11. Sūrat Hūd

123 verses. It is widely reported that it was revealed during the Meccan period. It takes its name from the prophet Hūd, whose story is told between the fiftieth and the sixtieth verse — he is one of the six prophets named in the sūra, and the sūra owes its name to one of them alone.

The sūra carries the densest sequence of prophets in the Qurʾān: Noah (Nūḥ), Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Abraham (Ibrāhīm)–Lot (Lūṭ), Shuʿayb and Moses (Mūsā) are told one after another, and from the twenty-fifth verse to the ninety-ninth — that is, seventy-five verses — are given over to this sequence. Two thirds of the body of the sūra is narrative.

But the sūra is not an anthology of narratives. The narratives are set out as the answer to a question, and the question is put openly in the twelfth verse: the messenger is pressed hard enough to leave aside part of what is revealed to him (fa-laʿallaka tārikun baʿḍa mā yūḥā ilayka wa ḍāʾiqun bihī ṣadruk). The hundred and twentieth verse states the reason for the sequence: mā nuthabbitu bihī fuʾādak — "[the accounts] with which We make your heart firm".

The sūra therefore tells its narratives not to convey information but to build a power to hold out. This is the sūra's own statement; it is not an inference.

The backbone of the sūra is how the narratives are told — not what is told. Most of the same six prophets are told in al-Shuʿarāʾ as well; the difference in Hūd is one of method, and that difference can be counted. The section below establishes it from the data of the text.

The verse-endings of this sūra are not tied to a single pattern; the case is the reverse of the single-voiced order of al-Shuʿarāʾ. What dominates are closings that end with two names (ḥakīmun khabīr, ʿazīzun ḥamīd, raḥīmun wadūd, qawiyyun ʿazīz, ḥamīdun majīd), and throughout the sūra these tie the last clause of the verse to a statement of attribute.

I record this as an observation, and I do not enter into any reckoning of letters or numbers — that road is closed in this commentary (al-Baqara). What is recorded is this: what closes a block in Hūd is not a refrain but a pair of names; and the names change each time according to the subject of the block.

Every table in this section is a count from the text. Where a place is interpretation, it is marked as such.

In al-Shuʿarāʾ it was tabulated that the narratives of the seven prophets sit on four shared patterns: the announcement of denial, the opening with akhūhum, the threefold introduction (innī lakum rasūlun amīn · fa'ttaqū'llāha wa aṭīʿūn · wa mā asʾalukum ʿalayhi min ajrin) and a two-verse seal repeated identically eight times. In al-Ṣāffāt a seal in four parts, and not struck in full on everyone, was treated. I rely on both of those sections and do not repeat their frameworks here.

Hūd takes a third road. I gather the difference under four headings and give each of them with a count.

The table corrects a widespread impression, and this must be recorded plainly: the narratives of Hūd are not, taken together, longer than those of al-Shuʿarāʾ. In Hūd only the Noah narrative lengthens (18 → 25); all the others shorten, and Moses comes down to four verses.

The difference is not in the size but in what is placed inside the size. The second table shows this.

In al-Shuʿarāʾ there are seven turns of speech and every one of them is between Noah and his people. In Hūd there are twenty turns of speech, and nine of them pass not with the people but with God or with his son.

What Hūd adds, then, is the messenger's speech not with his people but with his own life. I record this as the result of a count; the verses named in the table can be verified.

In al-Shuʿarāʾ eight blocks closed with the same two verses, identically. In Hūd the closing is distributed over five separate patterns, and none of them is struck on all the narratives.

Five patterns, six narratives; no narrative takes all five, and no pattern is struck on all six narratives.

This is the difference from al-Shuʿarāʾ, and it can be counted: in al-Shuʿarāʾ the closing is one and eight out of eight; in Hūd the closings are five and not one of them is complete.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the seal of al-Shuʿarāʾ worked to make the narratives resemble one another — the same sentence, the same outcome. The scattered closings of Hūd, by contrast, separate the narratives from one another: the end of each people is named with its own name (li-ʿĀd, li-Thamūd, li-Madyan), while the end of Noah closes with a greeting of peace. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

Hūd has no seal, but it has repetitions. And the repetitions settle not at the end of a block, as a seal does, but inside the block.

Four data points are worth recording:

One — the command in the third verse of the sūra comes back in the mouths of three prophets. istaghfirū rabbakum thumma tūbū ilayh is first the sūra's own call (3), and then Hūd (52), Ṣāliḥ (61) and Shuʿayb (90) frame the same sentence. The sūra, that is, distributes its own opening call across the narratives.

