Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:4

(And how many a city have We destroyed) This is the commencement of reminding them and warning them of the punishment that befell those who came before them due to their turning away from the religion of Allah, the Exalted, and their persistence in the falsehoods of their allies.

Kam (how many) is a noun indicating multitude, in the nominative case as an initial subject (mubtada’), and the sentence following it is its predicate. Min is an expletive (for emphasis), and qaryah (city/village) is a specifier (tamyīz). It is also permissible for kam to be in the accusative case due to preoccupation (ishtighāl), with the pronoun in ahlaknāhā referring back to the meaning of kam, for the meaning is "many cities, We destroyed them."

The intent of "destroying them" is the "will to destroy them," used metaphorically, as in the saying of the Almighty: When you stand up for prayer... (meaning, when you intend to stand). Thus, there is no difficulty regarding the sequence implied by the fā’ (so/then) in the saying of the Almighty: (Then Our punishment came to it), meaning: Our torment.

Some scrutinizers objected to this answer, stating that it contains a fundamental theological problem: if the "will" is considered regarding its effective connection (ta‘alluq tanjīzī), then the arrival of the punishment is concurrent with it, not following it. If that is not the intended meaning, then the "will" is eternal; thus, if the punishment follows it, the world would have to be eternal, and if it is delayed, then it requires the conjunction thumma (then/thereafter).

It was answered that the intended meaning is the effective connection prior to the occurrence—meaning, "We intended its destruction, then it arrived." Ponder this.

It is also said that the "destruction" here means "abandonment" and "lack of success," making it a metaphor or an instance of naming the cause by the effect. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah’s words point to this. It was objected that this is a Mu‘tazilite view, and that the correct view is to say: "Its meaning is 'We created transgression and disobedience within its people, so Our punishment came to it.'" Others say: "The intent is 'We decreed its destruction, so it came to it.'" Some say the fā’ is explanatory, like saying: "He performed ablution, so he washed his face." Others say the fā’ is for thematic ordering. Ibn ‘Uṣfūr said: "The intent is 'We destroyed them' with a destruction that was not total extermination, so 'the punishment' came to it as a total extermination." Al-Farrā’ said: "The fā’ is in the sense of the wāw (and), or the meaning is 'the arrival of Our punishment appeared and became famous.'" Others said the speech is inverted, containing a presentation and postponement: "We destroyed them [by night or while they were midday napping], then Our punishment came to them."

(4) Thus, the destruction occurred in this world, and the arrival of the punishment refers to the Hereafter, so the speech encompasses the torment of both abodes. However, what follows it appears to reject this, as it indicates the punishment was in this world. Several scholars supplied an omitted word in the Noble Arrangement, meaning: "Then the punishment came to its inhabitants."

Some permitted interpreting this through istikhdām (usage), since "city" is applied to its inhabitants metaphorically. Some people also supplied the omitted word in the first part, even though a city is described with destruction, which is ruin.

Al-bayāt (the night) is originally a verbal noun (maṣdar) for bāta, yabītu, baytan, baytatan, bayātan, baytūtan. Al-Rāghib mentioned that al-bayāt—and likewise at-tabyīt—is attacking an enemy by night. Al-Layth said: Al-baytūta is entering into the night. Its accusative case is as a state (ḥāl), interpreted as "those who are by night." It is also permitted that it is adverbial, though this is contrary to the apparent meaning. The possibility of it being in the accusative as an object, as Abū al-Baqā’ claimed, is not to be paid attention to.

Aw (or) is for categorization, and what follows it is conjoined to the state, and it is also in the place of a state. The wāw (and) is implicit within it, as Ibn al-Anbārī said, due to the clarity of the meaning and because aw is a conjunction and the wāw is likewise, so they found it burdensome to combine two conjunctions and deleted the second. This is also reported from al-Farrā’. It was objected that the wāw of state is different from the wāw of conjunction in every case; it is a category of the wāw like the wāw of oath, evidenced by the fact that it occurs where the preceding speech cannot be a state. Its being for conjunction requires it to occur only where the preceding speech is a state, in order to conjoin a state to a state.

Ibn al-Munīr said: "This wāw must be distinguished from the wāw of conjunction by a merit; do you not see it accompanying the nominal sentence after a verbal one? If it were a pure conjunction, its intervening between two different types would be considered ugly, or the most eloquent form would be the opposite. Since we see it intervening—and the speech is the most eloquent or definitive—we know it is distinguished from the wāw of conjunction. Since this is established, there is no harm in their gathering, even if it contains the meaning of conjunction in addition to that specific property. Either it drops the meaning of conjunction because the latter suffices, or it persists in it and joins with aw just as the wāw joins, but in eloquent speech, it has the added meaning of rectification (istidrāk). On this basis, the gathering is possible without dislike. If you were to say: 'Glorify Allah, the Exalted, wa-anta rāki‘ (while you are bowing) or wa-anta sājid (while you are prostrating),' it would be eloquent, without vileness or dislike, contrary to Abū Ḥayyān, who claimed that grammarians ruled that if a conjunction enters a state-sentence, the entry of the wāw of state is forbidden due to phonetic similarity. Thus, the example is, according to him, incorrect."

