Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:84

(And We rained upon them a rain)—meaning, a strange and remarkable type of rain, which His word, the Exalted, has clarified: (And We rained upon them stones of Sijjeel [hard clay]). It is stated in al-Khazin that those stones were kneaded with sulfur and fire. The apparent meaning of the verse is that it rained upon all of them. However, it is narrated in some reports that the earth swallowed those who remained in their dwellings, while the stones rained upon those who were traveling or were among the stragglers. It is even said that a merchant from among them, who was within the Sacred Precinct (Haram), was stopped by a stone for forty days until he finished his trade; when he exited the Sacred Precinct, the stone fell upon him.

There is a distinction between matara (مطر) and amtara (أمطر). According to Abu ‘Ubaydah, the tri-literal form (matara) is used in the context of mercy, while the quadri-literal form (amtara) is used for punishment. A similar view is reported from al-Raghib. In the Sihah, it is narrated from Anas that "the sky rained" (matarat al-sama’) and "it rained" (amtarat) have the same meaning. In the Qamus, it states that "Allah amtara (rained) upon them" is not said except in the context of punishment. The apparent view of al-Kashshaf in [Surah] al-Anfal is that they are synonyms, as in the Sihah; however, it adds: "The usage of imtar (quadri-literal) has become frequent in the sense of punishment." It is mentioned here [in this commentary] that one says: "The sky rained upon them" (matarathum al-sama’) and "a rained-upon valley" (wad mamtur), whereas one says "it rained such-and-such upon them" (amtara ‘alayhim kadha), meaning He sent it down like the sending of rain.

The essence of the distinction, as explained in al-Kashf, is the consideration of the meaning of "affliction" in the former and "sending down" in the latter; hence, the latter is transitive with the particle ‘ala (upon). Ibn al-Munir mentioned that al-Zamakhshari’s intention was to refute those who say: "Matara is for good, and amtara is for evil," mistakenly believing this to be a conventional distinction. He clarified that amtara means "sent something down in the manner of rain," even if it is not rain itself. Thus, if Allah, the Exalted, were to send from the sky types of good, it would be permissible to say, "The sky amtara (rained) good," meaning it sent it down like rain. Therefore, the quadri-literal form has no inherent exclusivity to evil; rather, it simply happened that the sky did not send anything other than rain that was also a punishment, so it was thought that the situational reality was an intentional conventional rule, which it is not. This is the end of the citation. From this, as in al-Shihab, it is understood that the statement of Abu ‘Ubaydah and his peers is interpreted as metaphorical—especially since it is refuted by the Almighty’s saying, "A cloud that will rain upon us," which refers to mercy. It is not hidden, however, that if one were to say the distinction in usage applies only to the verbs and not their derivations, this refutation would not hold; but their words are not explicit regarding that, and perhaps some have explicitly stated the opposite. Furthermore, mataran is either a direct object or a cognate accusative (maf‘ul mutlaq).

(So observe how was the end of the criminals)—meaning, the outcome of those disbelievers who committed that heinous act. This is an address to everyone capable of contemplation and observation, intended to express astonishment at their state and to warn against their actions.

Lot, peace be upon him, stayed among them for—as some reports state—thirty years, calling them to what would ensure their well-being, but they did not respond to him. Abraham, peace be upon him, used to ride his donkey, come to them, and advise them, but they would refuse to accept it. He would come after he had lost hope in them, look toward Sodom, and say, "Sodom! What day is there for you from Allah, the Exalted? Sodom!" until the decree reached its appointed time, and what Allah, the Exalted, related to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) occurred. The details of this will come, if Allah, the Exalted, wills.

Furthermore, Lot, peace be upon him—as Ishaq ibn Bishr and Ibn ‘Asakir narrated from al-Zuhri—when his people were punished, he joined Abraham, peace be upon him, and remained with him until Allah, the Exalted, took him unto Himself. In these verses is evidence that sodomy is among the greatest of indecencies.

It is mentioned in a report narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu‘ab from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), and authenticated by al-Hakim, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who said: "Allah, the Exalted, cursed seven of His creation from above the seven heavens. He repeated the curse upon one of them three times and cursed after each one, saying: 'Cursed, cursed, cursed is the one who does the deed of the people of Lot.'" The narration continues. It also mentions: "Four [types of people] wake up in the wrath of Allah, the Exalted, and spend the evening in the anger of Allah, the Exalted," and he included among them the one who approaches a man.

Ibn Abi al-Dunya and others narrated from Mujahid (may Allah be pleased with him) that the one who commits that deed, if he were to wash with every drop from the sky and every drop from the earth, he would never cease to be impure; meaning, the water does not remove from him that great sin which has distanced him from his Lord. The intent is to show the horror of that indecency.

Some have also linked lesbianism (sihaq) to this, which also began among the people of Lot, peace be upon him, as women would approach women. It is reported from Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the word of punishment was only established against the people of Lot, peace be upon him, when men became sufficient with men and women with women.