Two — a-raʾaytum in kuntu ʿalā bayyinatin min rabbī is word for word the same in the mouths of three separate prophets (28, 63, 88), and in all three it begins with a question. The shared sentence of al-Shuʿarāʾ was a statement (innī lakum rasūlun amīn); the one in Hūd is a question.

Three — the address yā qawmi occurs sixteen times. In al-Shuʿarāʾ the messengers do not call out to their peoples with this address; the address there is a-lā tattaqūn. In Hūd the messenger calls the one he addresses "my people" every single time.

Four — the sentence Shuʿayb speaks in the ninety-third verse is commanded to the Prophet in the hundred and twenty-first. iʿmalū ʿalā makānatikum innī ʿāmil (93) → iʿmalū ʿalā makānatikum innā ʿāmilūn (121). This is the clearest place where the sūra ties the narrative to the one addressed, and it can be verified from the text.

The last row shows the point at which the two sūras part, and I record this as my own reading:

al-Shuʿarāʾ gives the messenger a consolation: "do not grieve, those before you met the same answer." Hūd gives the messenger an instruction: "be upright, do not lean, perform the prayer, be patient, wait."

The ground for this is what the two sūras say after the narratives. al-Shuʿarāʾ, after the sequence, discusses the source of the Qurʾān (192-227). Hūd, after the sequence, gives a four-verse list of commands (112-115), and every item on that list answers to a behaviour seen in the narratives. This is an explanation, not a ruling; but the data counted in the table can be verified.

Alif-lām-rā · kitābun uḥkimat āyātuhū thumma fuṣṣilat min ladun ḥakīmin khabīr

"Alif-lām-rā. This is a Book whose verses have been made firm, then set out in detail — from the presence of One who is wise and fully aware."

The note on the disconnected letters (ḥurūf muqaṭṭaʿa) has been entered many times across this series (al-Baqara, al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/1, al-Raʿd 13/1); I do not repeat it here.

This verse is the densest sentence in the sūra, and two verbs need dwelling on: uḥkimat and fuṣṣilat. Both are passive, both take the same subject (āyātuhū), between them stands thumma — and they report two distinct operations.

The concrete sense of the root was worked out at al-Baqara 2/269 (in the discussion of ḥikma), and I rely on that treatment. The entry there ran:

ح-ك-م: to prevent, to make firm. The concrete sense the lexicographers record is striking: ḥakama is the bit that turns an animal's head. From this comes the sense "to hold a thing in its place, to keep it from swerving".

And the picture of the bit, which is the root's original sense, explains the verb here directly. A bit does not stop the animal; it keeps it from swerving. Nor does uḥkimat freeze the text; it keeps it from falling apart.

The pattern is the passive of Form IV: aḥkama → uḥkimat — "it was made firm, brought into a firm state". And the word مُحْكَم (muḥkam), from the same root, occurs in the Qurʾān as an attribute of verses.

The word's relatives show that the root carries a single idea:

The root was worked out in Fuṣṣilat, on the occasion of that sūra's name, and I rely on that treatment. The entry there ran:

The concrete sense of the root: to separate two things from one another, to put a distance between them. … The pattern here is Form II, and it changes the sense: tafṣīl — to divide a whole into its parts, to set it out in detail. For a text to be mufaṣṣal is for its subjects to have been separated from one another, their boundaries drawn.

And one further datum was recorded there: in Sūrat Fuṣṣilat the word occurs both as an affirmative statement (41/3) and as an objection (41/44 — law lā fuṣṣilat āyātuh). In Hūd it occurs only as a statement.

The root's relatives:

The word مِفْصَل (joint) gives the picture of the root best: a joint both separates and binds two bones. To be parted is not to be broken off.

The verse attaches two verbs to the same subject, and thumma stands between them. Three things must be recorded separately.

One — the two verbs look opposed.

To make a text firm and at the same time to divide it into parts are, at first sight, two operations that undo one another. The verse ascribes both to the same Book.

Two — the resolution lies in the concrete sense of the root ف-ص-ل, and this is an observation about the language. Faṣl is a parting, not a breaking; as in the example of the joint, what separates is at the same time what binds. So tafṣīl does not undo iḥkām — it makes it usable.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the lexicographers' definitions of the two roots: however firm a structure may be, if it is not divided into sections it cannot be entered. The verse describes the Book first as a whole (muḥkam), then as accessible (mufaṣṣal).

Three — the particle thumma. In Arabic thumma, unlike fāʾ, reports a distance in between. This was treated at al-Aḥqāf 46/13 (qālū rabbunā'llāhu thumma'staqāmū) and repeated at Fuṣṣilat 41/30; I rely on that treatment.

The exegetes differ over the distance here, and I give it in a table:

All three readings are transmitted in the classical sources; I do not impose a preference.

