Tafsir of Nuh 71:26

This is a conjunctive clause linked to its predecessor. The words of the Exalted, "Because of their sins," represent an intervening clause positioned between his supplication (peace be upon him) for the purpose of signaling, from the very outset, that the drowning and burning which befell them occurred solely because of their sins. Nuh (peace be upon him) enumerated these sins and pointed to their deserving of destruction because of them; it is not a narrative of the drowning and burning itself in the manner of recounting the circumstances and words that transpired between him and them, for if it were, it would have been placed after the narration of this supplication of his. This is what the Mufti of the lands of Rum (may mercy be upon him) has stated.

As for what has been said—that it is a conjunction linked to "they found no..." or to the sentence "Because of their sins..." and that the intent is not the reality of the supplication but rather seeking relief and expressing contentment with their destruction—this is far-fetched to the extreme. The established view is that this supplication occurred before their destruction.

Dayyaran (an inhabitant) is among the nouns that are used only in general negation; it is said, "There is not in the house a dayyar or dayyur," like qiyam and qayyum, meaning no one died there. It is a fi’al form derived from ad-dar (the house) or from ad-dawran (revolving/circulating), as if it were said, "Do not leave on the earth, from the disbelievers, anyone who inhabits a house," or "Do not leave upon it anyone from them who circulates or moves." Its root is diwar; the waw and the ya met, and since one of them preceded the other, the waw was changed into a ya and assimilated into the other ya. It is not fi’al, for if it were, it would be dawwar, as there would be no cause for the change then.

Min al-kafirin (from the disbelievers) is a state (hal) of it; had it been placed later, it would have been an adjective for it. The intent behind "the disbelievers" is his people, whom he invited to faith and obedience, but they did not respond.

If the people were dispersed throughout the east and west of the earth as they are today, and his mission was to only some of them—such as the Arabian Peninsula and those near it—that is understood. If they were not so dispersed but were only in the Peninsula and nearby, and the mission was also only to some of them, the same applies. But if the mission was to all of them, a problem arises, for it necessitates the universality of his mission, and scholars have said that such universality is specific to our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

The answer to this is that such universality is not like the universality of the mission of our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), but rather because the inhabitants of the earth were restricted to a portion of it. It is a necessary restriction, not a universality in every respect. This is similar to what is said regarding the mission of Adam (peace be upon him) to his wife and children, for they were, at that time, nothing more than a single household.

Furthermore, it has been said that there is no problem even if we posit that the people were dispersed at that time just as they are today and that he was sent to all of them, because the universality specific to our Prophet (upon him be peace and prayer) is the universality that includes both jinn and mankind until the Day of Judgment, and indeed, even the angels (peace be upon them).

The well-known view is that he (peace be upon him) was sent to all the inhabitants of the earth, and that only a few of them believed, and this supplication and the universality of the Flood were used as evidence for this. This has been countered by the argument that "the earth" is often used to refer to only a part of it, so it is possible that it is the case here. Even if we concede that it meant everyone, the supplication was against the disbelievers, and they are those to whom he was sent and who did not respond to him. The fact that they exclude the people of the Ark is the beginning of the matter, and we do not concede the universality of the Flood. Even if we concede it, it does not necessitate that everyone who drowned by it was morally obligated to believe in him (peace be upon him) and was sinful for leaving it. Calamity may encompass both the righteous and the wicked, yet they go to different destinations, as stated in the Hadith regarding the swallowing of the army in the desert.

Pointing toward this is the fact that their children were drowned—according to what has been said—along with them. Al-Hasan was asked about this and said, "Allah (the Exalted) knew their innocence, so He destroyed them without [it being a] punishment." Indeed, the wisdom in their destruction was to increase the torment of their fathers and mothers when they saw their children drowning.

Some have claimed that Allah (the Exalted) made the wombs of their women barren and the loins of their men dry forty or seventy years before the Flood, so there were no children with them when they were drowned. This requires an authentic transmission, and the judgments of Allah (the Mighty and Majestic) are countless, so understand.