Surah Adh-Dhariyat: Verse 17

This is an explanation of their being among the Muhsinin (those who do good). It is like saying, "Hatim was generous," meaning he spent what he had and did not spare his effort. There are several points of discussion here:

The word {قليلا} (little) is in the accusative case, functioning as an adverb of time (ظرف), implying: "They slept little of the night." This is similar to saying, "Some part of the night he stood [in prayer]," where some part is accusative as an adverb of time. The predicate of Kāna (they were) is {ما يهجعون} (they do not sleep), and (ما) is considered superfluous (زائدة). This is the common view.

There is another interpretation: {كانوا قليلا} means they were not sleeping (negation of sleep). This view is narrated from Al-Dahhak and Muqatil.

Al-Zamakhshari rejected the idea that (ما) is negative. He argued that a negative particle cannot govern what precedes it; you cannot say, "Zayd, mā I struck him" (زيداً ما ضربتُ). However, you can have the following particle govern what precedes it, as in, "Zayd, lam I strike him" (زيداً لم أضربْ).

The reason for this difference is that a transitive verb, when negated, is treated as if it were affirmative regarding its object. If you say, "Zayd struck Amr," the connection of his action to Amr is established. If you say, "He did not strike him" (mā darabahu), no action actually occurred for the verb to attach to or pass over to the object. However, the negated action is conceptually carried over from the affirmative form.

If this is established, then negation concerning the past is like the active participle concerning the verb: the active participle functions like the verb. But if the active participle implies the past tense, it does not function (i.e., it does not take an object); thus, you do not say, "Zayd was striking Amr yesterday" (زيد ضارب عمراً أمس). But you can say, "Zayd will strike Amr tomorrow or today or now" (غداً واليوم والآن), because the past is no longer present or expected to be present, so the object is not truly attached. However, the verb, due to its strength, still functions. The active participle, due to its weakness, does not function.

Knowing this, we say that (ما ضرب) for negation in the past combines negation and the past tense, thus weakening it. As for (لم أضرب), although it shifts the future meaning to the past, the form itself is future tense, so it retains what is found in the statement, "Zayd will strike Amr tomorrow" (Zaydun ḍāribun ‘Amran ghadan), allowing it to function.

This explanation leads to the view that {قليلا} is not accusative because of {يهجعون}. Rather, it is the predicate of Kāna: "They were few" (كانوا قليلين). Then He said: {ومن الليل ما يهجعون}—meaning they do not sleep at all, but rather they spend the entire night alive (awake). The (من) here indicates the genus (الجنس), not some (التبعيض).

This view aligns with the meaning of the verse: {He said, "You have wronged him by asking for his ewe in addition to yours..."} (Surah Sad: 24). This is because we previously mentioned that {Indeed, the pious} (Adh-Dhariyat: 16) implies those who believed, and {Muhsinin} implies those who performed righteous deeds. And {They used to sleep but little} implies the meaning of His saying: {And few are they} (Surah Sad: 24).

Based on the common view (that (ما) is superfluous), it is possible that {قليلا} is an adjective describing the verbal noun (مصدر), implying: "They slept a little sleep of the night" (يهجعون هجوعاً قليلاً).

It can be argued that {قليلا} is the predicate of Kāna, and (ما) is the subordinating particle (مصدرية), meaning: "Their sleeping of the night was little" (كان هجوعهم من الليل قليلاً), similar to saying, "Zayd's disposition was good" (كان زيد خلقه حسنا). This way, there is no need to posit a superfluous particle.

Note that grammarians do not call this a badal (apposition). They distinguish between saying, "Zayd's face is handsome" (زيد حسن وجهه) or "The face [of Zayd]" (الوجه), versus "Zayd, his face is handsome" (زيد وجهه حسن). In the first case, they call it an adjective (صفة); in the second, an apposition (badal). When we mention badal al-ishtimāl (apposition of inclusion), we mean it in sense, not strictly by technical terminology. Otherwise, {قليلاً} when placed first is not like its position when placed later in grammar. Even in the phrase, "So-and-so's little sleeping" (فلان قليل هجوعه), it is not an apposition, but "So-and-so's sleeping is little" (فلان هجوعه قليل) is an apposition.

Based on this, (ما) could be a relative pronoun (موصولة), meaning: "What they slept of the night was little" (كان ما يهجعون فيه قليلاً من الليل).

This covers the linguistic aspects. As for the meaning, the precedence of {قليلاً} in mention is not merely for rhyme (so that yahja‘ūn and yastaghfirūn end the verses), but it serves two purposes:

The First Benefit: Sleep is a form of rest for them. The intent is to clarify their striving and their enduring sleeplessness for the sake of Allah. If the verse said, "They slept," the listener might first perceive their rest, and then the description of that sleep as being little. A listener might overlook the subsequent description and think their excellence and being Muhsinin is because they sleep. By preceding it with {قليلاً}, what comes first to understanding is the scarcity of sleep. This is why someone emphasizing this point would say, "So-and-so is one of little sleep" (قليل الهجوع), rather than "His sleep is little" (هجوعه قليل), because the goal is to emphasize the scarcity of sleep, not to describe sleep by its quantity (little or much). If they had no sleep at all, negating scarcity would be more appropriate. But since they do sleep (albeit little), scarcity is the focus, as the opposite would seemingly be abundance.

The Second Benefit: Pertains to {من الليل} (of the night). Little sleep during the day can occur for anyone. However, the night is the time for sleep; only a devoted worshipper, engaged in obedience, stays awake during it. If one objects, "Sleep (hujū‘) only occurs at night, and sleep during the day is not called hujū‘," we reply: Mentioning the general term while intending the specific is acceptable. It is like saying, "I saw a rational, eloquent animal" (حيواناً ناطقاً فصيحاً). Mentioning the specific while intending the general is only acceptable in certain contexts; we would not say, "I saw an eloquent, rational animal" (فصيحاً ناطقاً حيواناً).

Knowing this, we say regarding {كانوا قليلاً من الليل}: He mentioned a general concept that could be followed by: "They used to glorify, seek forgiveness, or stay awake of the night," or something else. When He says {يهجعون} (they sleep), it specifies that general potential, which could have included other acts, so there is no contradiction.