And the reason for the piecemeal revelation was treated at al-Furqān 25/32 (kadhālika li-nuthabbita bihī fuʾādak) — the first reading sits on that line; but this does not invalidate the others.

And the word order of the verse must be recorded: two names follow the two verbs, and the names come in the same order as the verbs.

The first link is one of wording and is beyond dispute: uḥkimat and ḥakīm are from the same root.

The second link I record as my own reading, and it is not binding: the root خ-ب-ر, as the lexicographers record it, is to know the inner face of a thing, its hidden side; khabīr is the one who knows not what shows from outside but what belongs to the inside. And setting out in detail (tafṣīl) is likewise the opening of a thing's inner divisions. The two words look at the same field.

مِن لَّدُنْ — "from the presence of". Ladun reports a narrower nearness than ʿind: the lexicographers record that ladun is used only for direct presence. The word occurred at al-Kahf 18/10 and 18/65 (ʿilman min ladunnā).

The sūra opens with a description of the Book, and the two words of that description will be applied across the whole of it.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the structure of the sūra:

The sūra, that is, names its own method of narration in the first verse: the same thing, in detail.

The two verbs also name two distinct errors in the reading of a text.

• A reading that looks only to iḥkām: it takes the text as a whole and does not descend into detail; the result is a general grasp with nothing filled in.
• A reading that looks only to tafṣīl: it stays in the detail and misses the structure that binds the parts together.

The verse gives the two together. I record this as a principle of reading; it is not a conclusion drawn from the wording of the verse but an application of the structure the verse builds.

allā taʿbudū illā'llāh, innanī lakum minhu nadhīrun wa bashīr · wa ani'staghfirū rabbakum thumma tūbū ilayhi yumattiʿkum matāʿan ḥasanan ilā ajalin musamman wa yuʾti kulla dhī faḍlin faḍlah · wa in tawallaw fa-innī akhāfu ʿalaykum ʿadhāba yawmin kabīr · ilā'llāhi marjiʿukum wa huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr

"That you serve none but God. I am to you, from Him, a warner and a bearer of good news. · And ask forgiveness of your Lord, then turn back to Him, and He will grant you good enjoyment until an appointed term and give every possessor of merit his merit. If you turn away, I fear for you the punishment of a great Day. · Your return is to God; and He has power over all things."

The first verse described the Book; the second and third give its content under two heads.

And the second command will become the most repeated sentence in the sūra: Hūd (52), Ṣāliḥ (61) and Shuʿayb (90) will speak the same sentence to their peoples. The second verse of the sūra, that is, is placed in the mouths of three prophets. This was tabulated in the section on the backbone.

The two words occur together, and in the Qurʾān the order most often begins with bashīr (bashīran wa nadhīrā — al-Furqān 25/56, Fuṣṣilat 41/4). Here it is reversed: nadhīr first.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and I issue no ruling. The whole of the sūra is six narratives of destruction; that the warning should stand first is consistent with the subject of the sūra. This is an explanation.

The particle that came between uḥkimat and fuṣṣilat in the first verse comes here between istighfār and tawba.

The root غ-ف-ر — to cover, to put a covering over the top; mighfar, the helmet, is from the same root — was treated at Nūḥ 71/7 and, as noted there, in al-Naṣr. I do not repeat it here.

The root ت-و-ب: to turn. Tawba — a turning back.

The order of the two verbs is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: istighfār looks to the past (the covering over of what has been), tawba to the future (the change of direction). And thumma sets a distance between them: asking forgiveness and changing direction are not the same moment.

The root م-ت-ع: to draw benefit from a thing; and to last long. Matāʿ — provision, the thing one draws benefit from.

The construction ajalin musammā has been treated in many places across this series (al-Raʿd 13/2, al-Aḥqāf 46/3, al-Zumar 39/42, Fāṭir 35/45, Luqmān 31/29, al-ʿAnkabūt 29/53). I do not repeat it here.

And the side of the sentence that must be recorded is this: the return is promised in this world. ilā ajalin musammā — until an appointed term; that is, for the length of a lifetime.

The same line will run again in Hūd's mouth (52): yursili'l-samāʾa ʿalaykum midrāran wa yazidkum quwwatan ilā quwwatikum — rain and strength. This is a link repeated within the sūra and it can be verified from the text.

A limit, per the method (Method): no rule such as "the believer will grow rich in this world" is to be drawn from this. What the verse says is matāʿun ḥasan — "good enjoyment"; an adjective that reports quality, not quantity.

In the sentence faḍl occurs twice, and the two report different things.

The exegetes differ over the referent of the pronoun:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

In the sentence ilā'llāh has been brought forward. In Arabic the normal order would be marjiʿukum ilā'llāh.

