Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:101

(Those villages, We relate to you of their news) is an inaugural sentence functioning as a summary of what precedes it, signaling the extreme deviation of the nations mentioned. "Those" (tilka) is a demonstrative referring to the villages of the nations recounted—the people of Noah, ‘Ad, Thamud, and their peers. The definite article (al-lam) is for reference (al-‘ahd), though it is permissible for it to denote the genus (al-jins). "Those" is the subject (mubtada’), "the villages" (al-qura) is its adjective, and the sentence following it is the predicate.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted that "Those" is the subject and "the villages" is the predicate, with the subsequent sentence serving as a second predicate following the first, according to the view of those who allow a second predicate to be a sentence. It is also suggested that the sentence is a state (hal), and that the speech gains benefit by being qualified by it. This was challenged in al-Taqrib by the claim that the condition for benefit is qualification by a state, and if it is treated as a second predicate, that condition vanishes—unless one intends "those villages whose condition is known" or "whose attributes are known," given that the lam is for reference, but this necessitates dispensing with the requirement that it be qualified by a state. The response to this is that the claim of "dispensing with it" is denied; for the meaning—as stated in al-Kashf—differs under both interpretations. If made a state, the intent is to qualify it with the state—as Al-Zajjaj mentioned regarding expressions like "Zayd, standing"—meaning that the speech is directed toward someone who already knows he is Zayd; otherwise, it would be impossible, as if one said "Zayd is standing" initially. If it is made a second predicate, then "Those villages" follows the style of "This is the Book" according to one of the views, and "We relate" is a second predicate, serving to amplify the meaning by suggesting that these villages possess other stories and conditions that remain concealed.

Al-Tibi stated: Since the state is fadlah (an extra element), the problem remains regarding the lack of benefit in the predicate. The answer is that it is not fadlah in every respect. As for the predicate, there is no wonder in it being like a part of the first, as in "This is sweet, sour." This is on par with that. The objection here is that considering what we are discussing to be of that category is "sour" and redundant, replaced by the "sweet"—and it is even more profound and bitter to argue that since both "sweets" share the essence of the subject, the benefit of one suffices. The present tense verb (yantassu) is used to signal that the story has not yet concluded. "Of" (min) is for partition—meaning some of their stories which contain lessons and admonitions. Beginning the speech by mentioning "villages" and attributing the "news"—meaning stories of great significance—to them, even though the intended meaning is the news of their inhabitants and an explanation of their conditions, is signaled by His, the Almighty’s, saying: (And their messengers came to them with clear signs). This is based on what the Shaykh al-Islam mentioned: that recounting their total annihilation—in a manner that encompasses even their dwellings through being swallowed by the earth and tremors, leaving them empty and deserted—is more alarming and horrific.

The letter ba’ in His saying (with clear signs) is either connected to the aforementioned verb as a transitive particle, or to an implied state (hal) of the subject—meaning they were "clothed with clear signs." This signifies that the messenger of every annihilated nation came to them with numerous clear miracles, not that each messenger came with only one sign. What they cited regarding the correspondence of a plural with a plural requiring the division of individuals among individuals is not strictly necessary. As the profound scholar Abu al-Qasim al-Samarqandi stated in his annotations on al-Mutawwal, it is not required in every correspondence that one correlates to one; for the division of individuals among individuals, just as it may be equal, may also be unequal. For example, if it is said, "The people sold their beasts," it is understood that each of them sold the beast he owned, even if the number of beasts varies for different individuals. This is why it is said regarding His saying: (So wash your faces and your hands) that the washing of each person’s hands is established by the Book.

The context here demands what we have mentioned, for the sentence is inaugural, explaining the perfection of their arrogance and stubbornness. His, the Almighty’s, saying: (So they were not to believe) is an explanation of the persistence of their lack of belief in the past, not of the lack of persistence of their belief. A parallel to this is: (No fear will there be upon them, nor will they grieve). The arrangement of this state following the coming of the messengers with clear signs with the connective fa’ is because continuing in an act after the arrival of what necessitates quitting it is considered, in terms of its classification, a new action and an emergent deed—as in "I exhorted him, but he was not deterred; I invited him, but he did not answer." The lam is for emphasizing the negation, meaning: it was not valid, nor did it stand for a people of those nations at any time, that they would believe; rather, that was impossible for them until they met what they met, due to the extremity of their arrogance and the intensity of their obstinacy in disbelief and tyranny.