From Abu Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: I asked Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, "Did Allah, the Exalted, punish the women of the people of Lot for the deeds of their men?" He replied, "Allah, the Exalted, is more just than that. The men became sufficient with men, and the women with women."

Others [are punished for] approaching a woman in her posterior. Evidence is cited from what more than one person narrated from ‘Ali (may Allah be honored), that he said while on the pulpit: "Ask me." Ibn al-Kawwa' asked, "Are women approached in their posteriors?" He (may Allah be honored) replied, "You have been debased, may Allah debase you! Have you not heard the saying of the Almighty, 'Do you approach the indecency?'" The verse follows. It is not hidden that this is not complete except by way of analogy; otherwise, the "indecency" in the verse is explained by what you have known. Indeed, many reports have come indicating the prohibition of approaching one’s wife in her posterior, and the matter is, as stated, a subject of disagreement, though the relied-upon position is its prohibition.

There is no difference in sodomy between whether it is with a slave or otherwise. There is a difference of opinion regarding the disbelief of one who considers the intercourse of a menstruating woman or anal intercourse as lawful. In al-Tatar Khaniyyah, quoting from al-Sirajiyyah, it says: "Sodomy with one’s male slave, female slave, or wife is forbidden, but if one considers it lawful, he does not become a disbeliever." This is unlike sodomy with a stranger, for the one who considers it lawful is a disbeliever by unanimous consensus. What is mentioned regarding what is known and unknown, as in al-Shurunbulaliyyah, is that the immoral take liberties with it due to their assumption of its lawfulness.

There is a difference regarding the prescribed punishment (hadd) for sodomy. The Imam (Abu Hanifah) said: "There is no hadd for anal intercourse in any case, but rather a discretionary punishment (ta‘zir), and the one who repeats it is to be killed, according to the standard fatwa," as in al-Ashbah. The apparent view, according to what al-Biri said, is that he is killed on the second time because the definition of repetition applies to him. The two Imams (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad) said: "If it is done with foreigners, it is a hadd like the hadd for adultery. But if it is with his slave, slave-girl, or wife in a valid or invalid marriage, there is no hadd by consensus," as in al-Kafi and others. Rather, he is to be given ta‘zir for all of that, and the one who persists in it is to be killed. In al-Hawi al-Qudsi, they discussed this ta‘zir, mentioning flogging, throwing him from the highest point, and imprisoning him in the foulest of places, and other things—excluding castration, mutilation, and flogging is the most correct. In al-Fath, it says he is to be punished and imprisoned until he dies or repents.

From Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), the hadd for sodomy is death for both the doer and the one to whom it is done, and he reported this as a marfu‘ (prophetic) tradition. In another narration from him, he was asked, "What is the hadd for the sodomite?" He replied, "One looks for the highest building in the village, and he is thrown from it headfirst, then followed by stones." In al-Fath, he said, "The source of this seems to be that the people of Lot were destroyed by that, as their villages were lifted and overturned with them." There is no doubt that the stones followed them while they were falling. From ‘Ali (may Allah be honored), it is reported that he stoned a sodomite, and this is the most similar thing to what Allah, the Exalted, related regarding the destruction of the people of Lot, peace be upon him, by raining stones upon them.

They have confirmed that it will not occur in Paradise, because He, the Exalted, deemed it ugly and called it an "indecency," and Paradise is exalted above that. In al-Ashbah, it says that its prohibition is rational, so it cannot exist in Paradise. It is also said that it is legal (based on revelation), so it could exist—meaning it is possible for it to exist. It is as if by "prohibition" here he intended "ugliness," applying the name of the cause to the effect; meaning its ugliness is rational in the sense that it is grasped by the intellect even if the Sharia had not addressed it. This is not the doctrine of the Mu‘tazilah, as is not hidden.

Al-Jalal al-Suyuti quoted from Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, who said: "This issue took place between Abu ‘Ali ibn al-Walid the Mu‘tazilite and Abu Yusuf al-Qazwini. Ibn al-Walid said: 'It is not prevented for this to be made one of the pleasures in Paradise because the corruption is removed, for it was only forbidden in this world due to the cutting off of progeny and because it is a place of harm, and there is no such thing in Paradise. This is why wine was permitted, as it lacks the intoxication, agitation, and the removal of the intellect—rather, it is pure pleasure.' Then Abu Yusuf (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'The inclination toward males is a defect, and it is ugly in itself because it is a place not created for intercourse, and that is why it was not permitted in any law, unlike wine.' Ibn al-Walid said: 'It is only ugly and a defect because of the contamination by harm, and there is no harm in Paradise; so nothing remains but pure pleasure.' End of quote."

I hold that denying the rational ugliness of sodomy is stubbornness. That is why the people of the Age of Ignorance used it as a taunt, saying in condemnation: "So-and-so has a yellowed posterior." I do not know if Ibn al-Walid would be content for himself to be approached in Paradise or not. If he is content today to be approached tomorrow, then the prevailing assumption is that the man is a passive partner (ma’bun) or has become accustomed to that. If he is not content, then he is bound to acknowledge the rational ugliness. If he claims that his lack of contentment is only because people have become accustomed to using it as a taunt, and that this is absent in Paradise, we say to him: "You must then be content with it in this world if you are not taunted and no one sees you." If he accepts that, then he is as you see, and his claim of a distinction between the doer and the receiver will not benefit him, as is not hidden to those of noble character.

