Tafseer of The Heights · Al-A'raaf · 7:4
And how many cities have We destroyed, and Our punishment came to them at night or while they were sleeping at noon.
Important: The Arabic source text is always authoritative. This translation is a study aid and has not been verified by scholars — do not use it as a basis for religious proof or for deriving rulings (ahkam). When in doubt, always consult the Arabic text and a qualified scholar.
The discourse on the explanation of His statement: وَكَمْ مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا فَجَاءَهَا بَأْسُنَا بَيَاتًا أَوْ هُمْ قَائِلُونَ (And how many a town have We destroyed, whereupon Our might came upon it by night or while they were taking their midday rest) (4).
Abū Jaʿfar said: The Exalted, whose mention is exalted, says to His prophet Muḥammad ﷺ: He warned these who worship another besides Me and who set up gods and idols as equals to Me, against My wrath: lest I send down My punishment upon them and destroy them, just as I destroyed those who walked their path before them among the nations. For often have I, before them, destroyed people of towns who were disobedient to Me, denied My messengers, and worshipped another besides Me. (whereupon Our might came upon it by night), He says: whereupon Our punishment and Our vengeance came upon them in the night, before they reached the morning, or it came upon them as "those taking their midday rest," that is to say: during the day at the time of the midday rest.
* * *
And it is said "wa-kam" (and how many), because what is intended in the statement is what I have described: the report concerning the multitude of exemplary punishments that struck the bygone nations, on account of their denial of His messengers and their resistance against Him. Thus do the Arabs act when they wish to report about the multitude of a number, as al-Farazdaq said:
How many paternal aunts you have, O Jarīr, and maternal aunts, with sagging udders, who have milked their she-camels for me.
* * *
If a questioner says: Allah, the Exalted whose mention is exalted, has only reported that He destroyed "towns." Where in His report about the destruction of "the towns" lies the proof for the destruction of their inhabitants?
Then it is answered: "The towns" are not called "towns," nor is "the town" called a "town," unless there are dwellings for its inhabitants and inhabitants therein. So in its destruction lies the destruction of whoever of its inhabitants is in it.
* * *
Some of the philologists held the opinion that the statement took the form of a report about "the town," while the inhabitants were intended.
* * *
Abū Jaʿfar said: And what we have said about this is more in conformity with the truth, because it conforms to the apparent meaning of the recited revelation.
* * *
If a questioner says: How is it said: (and how many a town have We destroyed, whereupon Our might came upon it by night or while they were taking their midday rest)? Has a town ever perished other than through the coming of Allah's might and the descent of His vengeance and His wrath upon it? How then is it said: "We destroyed, whereupon it came upon"? And if the coming of Allah's might upon it is after its destruction, what then is the sense of bringing it down upon a people already perished and effaced, who are unaware of what descends upon them and upon their dwellings?
Then it is answered: Of this there are two explanations, both correct by a clear method:
The first: that the meaning is: "and how many a town have We destroyed" by Our forsaking them, so that they did not follow the clear signs and the guidance that We had sent down to them, and they chose to follow the command of their allies who tempted them to disobedience against their Lord. "whereupon Our might came upon them" when they did that, "by night or while they were taking their midday rest." Thus "Allah's destruction of it" would be His forsaking of it with respect to His obedience, and "the coming of Allah's might upon them" would be a requital for their disobedience against their Lord through His forsaking them.
And the other of them: that "the destruction" is precisely "the might" itself, so that in the mention of "the destruction" there lies an indication of the mention of "the coming of the might," and in the mention of "the coming of the might" an indication of the mention of "the destruction."
And if that is so, then among the Arabs it is the same whether one begins with the destruction and then makes the might follow it, or begins with the might and then makes the destruction follow it. That is like their statement: "You visited me, so you honored me," since "the visit" itself is "the honor." So with them it is the same whether one places "the visit" first and "the honor" after it, or places "the honor" first and "the visit" after it, so that one says: "You honored me, so you visited me."
* * *
Some philologists claimed that there is something omitted in the statement, for without it the statement would not be correct. And that the meaning thereof is: and how many a town have We destroyed, where the coming of Our might upon it took place before Our destruction. This is a statement for which there exists no proof of correctness from the apparent meaning of the revelation, nor from a report to which one must submit. And when a statement is devoid of a proof of correctness from one of the ways to which one must submit, then its incorrectness is clear.
* * *
Another of them likewise said: The meaning of the "fāʾ" (so) in this place is the meaning of the "wāw" (and). He said: The explanation of the statement is: and how many a town have We destroyed, and Our might came upon it by night. This is a statement without meaning, since the "fāʾ" among the Arabs has a grammatical value that the "wāw" does not have in the statement. To turn it toward its most current meaning among them, so long as there exists a way to do so, is better than to turn it toward something else.
* * *
If he says: How is it said: (whereupon Our might came upon them by night or while they were taking their midday rest), while you know that the most current nature of "aw" (or) in a statement is the evoking of doubt, and it is not permissible that there be doubt in Allah's report?
Then it is answered: The explanation thereof is the opposite of where you went. The meaning of the statement is only: and how many a town have We destroyed, whereupon Our might came upon a part of them by night and another part while they were taking their midday rest. And if one were to place the "wāw" in place of "aw" in this position, then the statement would be well-nigh impossible, and the most current meaning of the statement would become: that the town which Allah destroyed, His might came upon it by night and at the time of the midday rest. And that would be a report about the might: that it destroyed whoever was already destroyed and effaced whoever was already effaced. And that is a reprehensible absurdity in the statement. But the correct reading of the statement is what the revelation brought, since it does not distinguish the towns that the might came upon by night from the towns that it came upon during the midday rest. And had they been distinguished, they would have been reported about only with the "wāw."
And it is said: "whereupon Our might came upon it" as a report about "the town," that the might came to it, and the statement is continued in the manner in which it began at the start of the verse. And had it been said: "whereupon Our might came upon them by night," then it would be correct and eloquent, the statement being brought back to its meaning, since the might was directed only at the inhabitants of the town and not at its structures, even though it also struck its structures and dwellings with destruction, in a manner comparable to what struck its inhabitants. And in His statement: (or while they were taking their midday rest) there is a return to the specific report about its inhabitants and not about its dwellings, on account of what we have described: that the target of the might was the inhabitants, even though in their destruction lies the destruction of their dwellings and the demolition thereof.
And had it been said: "or it takes its midday rest," then it would be correct, since the listeners had understood the intent of the statement.
* * *
If a questioner says: Is His statement: (or while they were taking their midday rest) not a report about the time at which Allah's might came upon them during the day?
Then it is answered: Yes indeed!
If he says: Are the time-designations in something like this, in the language of the Arabs, not expressed with the "wāw" that indicates the point in time?
Then it is answered: That is indeed so, but in such a place they do sometimes omit something, out of aversion to bringing together two connective particles, since "aw" is among the connective particles with them, and so too is the "wāw." Thus they say: "You met me destitute, or I am traveling," with the meaning: "or while I am traveling," whereby they omit the "wāw" while they do intend it in the statement, for the reason which I have described.
