Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:80

"And Lot": The name is in the accusative case due to an implied verb; that is, "We sent Lot." It is conjoined to what preceded it, or [it functions as the object] of the preceding verb without the need for an estimation. The reason those to whom he was sent were not mentioned—in the same style as what preceded and what follows—is that his people, according to what has been said, were not known by a recognized name that the situation would necessitate mentioning, as was the case in the stories before and after this one.

He is Lot, the son of Haran, son of Terah. Ibn Ishaq mentioned "Mazur" instead of "Terah." Most genealogists agree that he was the son of the brother of Abraham—peace be upon him—and this was narrated in al-Mustadrak from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). Ibn 'Asakir narrated from Sulayman ibn Surad that the father of Lot—peace be upon him—was the paternal uncle of Abraham—peace be upon him. It is also said that Lot was the son of Abraham’s maternal aunt, and that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was Lot’s sister. He was in the land of Babylon in Iraq with Abraham, then he migrated to the Levant and settled in Palestine, while Lot settled in Jordan, which is a region in the Levant. Allah the Almighty sent him to the people of Sodom, which is a town in Homs.

Ishaq ibn Bishr and Ibn 'Asakir narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: "Lot was sent to the Mu'tafikāt (the Overturned Cities)." Lot’s villages were four cities: Sodom, Amura, 'Amura, and Sabwīr. In each village, there were one hundred thousand combatants. The greatest of their cities was Sodom, and Lot used to dwell there; it is a day and a night's journey from Palestine in the Levant.

As for this word (Lot), according to al-Zajjaj, it is a non-Arabic (foreign) name, not derived from "to stick mud on a basin" (latta al-hawd), although it is said: "This lawt is in my heart," meaning "stuck to it." Lata the thing means to conceal it.

His saying, "when he said to his people": This is a circumstantial time-frame (zarf) for "We sent," as many have stated. An objection was raised that the sending occurred before the time of the speech, which the zarf implies. This is refuted by the fact that the zarf is considered extended—similar to saying "Zaid is in the land of Rome"—so it is not a strictly literal time-frame but rather implies that the occurrence of the thing contained (mazruf) happens within some of its parts, as established by al-Qutb. It is also permitted that "Lot" be in the accusative case by an implied "Remember," making it a narration conjoined to another narration, and "when" (idh) is a substitute for "Lot"—a substitute of comprehension—based on the premise that it does not necessitate being a time-frame. Abu al-Baqa said: "It is the time-frame of the 'message' which is omitted; i.e., 'Remember the message of Lot when he said...'"

"Do you commit the immorality": An interrogation by way of rebuke and reproach; that is, "Do you commit that act which has reached the ultimate degree of ugliness and its extremity?"

"not having been preceded in it by anyone among the worlds": That is, no one performed it before you in any era. The ba (in biha) is for causation, as stated in al-Kashshaf, from the expression "I preceded him with the ball" (sabaqtuhu bil-kurah), meaning I struck it before him. From this is the authentic statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Ukasha has preceded you in it" (sabaqaka biha Ukasha). Abu Hayyan criticized this, saying that the meaning of causation here is very weak, because a causative ba—when applied to a verb that takes one object—makes the first object perform that action by means of what the ba is attached to; it is like the hamza. So, if you say "I struck the stone with the stone," the meaning is "I caused the stone to strike the stone." This meaning is not correct here except through forced interpretation.

Thus, the apparent meaning is that the ba is for accompaniment; that is, "No one has preceded you [while] accompanying and cloaked in this [sin]." It was defended that the meaning is indeed causation, and that the meaning of "I preceded him with the ball" is "I made my striking of the ball precede his striking of the ball," for the "precedence" is between the two strikes, not the two people or the two strikes [simultaneously]. Thus, in the verse, the same is understood without forced interpretation. Al-Qutb al-Razi said: "The meaning is: I made the striking of the ball precede his striking of the ball; i.e., I made my striking of the ball precede his." Then he leaned toward making the ba denote the time-frame, due to the lack of need for the requirements of the causative interpretation; that is, "No one preceded you in the act of the immorality." Perhaps the matter is as he said. The first min is for emphasis of negation and to provide the meaning of totality; the second is for partitive meaning.

The sentence is an independent commencement, intended to confirm the disapproval and intensify the rebuke and reproach. It is also permissible for it to be an explanatory clause, as if it were said: "Why should we not commit it?" He replied: "No one has preceded you in it," so do not perform that which you have not been preceded in of the abominations, for it is more severe. One should not imagine that the reason for condemning the immorality is merely because it was invented, and that if it were not invented, it would not have been condemned, for there is no room for that once it is established as an "immorality." The reason this sentence confirms the condemnation is that it signals the invention of evil, and there is no doubt that its invention is worse, for there is no room to apologize for it, unlike how they apologized for their worship of idols, for instance, by saying: "We found our fathers..."

Abu al-Baqa permitted the sentence to be in the place of a circumstantial state (hal) for the object or the subject, and al-Naysaburi permitted it to be an adjective for "the immorality," similar to the verse: "And I pass by the mean man [while] he insults me." This was refuted by the fact that the "immorality" here is definite, unlike "the mean man." Regardless, the intent of negating that anyone preceded them in it is that they were the precursors to everyone else in the worlds in this act, not that they were equal to others in it. Al-Bayhaqi and others narrated from 'Amr ibn Dinar that he said: "No male ever mounted a male until the people of Lot." What drove them to that, as Ibn 'Asakir and others narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), was that they had fruits in their homes and gardens, as well as fruits growing along the roadside. They were struck by drought and a shortage of produce, so they said to one another: "If you withhold these outer fruits from travelers, you will have a livelihood from them." They said: "By what means shall we withhold them?" They said: "Make it your custom to sodomize any stranger you find in your lands and fine him four dirhams, for people will not appear in your lands if you do that." They did so, and it became entrenched among them. In some versions, it is said that Iblis—may he be cursed—came to them when they were discussing this, in the form of a boy, the most beautiful boy people had ever seen, and he invited them to himself, so they sodomized him, and then they became emboldened to do it. It is mentioned in a narration by Ibn Abi al-Dunya from Tawus that the people of Lot first came to women in their posteriors, and then they came to men. In his saying, "among the worlds" rather than "among the people," there is an exaggeration that does not go unnoticed.