ﱭ ﱮ ﱯ ﱰ ﱱ ﱲ ﱳ ﱴ ﱵ ﱶ
And there were in the city nine family heads causing corruption in the land and not amending [its affairs].
ﱭ ﱮ ﱯ ﱰ ﱱ ﱲ ﱳ ﱴ ﱵ ﱶ
And there were in the city nine family heads causing corruption in the land and not amending [its affairs].
Tafsir
Verse range: 27:48
{The City}: Al-Hijr. The specification of the nine by the term raht (group) is permissible because it carries the meaning of a collective, as if it were said: "nine individuals." The difference between raht and nafr is that raht refers to a group from three to ten, or seven to ten, while nafr refers to three to nine.
Their names, according to Wahb: al-Hudhayb ibn ‘Abd Rabb, Ghanm ibn Ghanm, Rabab ibn Mihraj, Musdi‘ ibn Mihraj, ‘Umayr ibn Kardaba, ‘Asim ibn Makhrama, Sabit ibn Sadaqa, Sam‘an ibn Sayfi, and Qudar ibn Salif. These were the ones who conspired to hamstring the she-camel. They were the tyrants of the people of Salih (peace be upon him) and were the sons of their nobles.
{And they do not reform}: Meaning their nature is pure corruption, unmixed with any shred of righteousness, unlike some corruptors from whom a rare act of righteousness might occasionally emerge.
{They swore by Allah}: This can be read as an imperative or a declarative statement in the position of a circumstantial clause (hal) with an implied "qad" (i.e., they said while swearing). It is also recited as taqassamū (they divided/swore). Regarding la-tubayyitunnahu (we shall surely attack him by night), it is recited with the ta, ya, and nun. With the nun and ta, both interpretations are valid; with the ya, it can only be a declarative statement. Taqāsum and taqassum are like tazāhur and tazahhur—meaning to form a pact. Bayāt means to surprise the enemy by night. It is narrated that when Alexander was advised to conduct a night attack, he said: "It is not the custom of kings to steal victory."
{Mahlik}: Recited with the fatha on the mim and lam (or kasra on the lam) from halaka (to perish). With the damma on the mim (muhlik), it is from ahlaka (to cause to perish). It may denote the verbal noun, the time, or the place.
If you ask: How can they be truthful when they denied what they did, thus providing a report contrary to the reality? I say: It is as if they believed that if they attacked Salih by night and attacked his family by night, they would have combined both night attacks. Then they said, "We did not witness the destruction of his family," mentioning only one of the two. They were truthful because they performed both attacks, not just one. This is a decisive proof that lying is considered ugly even among disbelievers who do not know the Law or its prohibitions. Do you not see that they intended to kill the Prophet of Allah, yet they were not satisfied with being liars, so they devised a trick in their statement to escape the label of being liars?
{Their plot}: What they concealed of the plan to assassinate Salih and his family. {And Allah’s plot}: His destruction of them from where they did not perceive. It is likened to the plotter’s plot by way of metaphor. It is narrated that Salih had a place of worship in a mountain pass in Al-Hijr where he prayed. They said, "Salih claims he will be finished with us in three days, so we will finish him and his family before the three days." They went to the pass and said, "When he comes to pray, we will kill him, then return to his family and kill them." Allah sent a rock from the mountain toward them; they rushed, and the rock sealed the entrance of the pass upon them. Their people did not know where they were, nor did they know what had happened to them. Allah punished each of them in his place and saved Salih and those with him. It is also said they came by night with drawn swords, but Allah had sent angels to fill Salih’s house, and they struck them with stones; they saw the stones but did not see the thrower.
{We destroyed them}: A new sentence. Those who read it with fatha (anna) make it a substitute for the consequence, or a predicate of an omitted subject (i.e., "it is their destruction"), or in the accusative as "because we," or as the predicate of kāna (i.e., "the consequence of their plot was destruction").
{Desolate}: A circumstantial clause governed by what is implied in "that." ‘Isa ibn ‘Umar recited it in the nominative as the predicate of an omitted subject.