That fronting reports restriction (ḥaṣr) has been recorded in many places across this series. That is: "your return is to God alone."

alā innahum yathnūna ṣudūrahum li-yastakhfū minh, alā ḥīna yastaghshūna thiyābahum yaʿlamu mā yusirrūna wa mā yuʿlinūn, innahū ʿalīmun bi-dhāti'l-ṣudūr

"Take note: they bend their breasts to hide from Him. Take note: even when they wrap themselves in their garments, He knows what they keep secret and what they make public. He is indeed the Knower of the inmost of the breasts."

This verse is the most concrete depiction of the effort to hide in the Qurʾān. Two bodily movements are named, and both are acts of covering.

The root ث-ن-ي: to fold a thing, to bend it, to double it over. The root has occurred in several places across this series (al-Ḥajj, al-Zumar, Sabaʾ, al-Qalam); the pattern here needs separate attention.

The derivatives of the root all carry a single picture:

And mathānī (an attribute of the Qurʾān; it occurs at al-Zumar 39/23 in the construction kitāban mutashābihan mathāniya) is from this root as well — repeated, folded.

The use of the word here is concrete: to bend the breast. That is, to lean forward, to draw the shoulders in, to make oneself small.

More than one explanation of what this movement is is transmitted in the classical sources:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. But what the three have in common must be recorded: every one of them is the verb to hide.

As an occasion of revelation, reports are transmitted to the effect that a man bent over, or covered his head, as he passed by the Prophet. I do not give these as an established event; the verse itself speaks not of one person but of a group (innahum).

This expression was treated at Nūḥ 71/7 in exactly the same pattern, and I rely on that treatment. In summary, the entries there were these:

Root غ-ش-ي. The concrete sense of the root is to cover the top of a thing, to wrap it, to come over it and enfold it; ghishāwa is the veil over the eye (al-Baqara 2/7). The verb here is Form X: istaghshā. This form reports "to seek" or "to do for oneself". So yastaghshūna thiyābahum does not mean "their garments cover them"; it means "they make their garments a covering for themselves". ثياب, root ث-و-ب: to return. Thawb (garment), thawāb (recompense), mathāba (the place returned to) are all from this root.

And this verse (Hūd 11/5) was already cited in Nūḥ, where this entry was made: "The Qurʾān records this movement not as an oddity peculiar to Noah's people but as a recurring human behaviour."

What belongs here is the three differences between the two verses, and all three can be read from the text:

The third difference deserves attention, and I record this as my own reading:

Noah's people were trying to block the sound coming from the messenger. Both movements were directed at the ear (the finger, then the cloth).

In Hūd 11/5 what is being blocked is being seen. And the one they hide from is not the messenger — the sentence says li-yastakhfū minhu; the exegetes differ over the referent of the pronoun:

All three readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. But the answer the verse gives supports the first reading: the sentence meets the hiding with a piece of knowledge — "even when they wrap themselves in their garments, He knows."

أَلَا (take note) occurs twice in the verse, and each time it stands at the head of a sentence.

The verse, that is, uses the particle of attention twice, and by doing so separates the claim from its answer. This is a feature of the word order that can be verified from the text.

And the placement of the adverb of time is worth recording: ḥīna yastaghshūna thiyābahum — "when they wrap themselves in their garments".

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not say "He knows in every state"; it picks the moment at which the hiding is at its most intense and says that they are known there. The place where the covering is thickest is made the example.

The construction occurs in many places in the Qurʾān and has been treated across this series (Fāṭir, al-Zumar, al-Shūrā, al-Taghābun, al-Mulk 67/13). I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is a link: the verse opens with the word ṣadr (breast) and closes with the word ṣudūr (breasts).

The same word, at the two ends. The human being bends his breast; God knows what is inside the breast. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

And the sūra will return to this word once more: in the twelfth verse it will be said of the Prophet wa ḍāʾiqun bihī ṣadruk — "your breast is straitened by it".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the nearness of the two verses: on the first page of the sūra both sides are named by their breasts; one is hiding, the other is carrying.

The movement the verse describes is given not as a matter of belief but as body language — bending, covering oneself, trying not to be seen. And what these movements have in common is that they show the one addressed is not self-sufficient: a person is aware of what he avoids; the avoidance is the proof of the awareness.

I record this not as a conclusion drawn from the wording of the verse but as my own reading.

wa mā min dābbatin fi'l-arḍi illā ʿalā'llāhi rizquhā wa yaʿlamu mustaqarrahā wa mustawdaʿahā, kullun fī kitābin mubīn

"There is no creature that moves on the earth whose provision does not rest upon God. He knows its resting place and the place where it is left in trust. All of it is in a clear book."