They have explicitly stated that the prohibition of sodomy is more severe than the prohibition of adultery due to its ugliness rationally, naturally, and legally, whereas adultery is not forbidden in that same way, as its prohibition is removed through marriage or purchase, unlike sodomy. The lack of hadd according to the Imam is not due to its lightness, but rather for its gravity, for it is purifiable according to many scholars, even if it is contrary to our school.

Some of the immoral today—may Allah, the Exalted, destroy them—trivialize the matter, wish for it, and boast about the frequency of it. Among them are those who commit it to take revenge—but where is the revenge in that? Among them are those who praise Allah, the Exalted, for it (in the passive voice), and that is because they attained the "lead" by their posteriors! We ask Allah, the Exalted, for pardon and well-being in religion, this world, and the Hereafter.

Know that sodomy has other rulings. They have said that it does not mandate a dower (mahr) nor the waiting period (‘iddah) in an invalid marriage, nor for the one approached through ambiguity (shubhah). It does not result in the "tahlil" (making a woman lawful for a previous husband), nor is the right of return (raj‘ah) established by it, nor is the prohibition of marriage by affinity (musaharah) established by it according to the majority, nor is there an expiation in Ramadan in one narration. If one accuses another of it, there is no hadd and no li‘an (swearing for divorce), contrary to the two [Abu Yusuf and Muhammad] in both issues, as in al-Bahr, taken from al-Mujtaba. In al-Shurunbulaliyyah, from al-Siraj, it states that two just witnesses are sufficient for testimony against it, not four, contrary to the two [Abu Yusuf and Muhammad] as well.

This is all, and I have not encountered anything for the masters of the Sufis—may Allah sanctify their secrets—that is from the type of isharah (allusion) in the story of the people of Lot, peace be upon him. Some of them mentioned in the story of the people of Salih, peace be upon him—after believing in the outward—that the she-camel is the vehicle of the human soul for Salih, peace be upon him, and its attribution to Him, the Exalted, is because it is commanded by His command, mighty and majestic, and is particular to Him in its obedience and nearness. And what is said that the water was divided between her and them—a day for her to drink and a day for them—is an allusion to their drinking from the practical rational faculty, while hers is from the theoretical rational faculty. What is narrated that on the day of her drinking she would spread her legs and milk would be milked from her until it filled the vessels is an allusion to his soul extracting through reflection, from his innate universal sciences, the sciences useful for those who are deficient, from the sciences of ethics and laws. Her emergence from the mountain is her emergence from the body of Salih, peace be upon him.

Others have said that the she-camel was a miracle of Salih, peace be upon him, and that is because they asked him to bring forth for them from the stones of the heart the "she-camel of the secret." So it emerged and was watered by the "secret of the secret," and it gave to the land of the mold the milk of divine influxes. Then he said to them: "Let it feed in the meadows of sanctity and the pools of intimacy," and "do not touch it with evil" from the violations of the Sharia and oppositions to the Path, "lest a painful punishment seize you"—which is the punishment of being cut off from attaining the Truth. "And remember when He made you successors" (meaning ready for succession) "and settled you in the earth" (the earth of the heart), "taking from its plains" (which are the transactions with sincerity) "palaces" (in which you dwell), "and you carve the mountains" (which are the mountains of the stages of the heart) "into houses" (which are the stations of the wayfarers to Allah, the Exalted).

(The chiefs who were arrogant)—these are the human attributes and blameworthy characters—(said to those who were oppressed)—from the attributes of the heart and spirit—(Do you know that Salih is sent from his Lord)—to call to the luminous attributes—(So they hamstrung the she-camel)—with the knives of opposition—(so the earthquake seized them)—due to the weakness of their hearts and the lack of strength of their knowledge—(and they became in their dwellings prostrate)—dead, with no movement toward the enclosure of sanctity.

Some have mentioned that the she-camel and the colt are two images of faith in Allah and faith in His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and they appeared essentially and intermediately from the stone which the hearts of the people resemble. Their hamstringing of the she-camel is of the same category as Yahya's, peace be upon him, slaughtering the death that appears in the ram on the Day of Resurrection. In that is evidence that they are the people with the worst preparation and the most complete deprivation. The evidence for their evil state is that the Greatest Shaykh (Ibn ‘Arabi)—may his secret be sanctified—did not include them in Fusus al-Hikam in the line of the people of Nuh, peace be upon him, where he judged them to have attained salvation in the manner he mentioned. Likewise, he did not include the people of Lot, peace be upon him, in that line, as if due to their extreme ignorance, their distance from wisdom, their approaching houses from other than their doors, their filth, and the baseness of their souls. That which the jurisprudents follow is that all those peoples are fuel for Hell, for there is no survivor among them, and Allah, the Exalted, is the Wisest of judges.