So when the dispute grew and the choking became tight, it was as if it was said: What did the messengers say to him? It was said: They said, and they indicated with the letter of calling placed for distance that he had indeed exited from the house and closed its door, and that the shouting was intense. "O Lut! Indeed, you are to take refuge in a stronghold." Then they justified that by their saying: "Indeed, we are the messengers of your Lord," meaning the Benefactor to you with His kindness and all that you see of what displeases you and pleases you. Then when it was established for him that, it was certain that it was a reason for no evil to approach him. So they clarified it by saying: "They will not reach you" without the need to connect it with 'fa' (and), meaning: and we are the destroyers of them and the ones who will reshape their cities with them. "So travel" meaning: travel by night, proceeding "with your family," making that journey and the night travel "in a portion," meaning: with a group, while the condition is that there remains at your exit a side "of the night and do not look back," meaning: do not look behind you and do not let anyone from your family look back. "Except your wife," an exception from 'anyone' in the nominative and accusative because the prohibited is like the negated in the permissibility of the two readings, and the prohibition is for him, blessings and peace be upon him. So the action in relation to him is prohibited, and in relation to them, it is negated. It can be that he took her out with him because the meaning of the exception is that she is not commanded to travel with him except that she is prohibited from it. And her exception from looking back with them implies that there is no restriction on him in traveling with her, or that she was behind him and followed them and looked back. So the reading of the accusative from 'your family' and the reading of the nominative from 'anyone' does not necessitate her being commanded to look back, but rather her opposition to the exception in not being prohibited. And for that reason, they justified what I understand to be her neglect of the travel and the prohibition that she looks back by their saying, affirming that the attachment of hope to her salvation is a great mercy for her: "Indeed, it" meaning the affair "will surely befall her" (p-345) without a doubt, "what befell them," whether she looked back or not, whether she lagged behind or not. Then it became apparent to me from the expression in her regard with the active participle and in their regard with the past that he judged the infliction of punishment upon them at this saying to Lut, peace be upon him, because their sins were completed. As for her, the judgment regarding her will be finalized upon the completion of her sins that were arranged for her punishment, and that is at the time of looking back.

And when they expressed it in the past tense to affirm the occurrence and to indicate that her entry with them into the causes of punishment had preceded, it was an indication that it should be said: Was the infliction upon them very near? It was said: Yes, and it was confirmed to affirm the occurrence, delighting in it and because it - due to the proximity of the time - is such that it is denied: "Indeed, their appointment" meaning: for the beginning of the seizing "is the morning." And it seems that Lut, peace be upon him, delayed with all his family and what would rectify them, so his action was the action of one who distances the morning. So they denied that by their saying: "Is not the morning near?" meaning: So hasten the exit with those you were commanded with; and the travel is the night journey like the night travel.