Al-Qamar (The Moon): Verses 33-34

Then He clarified their punishment and destruction, saying:

Issues Discussed:

The word al-ḥāṣib (الحاصب) is the active participle from the verb ḥaṣaba (حصب), meaning to throw gravel (ḥaṣbā’), which refers to stones. The thing sent down (mursal) upon them is the stones themselves. Allah Almighty says: {And We rained upon them stones of baked clay} (Al-Ḥijr: 74). And He said concerning the angels: {We will send down upon them stones * of clay} (Adh-Dhariyāt: 33).

If the thing sent down upon them was stones, how can the term ḥāṣib (which implies throwing stones) be used?

The Answer is in Several Ways:

1. The first view: We sent down upon them a violent wind (rīḥ ḥāṣib) carrying stones, which are the gravel (ḥaṣbā’). The term ḥāṣib is frequently used for a severe wind, thus employing the attribute (ṣifah) in place of the described object (mawṣūf).
   • Objection: This is weak in terms of wording and meaning.
     • Regarding wording: Wind (rīḥ) is feminine, as Allah says: {with a fierce, cold gale} (Al-Ḥāqqah: 6), {with a good wind} (Yūnus: 22), {and We subjected the wind to him, running at his command} (Ṣād: 36), {its morning journey a month} (Saba’: 12), and {And We sent the fertilizing winds} (Al-Ḥijr: 22). The text does not use masculine forms like lāqiḥ or lāqiḥah.
     • Regarding meaning: Allah clarified that He sent down upon them stones of sijjīl marked (musawwamah) with a sign for each one, and these are not called gravel (ḥaṣbā’). Furthermore, this was done by the hands of the angels, not by the wind.
   • Response to Objection: The femininity of the wind is not absolute; some types are predominantly masculine, such as a whirlwind (iʿṣār). Allah says: {then a fire struck it} (Al-Baqarah: 266). Since the ḥāṣib contained stones, it is like that which contains fire. As for the claim that the throwing was with sijjīl and not gravel, and by angels and not wind, we say: Any wind that throws stones is called ḥāṣib. Is this not so, when the cloud that brings hail is called ḥāṣib by analogy to hail resembling gravel? How much more so when referring to sijjīl? As for the angels, they moved the wind, and the wind cast the stones upon them.

2. The second view: What is meant is a punishing torment (ʿadhāb ḥāṣib). This is closer because it encompasses the angel, the casting (ḥisāb), and the wind, and everything that can be conceived.

3. The third view: The phrase {a pelting storm} (ḥāṣiban) is the closest interpretation because the phrase {We sent against them} (anā arsalnā ʿalayhim) indicates an agent who sent the stones and caused the pelting.
   • Objection: Should it not have said ḥāṣibīn (plural active participle)?
   • Response: Since the described object (the agent/wind) was not explicitly mentioned, the form of the word itself was favored, as if He said, "a pelting thing (shay’un ḥāṣib)." The goal was to clarify the type of punishment, not who executed the punishment. This response is also valid for those who argue that wind is feminine, as omitting the feminine marker here is analogous to omitting the plural marker there.

Why is the sending of the punishment linked to the denial (takdhīb) by the particle fa’ (فـ), and why did He not say, "The people of Lot denied the warnings, so We sent..." as He said in other narratives, {Then We opened the gates of the heaven} (Al-Qamar: 11)?

Answer: The narrative is following the pattern of previous accounts. It is as if He said: {Then how was My punishment and My warning?} (Al-Qamar: 30). Then, He said, "We do not know about it; only You are the All-Knowing, so inform us," and He replied, {We sent...}.

What is the wisdom in omitting the punishment clause where He did not say, {Then how was My punishment} as He did in the three previous narratives?

Answer: Because repeating it three times is sufficient emphasis. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Have I not delivered the message? Three times," and, "His marriage is void, void, void." The mention was repeated three times to achieve emphasis.

We have previously explained that Allah mentioned {Then how was My punishment} in the account of Noah for glorification (taʿẓīm), in the account of Thamūd for clarification (bayān), and in the account of ‘Ād, He repeated it twice for both glorification and clarification.

