Hūd: (78–80) And his people came to him, rushing...

Issues Discussed:

When the angels entered Lot's (peace be upon him) house, his wicked wife went out and told her people: "People have come to our house; I have never seen faces more beautiful, clothes cleaner, or a better scent than theirs."

Then, {And his people came to him, rushing} (78).

The Almighty clarified that their rushing might be due to seeking the evil deed by saying: {And before this, they used to commit evil deeds}.

It is narrated that the people entered Lot's house and intended to enter the room where Gabriel (peace be upon him) was. Gabriel placed his hand on the door, and they could not open it until they broke it down. He then wiped their eyes with his hand, and they became blind. They exclaimed: "O Lot, you have brought sorcerers upon us and caused sedition!"

Regarding the word {يَهْرَعُونَ} (yahra'ūna - rushing), linguists have two opinions:

1. Opinion 1: This form follows the pattern where the active voice form resembles the passive voice form, and its agent is not explicitly known, similar to awla'a fulānun (so-and-so became obsessed) or ar'ada Zayd (Zayd thundered).
2. Opinion 2: It is not permissible for the active form to resemble the passive form. In these verbs, the agent is omitted. Thus, the interpretation of awla'a Zayd is that his nature made him obsessed, ar'ada ar-rajul means his anger made him thunder, and zahā 'Amr means his wealth made him proud. As for إِهْرَاع (*ihrā'), some say it means rushing accompanied by trembling, while others say it means intense running.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {O my people! Here are my daughters; they are purer for you} (78), there are two opinions:

1. Qatadah said: He meant his literal, biological daughters.
2. Mujahid and Sa'id ibn Jubayr said: He meant the women of his nation, as they are figuratively daughters to him, and they are attributed to him through following his guidance and accepting his call. Grammarians state that the slightest reason suffices for a valid attribution (like fatherhood). This is supported by the verse: {And his wives are their mothers} (Al-Ahzab: 6), indicating he is a father to them.

This second opinion is preferred by me (Al-Razi), supported by several points:

1. It is highly unlikely and unbecoming of a man of honor—let alone a great Prophet—to offer his biological daughters to wicked and immoral people.
2. He said: {They are purer for you}. His biological daughters (if only two) would not suffice for the large crowd. However, the women of his nation would suffice for all of them.
3. Authentic narrations confirm he only had two daughters, Zantā and Za'ūrā. Using the plural form banāt (daughters) for only two is linguistically questionable, as the minimum for a plural is three.

As for those who hold the first opinion (biological daughters): They agree that the Prophet (PBUH) was not inviting them to fornication with the women, but rather inviting them to marry them. There are two views on this marriage condition:

1. He invited them to marry them on the condition that they first accept faith (Islam).
2. Marriage between a believing woman and a disbelieving man was permissible in his Sharia. This was the case in early Islam, evidenced by the Prophet (PBUH) marrying his daughter Zaynab to Abu al-'As ibn al-Rabi', who was a polytheist, and marrying his daughter to 'Utbah ibn Abi Lahab. This ruling was later abrogated by: {And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe} (Al-Baqarah: 221) and {And do not marry polytheists until they believe} (Al-Baqarah: 221).

They also differed on the number of daughters: The majority held he had two daughters, and the plural form was used as a linguistic allowance (like in verses referring to two brothers or two hearts). Others suggested he had more than two.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {They are purer for you}, there are two sub-issues:

Sub-Issue 1: The apparent meaning suggests that the act they seek (homosexuality) is pure, which is known to be corrupt. Purity is not found in a man marrying another man. This phrase is like saying "Allahu Akbar" (God is the Greatest), meaning He is great, or like the verse: {Is that better as entertainment or the tree of Zaqqum?} (As-Saffat: 62), implying there is no good in it. Similarly, when Abu Sufyan said, "Exalt 'Uzza and exalt Hubal," the Prophet (PBUH) replied, "Allah is Higher and More Majestic," indicating no comparison between Allah and an idol.

Sub-Issue 2: It is narrated that 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Al-Hasan, and 'Isa ibn 'Umar recited {هن أطهر لكم} (hunna aṭharu lakum) with the accusative case (as a ḥāl or circumstantial adverb), similar to {وهذا بعلي شيخا} (Hūd: 72). However, most grammarians deem this incorrect. They argue that if it were read as hā'ulā'i banātī hunna aṭharu, it would resemble the verse mentioned, but the intervening word hunna prevents aṭharu from being a circumstantial adverb.

