7/80-84 — Lot
Wa Lūṭan idh qāla li-qawmihī a-taʾtūna'l-fāḥishata mā sabaqakum bihā min aḥadin mina'l-ʿālamīn · Innakum la-taʾtūna'r-rijāla shahwatan min dūni'n-nisāʾ, bal antum qawmun musrifūn · Wa mā kāna jawāba qawmihī illā an qālū akhrijūhum min qaryatikum innahum unāsun yataṭahharūn · Fa-anjaynāhu wa ahlahū illa'mraʾatahū kānat mina'l-ghābirīn · Wa amṭarnā ʿalayhim maṭarā, fa'nẓur kayfa kāna ʿāqibatu'l-mujrimīn
"And Lot too [We sent]. He said to his people: 'Do you commit that indecency which no one in all the worlds committed before you? · You approach men with desire instead of women. You are indeed a people who exceed all bounds.' · And the only answer of his people was to say: 'Drive them out of your town; they are people who would keep themselves pure.' · We delivered him and his household — except his wife; she was of those who stayed behind. · And We rained down upon them a rain. See, then, what was the end of the guilty!"
This story is the link in the sūra's sequence of prophets where the pattern breaks most, and it carries three absences at once. All three are countable:
| Shared element | In the other four stories | In the story of Lot |
|---|---|---|
| Yā qawmi'budū'llāha mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh | present (59, 65, 73, 85) | absent |
| Akhāhum — "their brother" | present at 65, 73, 85 | absent |
| Al-malaʾ — the notables | present at 60, 66, 75, 88, 90 | absent — the addressee is directly qawmuh |
And there is a fourth difference: the verb of entry. In the others there was arsalnā or the pattern wa ilā … akhāhum; here it is wa Lūṭan idh qāla li-qawmihī — the speech is entered directly.
I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the four absences above: in al-Aʿrāf's story of Lot the call opens not as a call to tawḥīd but directly as a question about conduct. The text does not say the reason for this. And in the classical commentaries the explanation is transmitted that Lot's people were not of his own lineage — and that therefore akhūhum is not said; I convey this explanation as transmitted and claim no certainty for it.
The root ف-ح-ش was treated at the thirty-third verse (innamā ḥarrama rabbiya'l-fawāḥisha mā ẓahara minhā wa mā baṭan); the sense of the root: an indecency that exceeds the measure. I rely on that treatment.
The root س-ر-ف was treated at the thirty-first verse (wa lā tusrifū innahū lā yuḥibbu'l-musrifīn); the sense of the root: to exceed the bound in something, to put it out of its place. I rely on that treatment.
And the return of the two roots in this story is worth recording, and it is a weave that can be verified within the sūra:
| Root | Where earlier in the sūra | Here |
|---|---|---|
| ف-ح-ش | 28 (idhā faʿalū fāḥishatan), 33 (ḥarrama … al-fawāḥish) | 80 — a-taʾtūna'l-fāḥishata |
| س-ر-ف | 31 (wa lā tusrifū) | 81 — qawmun musrifūn |
That is, the sūra places in the sixth block, inside a story, the two measures it laid down in the third block. I record this as an observation, and its ground is the words themselves.
And I draw no legal ruling from this; I content myself with conveying the naming the verse sets down (Method). And this note is necessary: the verse names a behaviour; it builds no blanket judgement about a community. This is the sūra's own principle, and it was recorded in the section on the structure: what is described is an attribute, and whoever carries that attribute is included in it.
The answer of the other side is worth recording, and it is one of the most striking sentences in the block.
That is, what is counted as the ground for banishment is, in the other side's own mouth, a word of praise.
| The expected ground | The ground given |
|---|---|
| An accusation | Innahum unāsun yataṭahharūn — "people who would keep themselves pure" |
I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the sentence itself: the decision to drive them out is grounded not on a fault of the one driven out but on his attribute. And it is recorded in the classical commentaries that there is a tone of mockery in the language of the sentence; I convey this explanation as transmitted.
And the sentence akhrijūhum min qaryatikum is not alone in the sūra: the same will be said to Shuʿayb in verse 88 — la-nukhrijannaka yā Shuʿaybu … min qaryatinā.
| Verse | Who is to be driven out | Who says it |
|---|---|---|
| 82 | Lot and those with him | His people |
| 88 | Shuʿayb and those who believed | Al-malaʾ |
The same threat in two stories. And the same root had occurred elsewhere in the second block of the sūra: fa-akhrajahumā mimmā kānā fīh (the counterpart in al-Aʿrāf of al-Baqara 2/36 being 7/27: kamā akhraja abawaykum mina'l-janna). In this sūra being driven out is a repeated verb. I record this as an observation.
The root غ-ب-ر: to remain behind, to be left over. Ghābir — the one who remains behind, who is left after those who go. The word is repeated several times in the Qurʾān for this event (al-Aʿrāf 7/83; al-Ḥijr 15/60; al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/171) and was treated in al-Shuʿarāʾ. I rely on that treatment.
And a point of word order must be recorded: kānat mina'l-ghābirīn — a feminine subject is ascribed to a masculine plural group. This is a common construction in Arabic for stating inclusion in a company, and it has occurred elsewhere in the index too.
The root م-ط-ر: rain. And the pattern of the verb must be recorded: Form IV, amṭara. The lexicographers transmit a distinction: maṭara (Form I) is used for mercy, amṭara (Form IV) for punishment.
This distinction is not certain and does not hold everywhere; but it is transmitted, and it accords with this verse. I convey it as transmitted and do not present it as a settled rule of the language.
And it must be recorded that the word maṭarā (rain) is left without a specification: what was rained down is not said here. In other places in the Qurʾān stones are named for this event (al-Ḥijr 15/74; Hūd 11/82); al-Aʿrāf does not say it. Where it does not say, neither do I.