Al-A'raf: (4-5) And how many a town...

It is important to note that after Allah commanded the Messenger (peace be upon him) to warn and deliver the message, and commanded the people to accept and follow, He mentioned in this verse the severe warning associated with abandoning adherence and turning away. There are several issues in this verse:

Issue 1: Grammatical Position of Kam (How many)

Al-Zajjaj said: The position of kam (how many) is in the nominative case (raised) by being the subject (mubtada') and its predicate (khabar) is ahlaknāhā (We destroyed it). He stated this is better than it being in the accusative case (raised), citing that saying Zaydun darabtuhu (Zayd, I struck him) is more eloquent than Zaydan darabtuhu (Zayd, I struck him), although the accusative is also good Arabic, as in the verse: {Indeed, all things We created in measure} (Al-Qamar: 49).

Issue 2: The Implied Subject of Destruction

It is said that there is an implied word in the verse, meaning: "And how many people of a town [did We destroy]..." This is supported by several points:

1. The phrase: {then Our punishment came to it} (fajā’ahā ba’sunā). Punishment (ba’s) is only appropriate for people.
2. The phrase: {or while they were resting at noon} (aw hum qā’ilūn). The pronoun refers back to the people of the town.
3. The meaning: Admonishment and warning only apply to accountable beings through their destruction.
4. The context: The concepts of nighttime attack (bayāt) and midday rest (qaylūlah) only make sense in relation to people.

If it is asked: Why did He say ahlaknāhā (We destroyed it [the town])?

They answered that Allah returned the expression to the literal word (al-lafdh) rather than the meaning (al-ma'nā), similar to His saying: {And how many a town did rebel} (At-Talaq: 8), where He returned it to the literal word. Then He said: {Allah has prepared for them} (Al-Ahzab: 25), returning it to the meaning rather than the word. For this reason, Al-Zajjaj said that if He had said fajā’ahum ba’sunā (Our punishment came to them), it would have been correct.

Others said there is no implied word, and the intent is the destruction of the town itself, because destroying it by collapse, sinking, or otherwise implies the destruction of those within it. Furthermore, under this interpretation, the phrase {then Our punishment came to it} (fajā’ahā ba’sunā) remains on its literal meaning without needing interpretation.

Issue 3: The Sequence of Destruction and Punishment

One might ask: The statement {And how many a town did We destroy, then Our punishment came to it} (wa kam min qaryatin ahlaknāhā fa-jā’ahā ba’sunā) implies that the destruction preceded the coming of the punishment, but the reality is that the coming of the punishment precedes the destruction. Scholars have answered this in several ways:

1. The intent of {We destroyed it} (ahlaknāhā) is: We decreed its destruction, and then Our punishment came to it.
2. It means: How many a town did We intend to destroy, and then Our punishment came to it, similar to His saying: {O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer...} (Al-Ma'idah: 6).
3. If He had said: "And how many a town did We destroy, and Our destruction came to them" (wa kam min qaryatin ahlaknāhā fa-jā’ahum ihlākuna), the question would not arise. The same applies here because Allah expressed that destruction using the word ba’s (punishment/force).

If they object: The question remains, because the fā’ (then) in {then Our punishment came to it} (fa-jā’ahā ba’sunā) is the fā’ of immediate sequence (ta'qīb), which necessitates difference (between the two events).

We reply: The fā’ can sometimes come with the meaning of explanation (tafsīr), as in the Prophet's saying: "Allah does not accept the prayer of any of you until he puts the purification in its proper places, so he washes his face and hands." The fā’ in "so he washes" is for explanation, because washing the face and hands explains what it means to put purification in its proper places. Similarly here, ba’s serves as an explanation for that destruction, because destruction can occur through natural death or by unleashing punishment and affliction upon them. Thus, mentioning ba’s explains that destruction.

4. Al-Farra’ said: It is not unlikely that the punishment (ba’s) and destruction (halāk) occur simultaneously, just as one says, "You gave me, and you did well" (a’taytanī fa-ahsanta). The goodness did not occur after the giving, nor before it; rather, they occurred together. The same applies here.

Regarding {at night} (bayātan): Al-Farra’ said that one says bāta al-rajul yabītu baytan, and sometimes they say bayātan. They said the house (bayt) is named so because one spends the night (yubāt) in it.

