Did they not see? Did they not know? It is suspended from action in how many, because 'how many' does not have a doer before it. It was for questioning or for news, as its origin is questioning. However, its meaning is effective in the sentence, just as it is effective in your saying: "Did they not see that Zayd is indeed departing," even though it does not act in its wording. And that they do not return to them is an alternative to 'how many' in meaning, not in wording. Its estimation is: Did they not see the multitude of our destruction of the generations before them, their being not returning to them? Al-Hasan said: The 'inna' is broken for resumption. In the reading of Ibn Mas'ud: Did they not see from whom We destroyed, and the alternative in this reading is an alternative of inclusion. This is what refutes the saying of the people of return. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, that it was said to him: A people claim that Ali was sent before the Day of Resurrection. He said: Wretched are we then if we married his women and divided his inheritance. [This was narrated by Al-Hakim in the interpretation of Al-Baqarah in a similar manner briefly. And he narrated from the hadith of Al-Hasan in the virtues of the companions more complete than this. And it does not contain: Wretched are we then.] It was read: 'lama', with lightening, on the basis that 'ma' is a connection for emphasis, and 'inna' is lightened from the heavy, and it is received with 'lam' without a doubt. And 'lama' with emphasis means: except, like that in the matter of the book. I ask you by Allah, why did you do it? And 'inna' is negating. The tanween in 'kull' is what occurs as a substitute for the added to it, like your saying: I passed by everyone standing. The meaning is that all of them are gathered, assembled, and present for reckoning on the Day of Resurrection. It was said they are present and punished. If you say: How is it that all is informed by 'jami' and their meanings are one? [Mahamud said: If you say I did not inform all by 'jami' and their meanings are one, he answered that 'kull' conveys the meaning of comprehensiveness, that none escapes from them, and 'jami' conveys the meaning of gathering, and it is a 'fa'il' meaning 'maf'ul', and there is a difference between them. End of his words. Ahmad said: Hence, 'ajma' occurred in the emphasis following 'kull', because it is more specific and adds meaning.] I said: It is not one, because 'kull' conveys the meaning of comprehensiveness, that none escapes from them, and 'jami' means gathering, that the gathering gathers them. And 'jami' is a 'fa'il' meaning 'maf'ul', it is said: a whole community, and they came all together.