The fifth verse was about hiding. The sixth turns suddenly to provision. At first sight the link is not visible.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verb the two verses share: yaʿlamu.

The same verb, in two consecutive verses. The verses are not changing the subject — they are widening the scope of the knowledge: first the inside of a human being, then the whole of the earth.

The root has been treated in several places across this series (al-Naml, Luqmān, al-Nūr, Sabaʾ, al-Jāthiya, al-Shūrā). In summary: د-ب-ب — to move slowly and lightly, to stir, to walk. Dābba is every living thing that moves on the earth; the word is wide enough to take in the birds and the human being as well.

And the choice of word is worth recording: the verse does not say ḥayawān (living thing) or khalq (created thing). It says that which moves. The question of provision is the question of a being that moves — a thing that does not rise from its place has no search for provision.

The preposition in the sentence is ʿalā, and in Arabic ʿalā reports undertaking and obligation.

That the same particle does the same work at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/113 (in ḥisābuhum illā ʿalā rabbī) and at 26/109 (in ajriya illā ʿalā rabbi'l-ʿālamīn) was treated there; I rely on that treatment. What was recorded there was this: "In both sentences ʿalā attaches the obligation to God: the payment and the reckoning are alike His."

And Hūd 11/6 attaches a third thing to the same particle: provision.

I enter a note, per the method (Method): the ʿalā here does not mean that a necessity is imposed upon God. I do not enter the classical theological dispute; the wording of the verse reports an undertaking, and the source of that undertaking is again God Himself.

The same field was treated at al-ʿAnkabūt 29/60 (wa ka-ayyin min dābbatin lā taḥmilu rizqahā, Allāhu yarzuquhā wa iyyākum), and I rely on that treatment. In summary, the entries there were these:

lā taḥmilu rizqahā — "it does not carry its own provision". The lexicographers explain this in two ways: it cannot store up its food and carry it about, or it has no power to secure its provision. The link with the verses before it: in verse 56 migration had been commanded. The most concrete obstacle to migration is anxiety about livelihood — and this verse is placed exactly there. The proof is brought not from the human being but from the animal — by saying that a creature which cannot carry its load is nevertheless fed, it is shown that storing up food is not a condition.

The difference between the two verses must be recorded, and it is a datum of the text:

al-ʿAnkabūt, that is, attaches provision to a question of courage, and Hūd to a question of knowledge.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the setting in which each verse stands. The question answered in al-ʿAnkabūt is "how shall I live?"; the question answered in Hūd is "where shall I hide?" — because the verse before it was about hiding.

Both words are nouns of place / passive participles from Form X, and they build an opposed pair.

The root ق-ر-ر: to stand in a place, to settle, to be fixed. The root has been treated in many places across this series (al-Muʾminūn, al-Naml, al-Sajda, Yāsīn, al-Qiyāma, al-Mursalāt). Mustaqar — the place where one comes to rest.

The root و-د-ع: to leave; and to entrust. The root was treated at al-Ḍuḥā 93/3 (mā waddaʿaka rabbuk) and in al-Aḥzāb. Wadīʿa — a trust. Mustawdaʿ — the place where a trust is left.

The difference between the two words is the difference between the two roots:

The exegetes differ over what the words refer to, and I give it in a table:

All four readings are transmitted in the classical sources; I do not impose a preference.

But there is something to record, and this is an observation about the language: all four readings carry the same structure — one lasting, the other temporary. What the words point to, that is, is disputed; what they do is not.

A limit, per the method (Method): the second reading is sometimes pressed into service for modern biology. That road is closed in this commentary (the same limit was set at al-Raʿd 13/8); the wording of the verse reports a scope of knowledge, it does not describe a mechanism.

And the verse closes with a "book". The sūra had opened with a "book" too.

I record this as an observation; I do not claim that the two are the same thing. What is recorded is that the word is used for two distinct offices within six verses.

wa huwa'lladhī khalaqa'l-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa fī sittati ayyāmin wa kāna ʿarshuhū ʿalā'l-māʾi li-yabluwakum ayyukum aḥsanu ʿamalā · wa la-in qulta innakum mabʿūthūna min baʿdi'l-mawti la-yaqūlanna'lladhīna kafarū in hādhā illā siḥrun mubīn

"It is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His throne was upon the water — so that He might test which of you is best in deed. And if you say 'You will be raised after death', those who disbelieve will certainly say, 'This is nothing but plain sorcery'."

This construction has been treated across this series — al-Sajda 32/4, Qāf 50/38, al-Ḥadīd 57/4. I do not repeat it here, and I keep the same limit: no conclusion about modern cosmology or geological timescales is to be drawn from it.