The author of Al-Kashshāf said: The word {at night} (bayātan) is a verbal noun (maṣdar) taking the place of a circumstantial adverb (ḥāl), meaning "while they were spending the night" (bā’itīn).

Regarding {or while they were resting at noon} (aw hum qā’ilūn), there are two points of discussion:

That it is a circumstantial state (ḥāl) coordinated with {at night} (bayātan), as if it were said: "Our punishment came to them while they were spending the night or while they were resting at noon." Al-Farra’ said there is an implied wāw (and), meaning: "We destroyed it at night, or while they were resting at noon." However, they found it heavy to combine two conjunctions. He said it would have been correct if it were stated. Al-Zajjaj disagreed, saying it is not correct because the wāw of circumstance (wāw al-ḥāl) is close to the wāw of coordination (wāw al-‘aṭf), and combining them requires combining two similar elements, which is impermissible. He noted that if you say, "Zayd came to me walking, and he was a horseman" (jā’anī Zaydun rājilan wa huwa fārisun), the coordinating wāw is not needed.

The word aw (or) is used here to mean that Our punishment came to them once at night and once during the day at the time of qaylūlah (midday rest).

There are two opinions regarding qaylūlah:

1. Al-Layth said: Qaylūlah is a nap in the middle of the day.
2. Al-Azhari said: Among the Arabs, qaylūlah is resting in the middle of the day when the heat is intense, even if there is no sleep involved. The evidence is that there is no sleep in Paradise, yet Allah says: {The companions of Paradise that Day, in best of quarters and fairest of places for repose} (Al-Furqan: 24).

The meaning of the verse is that Our punishment came to them when they were not expecting it—either at night while they were sleeping, or during the day while they were resting. The objective is that the punishment came to them heedlessly, without any prior sign indicating its descent. It is as if it is said to the disbelievers: Do not be deceived by the means of security, comfort, and leisure, for when the punishment of Allah comes, it comes suddenly without prior indication, so do not be deceived by your circumstances.

The Statement: {Then their call was not but that they said...}

Linguists say that ad-da‘wā (their call/claim) is a noun that takes the place of making a claim (iddi‘ā’) and making a supplication (du‘ā’). Sibawayh narrated: "O Allah, include us in the righteous supplication of the Muslims, and the claim of the Muslims."

Ibn Abbas said: Their supplication when Our punishment came to them was nothing but their saying, "Indeed, we were wrongdoers," confessing their wrongdoing (i.e., associating partners with Allah).

Ibn Al-Anbari said: Their saying when Our punishment came to them was nothing but an admission of injustice and a confession of being captured/subjugated.

Regarding {except that they said} (illā an qālū): The preferred view among grammarians is that the position of an is nominative (raised) by kāna, and the word {their call} (da‘wāhum) is accusative (in the position of khabar kāna), as in: {Then the answer of his people was not but that they said...} (An-Naml: 56) and {So the consequence for both of them was that they would be in the Fire} (Al-Hashr: 17) and {Then the argument of those who denied will be nothing but that...} (Al-Jathiyah: 25).

It is also permissible to take the opposite view: that ad-da‘wā is nominative, and qālū is accusative, as in {Righteousness is not that you turn...} (Al-Baqarah: 177) based on the reading that raises al-birr (righteousness). The principle in this matter is that if two definite nouns follow kāna, you have the choice to raise either one and put the other in the accusative, like saying: Kāna Zaydun akhāka (Zayd was your brother) or Kāna Zaydan akhūka (Zayd was your brother).

Al-Zajjaj said: However, the preference, if we place {their call} (da‘wāhum) in the nominative position, would be to say: fa-mā kānat da‘wāhum (And their call was not [feminine form]). Since He said kāna (masculine), it indicates that ad-da‘wā is in the accusative position. This can be answered by saying that it is permissible to use the masculine form for ad-da‘wā even if it is nominative, so one can say: Kāna da‘wāhu bāṭilan (His call was false) or bāṭilatan (false [feminine]). And Allah knows best.

{7} {Then We will surely question those to whom messengers were sent, and We will surely question the messengers. *Then We will relate to them with knowledge, and We were not absent.}