject and predicate, like "Zayd came walking" (jā’a Zayd rākiban), then you say "Zayd came while he was walking" (jā’a Zayd wa-huwa rākib). Thus, ḥīn is an adverb for the Almighty's saying: "Then they cried out" (fa-nādaw).

That the origin is what was mentioned—that ḥīn is an adverb for nādaw—is an "alien" claim, contrary to the taste of Arabic speech, especially what is the most eloquent of speech. I do not know what drove him to that.