What belongs here is only the office of the construction within the sūra: the verse does not describe the creation and stop there; it attaches it at once to a purpose — li-yabluwakum. This is treated separately below.

I enter a note per the method (Method), and I do not open the dispute.

This sentence falls within the general frame of the sentences about the throne. At al-Sajda 32/4 (thumma'stawā ʿalā'l-ʿarsh) the two main postures of the classical tradition were tabulated, and this was repeated at Ṭāhā 20/5. I rely on that treatment and bring the table here as well, because the verse adds a new element here: al-māʾ.

Both postures are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The shared principle is al-Shūrā 42/11 (laysa ka-mithlihī shayʾ) and it was treated in al-Shūrā: no depiction whatever permits a likeness to be drawn.

And various explanations of al-māʾ (the water) are transmitted in the classical sources. I pass them on and prefer none of them:

I set an explicit limit, per the method (Method): no scientific claim about the material beginning of the universe is to be drawn from this sentence. This commentary does not hunt for scientific miracles (Method); and the verse itself does not offer this information as a proof — the sentence passes in the middle of the verse as an aside, and the verse continues at once with li-yabluwakum.

And I enter a note of tanzīh: every expression in the Qurʾān that reports place or direction with respect to God is read inside the limit al-Shūrā 42/11 draws. In this commentary no description of modality is built on such expressions.

This sentence was treated at al-Kahf 18/7 in exactly the same structure, and I rely on that treatment without reservation.

al-Kahf 18/7: innā jaʿalnā mā ʿalā'l-arḍi zīnatan lahā li-nabluwahum ayyuhum aḥsanu ʿamalā Hūd 11/7: …wa kāna ʿarshuhū ʿalā'l-māʾi li-yabluwakum ayyukum aḥsanu ʿamalā

What was recorded in the al-Kahf section was this: the two verses (7-8) set up the frame of every narrative in that sūra — what is on the earth is both an ornament and an instrument of testing, and its end is bare dry ground. And this entry was made there: "Before entering its four narratives, the sūra says both what is in hand and how it ends."

And exactly the same thing happens here. This is the strongest structural overlap between the two sūras, and it can be tabulated:

Two differences must be recorded, and both are data of the text:

One — in al-Kahf those tested are in the third person (ayyuhum), in Hūd in the second (ayyukum). Hūd, that is, turns the same sentence directly onto the one addressed.

Two — in al-Kahf the instrument of the testing is named (mā ʿalā'l-arḍ — what is on the earth); in Hūd it is not. In Hūd the testing is attached to the creation itself.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: both sūras set up the same frame before entering the sequence of narratives — what is to be told is not a history but a set of examples of a testing. al-Kahf does it with four narratives, Hūd with six.

The side of the sentence that must be recorded is what the question is.

The verse does not say ayyukum aktharu ʿamalā ("which of you will do the most"). It says aḥsanu ʿamalā: "the best".

The root ح-س-ن: to be beautiful, to be good. And aḥsan is an elative.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the measure is not number but quality. And the same distinction is repeated in the Qurʾān — li-yabluwakum ayyukum aḥsanu ʿamalā occurs at al-Mulk 67/2 as well and was treated in al-Mulk. The same sentence in three sūras (al-Kahf, Hūd, al-Mulk); and in all three the measure is the same. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text.

The second half of the verse is the first instance of a pattern that will be repeated four times in the sūra: la-in … la-yaqūlanna.

Four verses, the same pattern. And the lāms are the lām of the oath: in Arabic the structure la-in … la-yafʿalanna reports that the other side's reaction is certain.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verses say in advance what the one addressed will say — and the way of saying it is the mood of an oath. What is described, that is, is not a guess but a pattern.

The answer given to the news of the resurrection is not "a lie" but "sorcery".

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the choice of word: the charge of siḥr concedes that the speech is effective. The objection, that is, is aimed not at the ineffectiveness of the speech but at the source of its effect. The same charge was treated at al-Ṣāffāt 37/15 and al-Aḥqāf 46/7; I rely on that treatment.

wa la-in akhkharnā ʿanhumu'l-ʿadhāba ilā ummatin maʿdūdatin la-yaqūlunna mā yaḥbisuh, alā yawma yaʾtīhim laysa maṣrūfan ʿanhum wa ḥāqa bihim mā kānū bihī yastahziʾūn

"If We defer the punishment from them to a numbered span, they will certainly say, 'What is holding it back?' Take note: on the day it comes to them it will not be turned away from them; and what they mocked will close in upon them."