Know that Allah mentioned {Then how was My punishment and My warning} four times across the three narratives:

1. The single mention is for warning (indhār).
2. The three repetitions are for emphasis (idhākār), because the purpose was achieved with the single mention.

Furthermore, Allah Almighty said {Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?} (Ar-Raḥmān: 13) once for clarification, and repeated it thirty times besides the first time. This is analogous to repeating {Then how was My punishment and My warning} three times besides the first time. Thus, the mention of favors is ten times the mention of punishment, which is an indication of the Mercy mentioned in the verse: {Whoever brings a good deed, he will have ten times the like thereof, and whoever brings an evil deed, he will not be recompensed except the like thereof} (Al-Anʿām: 160). We will explain this further in Sūrat Ar-Raḥmān.

What is this an exception from?

If the exception is from those concerning whom He said: {We sent against them a pelting storm * That was a sign, but most of them were not believers * And indeed, your Lord – He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful * The people of Lot denied} (Al-Qamar: 33-34), and then He said: {We sent against them...}, but He did not make an exception when He said, {The people of Lot denied}. If the exception were from the people of Lot, then Lot’s family would have been deniers, which is not the case.

The Answer is in Two Views:

1. The first view: The exception refers to those implied by the pronoun in ʿalayhim (upon them), meaning the entire people. However, the statement {The people of Lot denied} does not necessitate that Lot’s family were deniers, because saying, "The people of such-and-such a town sinned," is valid even if a small group within it was obedient. How much more so if there was only one or two obedient individuals?
   • Objection: Why is the exception necessary if {We sent against them} is valid even if a small group was saved?
   • Response: The benefit (fā’idah) is only achieved by clarifying the destruction of those who denied and the salvation of those who believed. Therefore, mentioning the salvation was intended. When a small part of a large group is intended, generalization and absolute statement without clarifying the status of the excepted party (either through the exception itself or a separate statement) is not permissible.
   • Example: {Then the angels prostrated, all of them entirely, * Except Iblīs} (Al-Ḥijr: 30-31). One was excepted because he was intended. And Allah said: {And I have been given from all things} (An-Naml: 23) and did not make an exception because the intent was to state what she was given, not what she was not given. In the account of Iblīs, both aspects were intended, so that it is known that whoever was arrogant toward Adam was punished, and whoever was humble was rewarded. The same applies here. As for the denial, the intent was to mention the deniers, so no exception was made.

2. The second view: The exception is from an implied statement, as if He said: (We sent a pelting storm against them, so We saved none from the pelting storm except the family of Lot). It is also possible that the sending was general, but the destruction was general, as in Allah’s saying: {And fear a trial which will afflict those who have wronged among you exclusively} (Al-Anfāl: 25). Thus, the pelting storm destroyed whomever the sending was intended for, and whomever it was not intended for, such as their children, animals, and dwellings. None survived except the family of Lot.
   • Objection: If the exception is not from the people of Lot but from a general matter, then Lot himself must also be excepted?
   • Response: Lot is excepted by rational understanding, as it is known that it is not permissible to leave him and save his followers. What indicates that he is excepted is Allah’s statement to the angels concerning Abraham: {Indeed, there is in it Lot} (Al-ʿAnkabūt: 32), in response to Abraham’s question, {Indeed, in it is Lot} (Al-ʿAnkabūt: 32).
   • Objection: In Sūrat Al-Ḥijr, He says: {Except the family of Lot, indeed we will save them all} (Al-Ḥijr: 59). This is an exception from the criminals (al-mujrimīn), but Lot’s family were not criminals. How can they be excepted from them?
   • Response: The answer is similar to what we mentioned. One view is that We sent against a people who fit the description of being criminals, even if some among them were not criminals. The second view is that the sending was against criminals in a destruction that encompassed everyone except the family of Lot.
   • The statement {We saved them by the dawn} (bi-suḥr) is a new sentence clarifying the time of salvation or the manner of the exception. It is possible that Lot’s family were present but the pelting storm did not strike them, just as in the case of ‘Ād, where the wind uprooted the disbelievers without harming the believers or providing them with a defense, as in the case of Noah’s people. Thus, {We saved them by the dawn} means: We commanded them to leave the town at the end of the night, and suḥr is just before dawn, or it is the last sixth of the night.

Then Allah Almighty said: