Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:94

{And We did not send into any city a prophet} — A summary indication explaining the conditions of the rest of the nations mentioned in detail, containing a threat and warning to the Quraysh. The preposition min (in "min nabiyin") is added to emphasize the negation. In the speech, there is an elliptical adjective, meaning: "Whom they belied" or "Whom its people treated as a liar."

{Except that We seized its people} — An exception for the absent (istithna' mufragh) from the most general of states. {And We seized} is in the accusative case, acting as a state (hal) for the subject of "We sent" (arsalna). Regarding [the rules of] al-Rida, a past-tense verb serving as a state after illa (except) suffices with a pronoun without the waw (conjunction). This is frequent, such as: "I did not meet him except he honored me" (ma laqaytuhu illa akramani), because illa usually enters upon a noun, so it is interpreted as "except as one honoring me," becoming like an affirmative present tense verb. What is in this verse is of this type. It may also come with the waw and qad (e.g., "except and he has honored me"), or with the waw alone (e.g., "except and he honored me"), because the waw with illa enters into the predicate of the nominal sentence, so how much more so into the state (hal)? It has not been heard to use qad without the waw.

Al-Muradi said in the explanation of the Alfiyyah: "A state (hal) introduced by an affirmative past-tense verb, if it follows illa, must be accompanied by the pronoun and be devoid of the waw, and the entry of qad is forbidden." His [the poet's] saying: "When this death comes, you will not find a need of my soul except [that] I have already fulfilled its decree," is rare. Al-Ashmuni and others have also explicitly stated this.

It is apparent that the prohibition of qad after illa in what was mentioned applies if the past tense is a state (hal), not absolutely. Otherwise, al-Shihab has stated that a past-tense verb does not occur after illa except under one of two conditions: either the precedence of a verb—as is the case here—or being accompanied by qad, such as: "Zayd is nothing but [that he] has stood" (ma Zayd illa qad qama), and "Zayd is nothing but [that he] hit" (ma Zayd illa daraba) is not permissible.

It is understood from what we have mentioned that what occurred in most copies of the exegesis of our master, the Shaykh al-Islam—that a past-tense verb does not occur after illa except under one of two conditions, either the estimation of qad as in this verse, or the accompaniment of qad as in your saying "Zayd is nothing but [that he] has stood"—is not as it should be; rather, it is an evident error, as is not hidden.

The meaning in what we are addressing is: And We did not send into any city of the destroyed cities a prophet among the prophets (peace be upon them) in any state of affairs, except in the state of Our seizing its people {with hardship} — that is, with misery and poverty — {and adversity} — with harm and illness. Ibn Mas’ud interpreted them this way, and it is the meaning of those who said: al-ba'sa' is in wealth, and al-darra' is in the self. It is not intended that the beginning of the mission is concurrent with the mentioned seizure, but rather that it is consequential to it and inseparable from it — {so that they might humble themselves} — that is, so that they might implore, submit, repent of their sins, and yield to the command of Allah Almighty.