Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:97

The hamza is for the denunciation of the reality and treating it as repulsive. It has been said: it is for the denial of the occurrence and its negation, but this is challenged by the statement, "And none feels secure from the plan of Allah," which rejects that. The fa is for sequential causality.

Regarding the phrase "people of the towns" (ahl al-qura): it is said to refer to the aforementioned towns, with the explicit noun used in place of the pronoun to indicate that the basis of the rebuke is the security of each group concerning the torment that came to them, not the security of the collectivity of the nations. Others say: it refers to the people of Mecca and its surroundings, to whom our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was sent, and this is, in my view, the more appropriate interpretation, a position held by Muhyi al-Sunnah.

The conjunction—based on both views—is to the statement, "So We seized them suddenly," and not to an omitted clause. One may estimate an implied clause that fits the context, as occurs frequently in the Quran, and the matter of the interrogation’s primacy is simple.

His, the Exalted’s, statement: "And if only the people of the towns had believed," etc., is a parenthetical insertion between them to hasten the clarification that the aforementioned seizure was a result of what their hands had earned. Regarding the first interpretation, it supports the assertion that the sudden seizure was contingent upon the absence of faith and piety; had the situation been reversed, the outcome would have been reversed, regarding the second interpretation.

If the lam in the preceding verse is taken to indicate the genus, it would reinforce this parenthetical insertion, the conjunction, and the clause to which it is joined, covering both with equal scope according to what is in al-Kashf. It was not joined to the nearest clause, "So We seized them," because that did not precede the explanation of the towns and the story of their destruction intentionally, as the one before it did; thus, joining it to that [the earlier one] was more appropriate.

This applies if by "the towns" we mean those indicated by what preceded. But if it means Mecca and its surroundings, the justification for this is clearer, for the source of the denunciation is what befell the previous nations, not what befell the people of Mecca and those around them by way of drought and hardship. It might be said: if the intended meaning of "people of the towns" in both places is the people of Mecca and its surroundings, then joining to the nearest clause is more appropriate.

The meaning is: After that seizure of those who acted arrogantly, sought power, and opposed the messengers (peace be upon them), and given its prevalence and common knowledge, do the people of the towns who share those traits feel secure that "Our punishment will not come to them (beiatan)?"

Beiatan means the time of bayat (nighttime approach/surprise), which is what is intended by those who say "at night." It is a verbal noun from bata (to spend the night), and its accusative case is due to it being an adverb of time with an implied genitive construct. It is also permissible for it to be a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the object, meaning "at night." It is also permissible for it to be a verbal noun of bayyata (to launch a night attack), and its accusative case is that of an absolute object (maf'ul mutlaq) for "come to them" from a different root, meaning "a night-attack." Or, it could be a hal from the subject, meaning mubitan (a night-attacker), or from the object, meaning mubayatin (while they are being attacked at night). Many have chosen the adverbial interpretation to suit what follows: "while they are sleeping"—a hal from their apparent pronoun or the implied pronoun in beiatan, by interpreting it as an adjective as you have heard, and it is, in that case, a nested hal.