And when He completed - glorified and exalted is He - what He fulfilled of the purpose of this Surah in this context regarding their story, He followed it with what came after from those whom the Arabs know - as He did before - and said: (p-452) ﴿And Lot when he said﴾. And since his message was to various cities, and as if they were various tribes, it was said: they were five, and they are the overturned cities. It was said: they were four thousand between Sham and the noble city of Medina. He said: ﴿To his people﴾. And it has been permitted that the acting verb in it is “We sent” and “mention” and it is not necessary from the estimation of “We sent” that his sending to them with this saying was not preceding it; because just as that time - which applies to the first of his saying and the last of it - is a time for it, so too is the day - in which this saying occurred - a time for it, and indeed that month and that year and that century. For it is the custom of the Arabs to name the shared days in a single action as one day. They said: the day of Qadisiyyah, which is four days if we consider only the duration of the fighting, and a number of months if we consider the gathering for it. And likewise the day of Siffin. And Allah, the Exalted, said in the story of Badr: ﴿And when Allah promised you one of the two groups that it would be yours﴾ [Al-Anfal: 7] until He said: ﴿When you were calling upon your Lord﴾ [Al-Anfal: 9] until He said: ﴿When sleep overcame you as a security from Him﴾ [Al-Anfal: 11] ﴿When your Lord revealed to the angels﴾ [Al-Anfal: 12]. And all of them are substitutions from His saying: ﴿And when Allah promised you one of the two groups﴾ [Al-Anfal: 7]. And there is no doubt that the time of all of them was not united except by interpreting all the days related to the incident of movement and fighting and other than that - and Allah knows best. And He expressed in the story of Noah [peace be upon him] by saying: ﴿We sent Noah to his people﴾ [Al-A'raf: 59]. Then He coordinated with what came after him, so it was said: ﴿And to 'Aad their brother Hud﴾ [Al-A'raf: 65] ﴿And to Thamud their brother Salih﴾ [Al-A'raf: 73] ﴿And to Madyan their brother Shu'ayb﴾ [Al-A'raf: 85]. And He deviated from this style in the story of Lot [so He did not say: (p-453) and to the people of Aduma their brother Lot] or to the people of Sodom Lot or “And We sent Lot to his people” and similar to that as will come in the story of Moses - peace be upon him - because one of the greatest purposes in the context of these stories is the consolation of the Prophet ﷺ in the opposition of his people to him and their lack of response to him and the severity of their harm and warning his people that what befell these nations from punishment may befall them. And the stories of those other than the people of Lot are similar to the story of Quraysh in associating partners with Allah and the harm to His believing servants. As for the story of the people of Lot, it is an addition to that with a heinous matter of great disgrace and shameful immorality. Thus He deviated from that sequence to alert them to the severity of the matter and to make it more repulsive, so that it may be in consolation more intense, and in invoking praise and gratitude more complete. At that time, it is more likely that the acting verb is “mention” not “We sent,” meaning: and mention Lot and what happened to him from his people as an increase upon their associating partners with Allah from his witnessing among them this matter which left no place for disgrace. For the story is indeed a consolation and a reminder of the blessing of the Arabs being spared from such a situation, and a warning to them of the bad outcome along with what their sisters shared in indicating the bad nature of these people and the evil of their essence which necessitated their being distinct from the people of the earth by that immoral matter. And the evidence that it is the most disgraceful of disgrace after associating partners with Allah - along with what Allah, the Exalted, has placed in every sound nature of aversion to it - is its specificity in its sharing with associating partners in that it has not been permitted in any religion at any time nor with any of the descriptions. And the rest of the prohibitions are not like that. As for killing souls, it has been permitted in retribution and jihad and other than that. And sexual intercourse in the front has not been prohibited except with the condition of it being adultery, and were it not for the description, it would have been permitted. And the eating of wealth is originally permissible, and what has been prohibited is only with the condition of it being through falsehood - and likewise other than that. Abu Hayyan said: And when this act is known for its ugliness and is ingrained in minds for its obscenity, it came defined - that is, in His saying after His denial of them and their reprimanding and reproaching them: ﴿Do you commit the immorality﴾ meaning: do you perform the act that is persistent in ugliness even if there is a great distance between you and it - or the (al) in it is for the sake of exaggeration, as if due to the severity of its ugliness, all immorality has been made one, and due to the complete distance of the Arabs from that, and that is unlike adultery, for He said about it.

﴿And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality.﴾ [Al-Isra: 32]

And when it was not unlikely, given their blatant faces and their audacity, that they would say: 'Why is our action considered an abomination and reproached?' He said: ﴿No one has preceded you with it﴾. And he emphasized the negation with his saying: ﴿from anyone﴾. He magnified that by generalizing in his saying: ﴿of the worlds﴾. You have invented something that has no equal in its immorality, so that you may be mentioned with the worst mention. Just as those of high aspirations, virtue, and perfection derive from the good and beneficial things that remain for them in mention and benefit them with their reward. In this, there is the greatest indication of the ugliness of innovations and the condemnation of their doers; for minds do not independently recognize the good.