Regarding this verse, there are several issues:

1. Recitation of lā takhziyūn: Abu 'Amr and Nafi' recited it by affirming the yā' (ياء) as per the original form. The rest omitted the yā' for ease, indicated by the kasra underneath the preceding letter.
2. Meaning of lā (Do not):
   • Opinion 1 (Ibn 'Abbas): Do not expose me to shame concerning my guests, meaning if they harm the guests, shame will fall upon Lot.
   • Opinion 2: Do not shame me regarding them, as the host is obligated to feel shame for any evil act committed against the guest. The word khaziya means to feel shame/embarrassment.
3. The word ḍayf (guest): Here, ḍayf stands in place of the plural aḍyāf (guests), similar to how ṭifl (child) stands for aṭfāl (children) in {or the children who have not yet appeared over the private parts of women} (An-Nur: 31). Alternatively, ḍayf can be a verbal noun (maṣdar) used without pluralization, like saying rijālun ṣawm (men fasting).

There are two opinions:

1. {Rashīd} means one who guides others (murshid), i.e., one who speaks the truth and repels these wicked people from my guests.
2. {Rashīd} means one guided by Allah (murshad), meaning: Is there not among you a man whom Allah has guided to righteousness and blessed with correctness and guidance, so he prevents this ugly act?

The first opinion is stronger.

There are several interpretations:

1. We have no need or desire for your daughters. The implication is that if one needs something, they acquire a kind of right to it; thus, denying the right is a metaphor for denying the need.
2. Taking the literal meaning: We have no right to them as wives whatsoever, nor does our nature incline toward them. How, then, can they substitute for the act we desire (homosexuality)?
3. We have no right to them because you invited us to marry them on the condition of faith, which we will not accept. Therefore, we have no claim over them.

Regarding Lot's statement upon hearing their response: {If only I had strength against you, or could take refuge in a strong support} (79), there are two sub-issues:

Sub-Issue 1: The answer to the conditional law (if) is omitted because the context implies it. The meaning is: "I would have prevented you and exerted myself fully to repel you." Similar examples are {And if there were a Qur'an whereby the mountains were moved} (Ar-Ra'd: 31) and {And if you could but see when they are made to stand before the Fire} (Al-An'am: 27). Al-Wahidi stated that the answer is omitted here because the imagination can conceive many types of prevention and repulsion.

Sub-Issue 2:

• {If only I had strength against you}: This means if I possessed what would enable me to resist you. Naming the cause of strength as "strength" itself is permissible, as in {And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war} (Al-Anfal: 60), where "power" means weapons. Others interpret it as the ability to repel them.
• {or could take refuge in a strong support}: This refers to a fortified, impregnable place, likened to a strong pillar of a mountain.

Query: What is the grammatical justification for connecting a verb (āwī - take refuge) to a noun (quwwa - strength) using aw (or)?

Answer (from Al-Kashshāf): It was recited with the accusative case (أَأْوِيَ - a'wiya) by assuming an omitted an (that), as if it were: "If only I had strength against you, or that I could take refuge..."

We must assign independent meanings to both clauses: {If only I had strength against you} means being personally capable of repelling them, or being empowered, either by oneself or with help, to subdue and punish them. {or could take refuge in a strong support} means that if he lacked the power to repel them, he could fortify himself in a stronghold to be safe from their evil through it.

A third view: Upon witnessing the people's foolishness and their intent to commit indecency, he wished for strong power to repel them. Then, he corrected himself, saying: Rather, it is better that I take refuge in a strong support, which is clinging to God's protection. Under this interpretation, {or could take refuge in a strong support} is a separate statement, unconnected to the first, thus avoiding the issue of connecting a verb to a noun. This is why the Prophet (PBUH) said: "May Allah have mercy on my brother Lot; he used to take refuge in a strong support."

The angels said: {O Lot! We are messengers of your Lord. They will never reach you.} (80).

{So set out with your family during a part of the night,}

{and let none of you turn back except your wife; indeed, what befalls them will befall her.}

{Indeed, their appointment is the morning. Is not the morning near?}