The sense of the word beyond "community" was treated at al-Zukhruf 43/22, where the sense of umma as "the road followed, the line kept to" was tabulated. I rely on that treatment.

Here the word comes in a third sense: an interval of time, a span. The idea of "priority, being at the source" in the root أ-م-م reaches also to the countability of a stretch of time. And the adjective confirms it: maʿdūda — "numbered".

The root ع-د-د: to count. Maʿdūd — counted, of a known number.

The sentence therefore reports not an indefiniteness but a definiteness: there is a deferral, but the span is numbered. And the sūra will come back to this word: in the hundred and fourth verse, wa mā nuʾakhkhiruhū illā li-ajalin maʿdūd — exactly the same idea.

The same word, at the two ends of the sūra. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

The root ح-ب-س: to hold, to detain, to prevent. From the same root comes ḥabs (imprisonment).

The kind of question must be recorded, and I give it as an observation: the question does not dispute the reality of the punishment; it asks about its delay. The mockery, that is, is aimed not at the content of the claim but at its calendar.

The demand that the punishment be hastened has been treated in many places across this series (al-Raʿd 13/6, Sabaʾ 34/29, al-ʿAnkabūt 29/53, al-Ṣāffāt 37/176). I rely on that treatment.

The root ح-ي-ق: to come down around a thing and enclose it, to encircle. The root was treated at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/45 and al-Aḥqāf 46/26.

And note the mood of the verb: ḥāqa is a perfect — something that will happen in the future is told as if it had happened. In Arabic this reports certainty.

wa la-in adhaqnā'l-insāna minnā raḥmatan thumma nazaʿnāhā minhu innahū la-yaʾūsun kafūr · wa la-in adhaqnāhu naʿmāʾa baʿda ḍarrāʾa massathu la-yaqūlanna dhahaba'l-sayyiʾātu ʿannī innahū la-fariḥun fakhūr · illā'lladhīna ṣabarū wa ʿamilū'l-ṣāliḥāti ulāʾika lahum maghfiratun wa ajrun kabīr

"If We let a human being taste a mercy from Us and then draw it away from him, he becomes despairing and ungrateful. · If We let him taste a favour after a hardship that had touched him, he says without fail, 'The evils have gone from me'; he is exultant and boastful. · Except those who are patient and do righteous deeds: for them there is forgiveness and a great reward."

The two verses describe two situations that are the reverse of one another, and each is given a pair of adjectives.

And all four adjectives are in patterns that report not a passing state but a settled one (faʿūl and faʿil): they report not a passing state but a settled disposition.

The root ي-أ-س: to give up hope. Yaʾūs — utterly without hope.

The root ك-ف-ر: to cover. Kafūr — deeply ungrateful, that is, one who covers over the good he has received. The "covering" core of the root has been treated in many places across this series.

I record this as an observation: in the ninth verse the two adjectives look at the same event from two directions. Yaʾūs looks to the future (it will not come again), kafūr to the past (it had never come at all).

The root ف-ر-ح: to rejoice; and to grow giddy. The word is used in the Qurʾān both positively and negatively; in its negative use fariḥ is joy that has lost its measure. The root was treated at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/76 (lā tafraḥ inna'llāha lā yuḥibbu'l-fariḥīn).

The root ف-خ-ر: to boast, to vaunt oneself. Fakhūr — much given to boasting. The root was treated at al-Ḥadīd 57/23 (mukhtālin fakhūr).

And the construction of what is said in the tenth verse is worth recording.

The man does not say "God has removed the evils from me." He says "The evils have gone from me." The verb is intransitive, and its grammatical subject is al-sayyiʾāt; there is no agent in the sentence.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the intransitive construction of the verb: the departure of the hardship is told as though it had happened of itself. And the next adjective (fakhūr — boastful) fills that gap: the man himself steps into the place of the agent.

And the opposite is present within the sūra: in the sentence Hūd speaks to his people, yursili'l-samāʾa ʿalaykum midrārā (52), the agent is explicit.

The eleventh verse makes an exception to both lists of adjectives at once.

And the exception has two conditions: ṣabarū and ʿamilū'l-ṣāliḥāt.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the content of the two verses: the error in the ninth verse was made in loss, the one in the tenth in gain. The first condition of the exception (ṣabr) answers to loss, the second (ʿamal) to gain. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

And the word ṣabr will return in the backbone of the sūra: in the forty-ninth verse the Prophet will be told fa-ṣbir, and in the hundred and fifteenth wa'ṣbir.

fa-laʿallaka tārikun baʿḍa mā yūḥā ilayka wa ḍāʾiqun bihī ṣadruka an yaqūlū law lā unzila ʿalayhi kanzun aw jāʾa maʿahū malak, innamā anta nadhīr, wa'llāhu ʿalā kulli shayʾin wakīl

"Perhaps you will leave aside part of what is revealed to you, and your breast will be straitened by it, because they say, 'Why has no treasure been sent down to him, or no angel come with him?' You are only a warner; and God is the One who takes charge of everything."

