Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon): Verse 37

وَلَقَدْ رَاوَدُوهُ عَنْ ضَيْفِهِ فـطـمـسـنـا أعـيـنـهـم فـذوقـوا عـذابـي ونـُذُر

Explanation of Rawadūhu (They sought to seduce him)

• Al-Murāwadah (seeking to seduce/entice) is derived from al-Raud (seeking/intending). It is close to al-Mutālabah (demanding/claiming).
• However, al-Mutālabah is typically used concerning a tangible object (e.g., "Zayd demanded the dirhams from 'Amr").
• Al-Murāwadah is used only concerning an action (e.g., "He sought his help/assistance"). This is why Murāwadah takes a second object preceded by 'an (from), whereas Mutālabah takes bi (with).
• This difference exists because an action depends on the agent's choice, whereas a tangible object might be obtained without the owner's choice.
• This distinction is further clarified by the difference between saying: "Inform me of his matter" (which necessitates informing about the object/entity itself) versus "Inform me concerning such-and-such." For example, if one says, "Inform me concerning Zayd's coming," it might only require information about the manner of his coming. But if one says, "Inform me of his coming," it only refers to the coming itself.
• The word الضيف (the guest) applies to both one person and a group, as previously mentioned in Surah Adh-Dhariyat.
• The manner of their seduction has been mentioned earlier: they were corrupt people who heard that Lot was hosting guests, so they approached him seeking to violate them.

Explanation of {فَطَمَسْنَا أَعْيُنَهُمْ} (So We obliterated their eyes)

It is said that Jibrīl (Gabriel) was among them, and he struck their faces with part of his wing, thereby blinding them. There are several issues concerning this verse:

If the pronoun in رَاوَدُوهُ (they sought to seduce him) refers to the people of Lot generally, then the pronoun in أَعْيُنَهُمْ (their eyes) must also refer to them. This would imply that Lot's people were blinded, even though only a few of them—those who entered Lot's house—were involved in the seduction.

If the pronoun refers only to those who entered the house, then there is no prior mention of them, creating a problem.

Resolution: The true act of seduction (Murāwadah) was carried out by a group among them. However, since the matter originated from the people as a whole, and the others shared that disposition, the action is attributed to all of them. When the verse states رَاوَدُوهُ, a specific group performing the seduction is established. Therefore, the pronoun in أَعْيُنَهُمْ refers back to this specific group who actually committed the act.

This is analogous to saying: "Those who believed, they prayed, and their prayer was valid." The pronoun "their" in "their prayer" refers to those who actually prayed after believing, not just those who believed in general.

The pronoun in رَاوَدُوهُ refers back to those warned by Lot (the deniers).

Here, the verse states: فَطَمَسْنَا أَعْيُنَهُمْ (So We obliterated their eyes). In Surah Ya-Sin, it states: وَلَوْ نَشَاءُ لَطَمَسْنَا عَلَى أَعْيُنِهِمْ (And if We willed, We could have obliterated their eyes). What is the difference?

This supports the view of Ibn Abbas, who narrated that al-Tams (obliteration) here means being veiled from perception. Nothing was placed upon their sight; rather, they entered but saw nothing there, thus becoming like the obliterated.

In Surah Ya-Sin, the meaning is that if Allah had willed, He would have placed a covering (ghishāwah) over their eyes—meaning He would have fused one eyelid to the other, placing a membrane over the eye.

Others say that they became physically blind, and their eyes became like a single smooth surface on their faces. This is supported by the subsequent verse: فَذُوقُوا عَذَابِي (So taste My punishment). If they remained persistent and simply saw nothing there, that would not constitute punishment. Obliteration in the sense described by others (fusing the eyelids) is a punishment.

Reconciliation: It is best to say that here (in Surah Al-Qamar), Allah recounts what actually occurred: the obliteration of the eye, the complete removal of its light and form, making their faces like a smooth surface. They could not deny it because it was a realized event.

However, in Surah Ya-Sin, Allah was threatening them with what was possible and within His power. He chose a form of obliteration that everyone can easily accept and recognize: the fusing of the eyelids, which is a common occurrence and entirely within God's power. He said: لَطَمَسْنَا عَلَى أَعْيُنِهِمْ (We could have obliterated their eyes), meaning we could have fused their eyelids shut, which is easily conceivable and frequent. The obliteration that happened to Lot's people was rare. Therefore, in Ya-Sin, He mentioned the more common possibility to make the threat more readily accepted.

Who is speaking, and to whom is the address directed? There are several views:

1. Implied Speaker: An implied statement precedes it: "So the angels said, 'Taste My punishment.'"
2. Address to All Deniers: This is an address to every denier, meaning: "Since you were denying, now taste My punishment." When they denied, they tasted it.
3. Rhetorical Speech: This speech takes the form of common human expression. When a king orders a criminal to be severely beaten, and the criminal screams in pain while the king listens, the king might say upon hearing the scream, "Taste it, you criminal, you deserve it!" The king knows the punished person cannot hear or respond, but he addresses the screaming victim. Similarly, since every disobedient person is within God's sight and hearing when punished, and God is displeased with them, He says, "Taste it!" (similar to: "Taste it, indeed you are the mighty, the noble" [44:49] or "So taste the meeting of this Day of yours" [32:14]). This is not meant for someone who can hear and reply, but rather to demonstrate Justice: "I am not heedless of your torment, so you cannot escape through screaming or pleading. Rather, I know you, and you deserve it for what you have done."

If one objects that this form requires the preceding Fa (so/then), and this verse uses Fa, the response is that the structure "You were denying, so taste" is grammatically sound.

This means: "Taste the consequence of your action," or "Taste the pain resulting from your action." Saying ذُوقُوا عَذَابِي (Taste My punishment) is like saying, "Taste the pain." Saying وَنُذُر (and My warnings) is like saying, "Taste the consequence of your action," meaning, "Taste what resulted from My warning."

If one objects: If نُذُر means the consequence of the warning (which is punishment), then the conjunction waw is redundant, as it would be like saying, "Taste My punishment and My punishment."

Resolution: فَذُوقُوا عَذَابِي refers to the immediate punishment (in this world). وَنُذُر refers to the future punishment, because the warning was about that future punishment (as explained previously). It is as if He said: "Taste My immediate punishment and My future punishment."

If one objects: They were not in the same time period, so how can one say "Taste" (plural command)?

Resolution: The beginning of the future punishment is immediately connected to the end of the immediate punishment, making them seem as if they occurred in one continuous time frame. This is like His saying: أُغْرِقُوا فَأُدْخِلُوا نَارًا (They were drowned, then admitted into a Fire) [71:25].

وَلَقَدْ صَبَّحَهُمْ بُكْرَةً عَذَابٌ مُّسْتَقِرٌّ

(And certainly, morning overtook them, a settled punishment.)