The apparent meaning of al-Zamakhsharī’s speech is that this wāw is the wāw of conjunction originally, then it was borrowed for the state due to the connection it contains; thus, it has departed from conjunction and is used for another meaning, but it was given the rule of its origin in that it cannot combine with another conjunction. On this, the speech of those two Imams must be interpreted, and this is a school for them and those who followed them.

Some grammarians said: "The pronoun here suffices for the omission of the wāw, and sufficiency with it is not rare, as it is said; rather, it is more frequent than the sands of Yabrīn and the gazelles of Palestine." It has been reported that al-Zamakhsharī returned to this view. I say: The matter is controversial and has detail. In Al-Badī‘, a nominal state-sentence is either from the cause of the possessor of the state or an outsider. If it is from its cause, it requires a returning pronoun and the wāw, such as: "Zayd came while his father was departing," and "‘Amr went out while his hand was on his head," except for the rare usage like their saying: "I spoke to him while his mouth was toward my mouth." If it is an outsider, it requires the wāw, and it substitutes for the returning pronoun. Sometimes both are combined, such as "‘Amr arrived while Bishr was standing towards him." It has also come without a wāw or pronoun, as in the saying: "Then we reached the mountains of Safad, turned away from the left, and on our right were new lands." Here, "the mountains of Safad were turned away" is a state without a wāw or pronoun.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qāhir categorized this into two: that which requires the wāw absolutely, which is when it starts with the pronoun of the possessor of the state, like "Zayd came while he was hurrying," because repeating his pronoun implies that the sentence is a new beginning so that the repetition is not in vain; if the intent is not a new beginning, then the wāw is necessary. Everything else requires the wāw in eloquent speech, except by way of analogy to the singular and interpretation; then the wāw might be left out permissibly.

It is also said—and it was not accepted—that the rule is: if the subject is the pronoun of the possessor of the state, the wāw is mandatory; otherwise, if the pronoun is in what the sentence starts with—whether it is a subject, like "his mouth toward my mouth" or "some of you are enemies to others," or a predicate, like "I found him while he was the presence of generosity and nobility"—then it is not judged as weak because it is the connector at the beginning of the sentence; otherwise, it is weak and rare.

Ibn Mālik, followed by Ibn Hishām—and it is reported from al-Sakkākī—said: "If the nominal sentence is emphatic, the pronoun is necessary and the wāw is left out, such as: 'He is the Truth, there is no doubt in it' and '(That is the Book, there is no doubt in it).' Ibn al-Munīr chose that the corrector for the occurrence of this sentence here as a state without a wāw is the conjunction, since it requires the participation of the second sentence with what it is conjoined to in the state of being a state, so the wāw of state is dispensed with, just as you conjoin to that which is sworn by, and you include it in the ruling of the oath of the wāw, such as: '(By the night when it covers, and the day when it manifests),' and the saying of the Almighty: '(By the retreating stars, those that run and hide, and the night as it closes in).' The repetition of the oath particle is dispensed with by the substitution of the conjunction. Let this be understood.

In any case, the gist of the meaning is: Our punishment came to them sometimes by night, like the people of Lot, peace be upon him, and sometimes at the time of the qaylūlah (midday nap), like the people of Shu‘ayb, peace be upon him. Qaylūlah comes from qāla, yaqīlu, so he is qā’il, and it is said qaylan, qā’ilatan, maqālan, maqīlan. It is, as in Al-Qāmūs, the middle of the day, or it is rest and comfort at midday, even if there is no sleep with it, as in Al-Nihāyah. He argued for this with the saying of the Almighty: (The companions of Paradise will be, on that day, better in settlement and better in resting place), since there is no sleep in Paradise.

Al-Layth said: It is a nap at midday. The argument was refuted by saying that that is metaphorical. The reason for specifying the descent of the punishment upon them at these two times is that the descent of what is disliked at the time of heedlessness and comfort is more atrocious, and its narration to the listeners is more restraining and forbidding from being deceived by the causes of security and rest.

In the expression in the first case using the maṣdar and making it identical to al-bayāt, and in the second case using the nominal sentence—which is famous for indicating stability—along with the presentation of the subject which indicates strengthening, there is a rhetorical hyperbole that is not hidden. Likewise, describing all of them with the description of al-bayāt and qaylūlah, even though some of those destroyed were far removed from them, is an indication of complete security and heedlessness. In this is a censure of them for their heedlessness regarding what they are faced with. The expressions were varied, as it is said, and the second state was built upon the strength of the judgment and the indication of the power of their situation in what was attributed to them, because qaylūlah is more evident in the desire for comfort and ease of life; for it is the habit of the affluent and the pampered, not of those accustomed to toil and fatigue. In it is a sign that they were masters of wickedness and insolence.