Surah Sad 38:3
ﱎ ﱏ ﱐ ﱑ ﱒ ﱓ ﱔ ﱕ ﱖ ﱗ
How many a generation have We destroyed before them, and they [then] called out; but it was not a time for escape.
Tafsir of Sad 38:3
Tafsir
Al-Kashshaf
Verse range: 38:3
{كم أهلكنا} A warning to those of pride and dissension.
{فنادوا} They called out, meaning they supplicated and sought aid. Al-Hasan said: They called out for repentance.
{ولات} It is the *la* that resembles *laysa* (is not), to which the feminine *ta* has been added, just as it was added to *rubba*. It is for emphasis. Its grammatical rule changed thereby, as it only enters upon [the word] *al-aḥyān* (times), and only one of its requirements is made explicit—either the noun or the predicate—while the appearance of both is forbidden. This is the school of al-Khalīl and Sībawayh.
According to al-Akhfash, it is the la that negates the genus, to which the ta was added, and it was restricted to negating times.
{حين مناص} It is in the accusative case governed by it, as if you said: "There is no time of escape for them."
It is also said that what follows it is in the accusative due to an implied verb, meaning: "I do not see a time of escape," or "There is no time of escape." It may also be in the nominative as an ibtidā’ (subject), meaning: "There is no time of escape existing for them." According to both [al-Khalīl and Sībawayh], the accusative is based on: wa-lāt al-ḥīnu ḥīna manāṣin, and the nominative is based on: wa-lāt ḥīnu manāṣin ḥāṣilan lahum.
It has been recited as ḥīni manāṣin with a kasra. Similar to this is the saying of Abū Zubayd al-Ṭā’ī: They sought our peace, but it was not the time for it; So we answered: It is not a time for remaining.
If you ask: What is the reason for the kasra in awāni? I say: It is likened to idh in the phrase wa-anta idhin ṣaḥīḥ (and you are then healthy), in that it is a time from which the muḍāf ilayh (genitive) has been severed, and the tanwīn is a compensation. The original was: wa-lāt awāna ṣulḥin.
If you ask: What do you say regarding ḥīna manāṣin when the muḍāf ilayh is present? I say: The severance of the muḍāf ilayh from manāṣ is treated as if it were a part of ḥīn, because the original was ḥīna manāṣihim. It is treated as a single unit, and its tanwīn is made a compensation for the omitted pronoun. Then, ḥīn is indeclinable (mabnī) because it is added to a non-fixed (ghayr mutamakkin) noun.
It has been recited as wa-lāti with a kasra on the ta as a fixed form, like jayri.
If you ask: How does one pause on lāt? I say: One pauses on it with a ta, just as one pauses on a verb to which the feminine ta is attached. As for al-Kisā’ī, he pauses on it with a ha, just as he pauses on feminine nouns.
As for the statement of Abū ‘Ubayd that the ta is attached to ḥīn, there is no basis for it. His evidence—that the ta is attached to ḥīn in the Imām (the Uthmanic codex)—is not a strong argument, for many things occur in the codex that fall outside the rules of orthography.