So it came to her, and her people came at night, a source that is a reality in the position of the state, meaning they were staying overnight. It is said: he stayed overnight in a good way, and a good overnight stay. And His saying: 'They are saying' is a state that is conjoined. [[He returned to his words. He said: 'And His saying: 'They are saying' is a state that is conjoined to 'at night' as if it were said, 'So they came to them ... etc.' Ahmad said:

Relying on the pronoun in the nominal sentence that is in the position of the state is weak. The more eloquent is the inclusion of the conjunction 'wa' as chosen by Al-Zamakhshari. As for Al-Zajjaj and others, they consider either of the two sufficient in the nominal form, either the conjunction 'wa' or the pronoun. As for Al-Zamakhshari's statement that the conjoined sentence has had its 'wa' of the state omitted due to dislike of its gathering with it, while it is also a conjunction with its like, there is a perspective on that. This is because the 'wa' of the state must be distinguished from the 'wa' of conjunction by a characteristic. Do you not see it accompanying the nominal sentence immediately after the verbal one in your saying: 'Zaid came to me while he was riding'? If it were merely a conjunction, it would be deemed inappropriate to be in the middle of two differing elements, even if it were not ugly. The more correct view is the opposite; when we see it positioned between them and the speech at that time is the more eloquent or necessary, we know that it is distinguished by meaning and characteristic from the 'wa' of conjunction. If its distinction from the conjunction is established, there is no wonder in its gathering with it, even if it has the meaning of conjunction added to that characteristic. Either it should be deprived of it then to make the conjunction unnecessary, or it should continue with it, just as the 'wa' gathers. However, due to its additional meaning of exception in a saying like 'But they do not perceive,' it was possible for the 'wa' of the state to gather with the conjunction without dislike. What indicates this is that if you said: 'Glorify Allah while you are bowing,' or 'while you are prostrating,' it would be eloquent without any ugliness or dislike. The truth - and Allah knows best - regarding the conjoined sentence to the state is that the justification for its occurrence as a state without 'wa' is the conjunction, as it necessitates that the second sentence shares the state with what it is conjoined to, thus the 'wa' of the state is not needed, just as you conjoin to the thing sworn by, bringing it into the ruling of the oath without a 'wa' in examples like 'By the night when it covers' and 'By the day when it shines.' In a case like 'I do not swear by the wandering stars, the ones that return,' and 'By the night when it darkens,' if you said in non-recitation: 'And by the night when it darkens,' it would be permissible, but the repetition of the letter of the oath is unnecessary due to the conjunction taking its place. This, and Allah knows best, is the reason for the conjoined sentence to the state being free from the 'wa' that justifies the state. The outcome of this is that if you brought the 'wa' of the state accompanying the conjunction, you would not leave the bounds of eloquence for heaviness, but rather it would provide emphasis. And if you did not bring it, it would still be eloquent while providing brevity, and Allah is the Guide to what is correct.]] on 'at night,' as if it were said: 'So His punishment came to them while they were staying overnight or while they were saying.' If you say: Is it possible to omit the added noun which is 'the people' before 'the village' or before the pronoun in 'We destroyed them'? I say: The added noun is only estimated out of necessity, and there is no necessity, for the village perishes just as its people perish. We only estimated it before the pronoun in 'So it came to her' due to His saying 'Or they are saying.' If you say: It is not said: 'Zaid came to me, he is a knight,' without 'wa,' then what about His saying: 'They are saying'? I say: Some grammarians estimated the 'wa' to be omitted, and Al-Zajjaj rejected it, saying: If you said 'Zaid came to me as a walker,' or 'he is a knight,' or 'Zaid came to me, he is a knight,' there is no need for 'wa' because the mention has returned to the first. The correct view is that if it is conjoined to a state before it, the 'wa' is omitted due to heaviness, for the 'wa' of the state is the 'wa' of conjunction borrowed for connection. Thus your saying: 'Zaid came to me as a walker or he is a knight' is eloquent and falls within its limit.

As for the saying, 'Zayd came to me, he is a knight,' it is wicked. If you say: What is the meaning of His saying, 'We destroyed it, and Our punishment came to it,' while destruction only occurs after the coming of the punishment? I say: Its meaning is that We intended to destroy it, as in His saying, 'When you stand for prayer.' These two times are specified: the time of night and the time of midday rest, because they are times of negligence and ease. Thus, the descent of punishment during them is more severe and terrifying. The people of Lot were destroyed at night during the pre-dawn hours, and the people of Shu'ayb during the time of midday rest.