Furthermore, if what is being recounted is the final state of each of those peoples, then the intent behind their "lack of belief" is their persistence in it after all attempts. Regarding what is indicated by His, the Almighty’s, saying: (for what they had denied before): their denial from the time the messengers (peace be upon them) arrived until the moment of persistence and stubbornness. This is the meaning of Al-Zajjaj’s words: "So they were not to believe after seeing those miracles because of what they had denied before seeing them"—meaning, as soon as they came to them, they surprised them with denial, so they brought the miracles, and they persisted in the denial. Al-Hasan held this view as well. He did not make this the primary intended meaning like the first part; rather, he made it a connective for a relative pronoun whose referent is omitted—meaning "that which they denied"—to signal that it is clear in itself, and that what requires explanation is their lack of belief after the succession of dazzling signs and the manifestation of clear miracles that would have forced them to accept had they been possessed of intellect. The relative pronoun to which belief and denial relate, both affirmatively and negatively, is an expression of all the religious laws brought by every messenger, in their fundamentals and their branches.

However, if what is being recounted is all the conditions of each of those peoples, then the intent—as it is said regarding what was mentioned first—is their continuous disbelief from the time the messengers (peace be upon them) arrived until the end of their affair. As for what is indicated last, it is their denial before they arrived. Thus, one must make the relative pronoun signify the fundamentals of the religious laws that do not accept alteration or change, and upon which all the messengers gathered, and to which they called the nations—namely, the Word of Oneness and its requirements. The meaning of their denial of these before the arrival of the messengers is that they used to hear them from the remnants of those before them and deny them, not that the intellect directs toward them and judges by them while they opposed it. Then, their state after the messengers came to them was like their state before, as if no one had been sent to them. Specifying the denial and lack of belief to the aforementioned fundamentals is due to the manifest nature of the rest by the implication of the text; for when they did not believe in what all the messengers agreed upon, then their failure to believe in what some of them were uniquely sent with is even more certain. Not making this denial the primary intended meaning is because it is not the axis of the punishment; rather, the axis is the denial after the mission, as is clearly expressed by His, the Almighty’s, saying: (And never would We punish until We send a messenger). What occurred before it was mentioned only as an explanation of how deeply rooted they were in disbelief and denial.

It is said that what is indicated last is their denial which they concealed on the Day of the Covenant. This is narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Al-Rabi‘, Al-Suddi, and Muqatil, and it was chosen by Al-Tabari. Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and others recorded from Mujahid that the verse is like His saying: (But if they were returned, they would return to that which they were forbidden). The meaning is: "They would not have believed even if we had annihilated them and then brought them back, because of what they had denied before their annihilation." Under this, the relative pronoun signifies all religious laws, their fundamentals and branches. This contains an exaggeration of their persistence and arrogance that is not hidden, though it is at the height of subtlety. In any case, the three pronouns are consistent in their referent.

It is said the pronoun in (they denied) refers to their ancestors, and the meaning is: "The descendants were not to believe in what the ancestors had denied." It is not hidden how forced this interpretation is. Al-Akhfash held that the ba’ is causal and ma is the infinitive (masdariyah), and the meaning is: "So they were not to believe now"—i.e., upon the arrival of the messengers—because of the denial that preceded them, which they became accustomed to and chanted before their arrival; or that they never believed and continued in their denial because of the denial that occurred from them when the messengers arrived.

(Like that)—i.e., like that severe, firm sealing—(Allah seals the hearts of the disbelievers). He placed the noun in the place of the pronoun to indicate that the sealing is on account of disbelief. This is what Al-Zajjaj’s words point to, and some have explicitly stated it. It is permissible, and perhaps it is better, that "the disbelievers" is intended to include those mentioned and others, and in this, there is a warning to the listeners that is not hidden. The Glorious Name is manifested by way of transition (iltifat) to instill awe and induce fear.