Surah At-Tur (52): Verse 7: Indeed, the punishment of your Lord...

Reference to the Oath's Answer (The Mūqsam 'Alayh)

There are several discussions concerning this verse:

This particle functions to make the noun accusative (mansūb) and the predicate nominative (marfū').

1. Reason for its Function: It is likened to a verb (shubbihat bi-l-fi'l) in both form and meaning.
   • Formally: Because the fatḥa (accusative marker) is obligatory upon it, and it is specific to entering nominal sentences. The accusative form resembles the sound of the 'anīn (moaning/wailing) associated with the 'inna sound.
   • Semantically: The affirmative sentence structure (e.g., Zayd is standing) is primary. Therefore, the language dispensed with a particle to indicate mere affirmation. When one says, "Zayd is standing," the affirmation of standing for Zayd is understood. Negation, being secondary to affirmation, requires a particle to alter the original state (affirmation). Thus, they say, "Laysa Zaydun qā'iman" (Zayd is not standing). The phrase Laysa Zaydun qā'iman is established subsequent to the initial affirmative statement, "Zaydun qā'imun."
   • Furthermore, the statement 'Inna Zaydan qā'imun (Indeed, Zayd is standing) is derived from Laysa Zaydun qā'iman. It is as if the originator of language first established the affirmative "Zaydun qā'imun." When negation was needed, a modifying word was introduced—a verb-like particle (Laysa). This is because one could use the negative particle mā instead (e.g., Mā Zaydun qā'iman), which is why we say lastu (I am not) and laysū (they are not), attaching the subject pronoun to it, which is only permissible if it is a verb.
   • Then, the originator intended to establish an affirmative sentence structure parallel to the negative one (Laysa Zaydun qā'iman), just as the negative sentence contains the meaning of negation. Thus, they introduced 'Inna. They did not intend for 'Inna to be a verb, because Laysa resembles a verb due to the element of change it carries—it alters the sentence from its original affirmative state. 'Inna, however, does not alter the state; the sentence remains affirmative as it was, thus resembling Laysa, which itself resembles a verb. This is the view of grammarians regarding 'inna, 'anna, ka'anna, layta, and la'alla: they are particles resembling verbs (ḥurūf mushabbahah bi-l-af'āl).

2. Comparison with Laysa: Knowing this, we state: Just as Laysa has a subject (like the fā'il) and a predicate (like the maf'ūl), such as in "Laysa Zaydun la'īman" (Zayd is not base/mean), where the subject is raised and the predicate is accusative, similarly, 'Inna has a subject and a predicate.
   • However, the subject of 'Inna differs from the subject of Laysa, and its predicate differs from the predicate of Laysa: The subject of 'Inna is accusative, and its predicate is nominative.
   • Reason for the difference: Since 'Inna is an addition that goes against the original state (as it conveys affirmation already implied without a particle), and Laysa is an addition that alters the original state (without which the intended meaning would not be achieved), the case endings in Laysa follow the original state: the subject is presented first (nominative). In 'Inna, this is reversed against the original state: the particle resembling the object (ismu 'inna, accusative) is presented before the particle resembling the subject (khabaru 'inna, nominative). Therefore, saying 'Inna munṭaliqan Zaydan (Indeed, the standing one is Zayd) is not permissible, whereas in Laysa, saying laysa munṭaliqan Zaydun (Zayd is not standing) is permissible, just as with a true verb, because Laysa is a verb (or verb-like).

The original form is with a kasra (إِنَّ), and the fatḥa (أَنَّ) is an accidental variation. Although this appears to contradict the grammarians' view, in reality, it is as stated.

We have established that the affirmative statement ("Zaydun qā'imun") is the original state, as affirmations require being reported, while non-existence remains in its original state. Therefore, the default state of things is permanence.

A listener might need to refute this statement:

1. He says: "Laysa Zaydun qā'iman" (Zayd is not standing).
2. The first speaker replies: "Inna Zaydan qā'imun" (Indeed, Zayd is standing).
3. The refuter replies back: "Laysa Zaydun bi-qā'imin" (Zayd is not standing [with the added bā']).
4. The first speaker replies back: "Inna Zaydan la-qā'imun" (Indeed, Zayd is certainly standing [with the added Lām]).

This shows that أَنَّ (with fatḥa) is not the direct counterpart to لَيْسَ (Laysa). Rather, the response with إِنَّ (with kasra) is derived from the structure involving the Lām (إِنَّ زَيْدًا لَقَائِمٌ).

There is a subtle and precious point here: If the Almighty had said, "Indeed, the punishment of God (اللَّهِ) will occur," and since the name Allāh signifies Majesty and Awe, the believer, and even the Prophet (PBUH), might fear that this punishment could affect them, given that God is self-sufficient, needing the entire universe, let alone one person.

Therefore, He reassured them by saying {your Lord} (رَبِّكَ). When the hearer encounters the term Rabb (Lord), they feel security.

This indicates severity. The words Wāqi' (occurring/falling) and Wuqū' (the act of occurring) belong to the same root. Wāqi' implies greater intensity than Kā'in (happening/being).

Then the Almighty said: {No repeller has it} (مَا لَهُ مِنْ دَافِعٍ). The discussion regarding this point was previously covered in the exegesis of {And your Lord is not ever unjust to His servants} (Surah Fussilat, 46). We mentioned that the preceding oaths—{By the Mount [At-Tur], And by the Book Inscribed, And by the House Frequently Visited, And by the Sea Being Set Ablaze}—indicate the impossibility of repulsion. Whoever seeks to repel punishment from himself might seek refuge on mountain peaks or in the depths of the seas, but that will not help; even reaching the elevated roof or entering the House Frequently Visited will not repel it.