The particle laʿalla occurs in a few places in the Qurʾān in a sentence directed at the messenger, and these have been treated across this series: al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/3 (laʿallaka bākhiʿun nafsak) and al-Kahf 18/6 (fa-laʿallaka bākhiʿun nafsaka ʿalā āthārihim asafā). I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded, and it is sharp:

al-Shuʿarāʾ and al-Kahf were speaking of grief; Hūd is speaking of an act.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is what the three verses report: grieving is an inner state; leaving part of it aside is a decision about delivery. Hūd names the step beyond the same strain.

A note, per the method (Method): the sentence is built in a mood of possibility and is not a report that it occurred. It is widely reported in the classical sources that this verse is read not as a failure that took place but as the forestalling of a possible strain. The same limit is kept in this commentary.

The root ض-ي-ق: narrowness. The root was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/13 (wa yaḍīqu ṣadrī) in Moses' objection, and I rely on that treatment.

And a comparison of the two places is worth recording:

Two prophets, the same organ, the same root. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

And the form of the word must be recorded: not ḍāʾiq but ḍāʾiqun bihī ṣadruk. What is straitened, that is, is not you but your breast; and what straitens it is bihī — not the revelation itself but the carrying of it. This is an observation about the word order.

And its link with the fifth verse was tabulated above: the breast of the one addressed is bent, the breast of the messenger is straitened.

Two demands: a treasure and an angel.

These two demands were treated together at al-Furqān 25/7-8 (law lā unzila ilayhi malakun fa-yakūna maʿahū nadhīrā · aw yulqā ilayhi kanzun). I rely on that treatment.

And the kind of demand must be recorded: both look at the messenger's standing, not at what he says. The same family was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/111 (a-nuʾminu laka wa'ttabaʿaka'l-ardhalūn) and at al-Zukhruf 43/31 (rajulin mina'l-qaryatayni ʿaẓīm).

The pattern of restriction (qaṣr): innamā.

This limit has been tabulated in many places across this series (al-Qaṣaṣ 28/56, Fāṭir 35/8, Luqmān 31/23, al-Zumar 39/41, al-Aḥqāf 46/35, al-Raʿd 13/7). I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is the second half of the sentence: wa'llāhu ʿalā kulli shayʾin wakīl.

The root و-ك-ل: to commit a matter to another, to leave it in trust. Wakīl — the one who takes the matter on.

And this word will return in the imperative in the last verse of the sūra: wa tawakkal ʿalayh (123). This is an overlap that can be verified from the text, and it will be tabulated in the closing section.

am yaqūlūna'ftarāh, qul fa'tū bi-ʿashri suwarin mithlihī muftarayātin wa'dʿū mani'staṭaʿtum min dūni'llāhi in kuntum ṣādiqīn · fa-illam yastajībū lakum fa'lamū annamā unzila bi-ʿilmi'llāhi wa an lā ilāha illā hū, fa-hal antum muslimūn

"Or do they say, 'He has invented it'? Say: 'Then bring ten sūras like it, invented, and call on whomever you can besides God — if you are truthful.' · If they do not answer you, then know that it was sent down only with God's knowledge, and that there is no god but He. Are you then submitting?"

This verse is the ten sūra scale of the challenge the Qurʾān makes about itself.

The challenge was treated at al-Baqara 2/23-24, where all the scales were tabulated; I rely on that treatment. The entry there ran:

The Qurʾān makes this challenge in more than one place and at different scales: bring a discourse (al-Ṭūr 52/34), bring ten sūras (Hūd 11/13), bring one sūra (al-Baqara 2/23; Yūnus 10/38). The classical interpretation reads this as a graded narrowing — the demand was made smaller and smaller and even so was not met. But since the order in which these sūras were revealed is not known with certainty, the chronological construction "much was asked first, then it was reduced" is an assumption; this needs stating.

I keep that entry exactly as it stands and I do not impose a preference. At al-Isrāʾ 17/88 (bi-mithli hādhā'l-qurʾān) the widest scale — the whole of the Qurʾān — occurs; that verse has not yet been treated under a heading of its own in the al-Isrāʾ section, so I do not rely on anything there, I only cite the verse.

A comparison of the four scales:

And there is a word Hūd adds to the scale, one that occurs in only this of the four verses: muftarayāt — "invented".

The root ف-ر-ي: the splitting, the cutting of a hide; and from there, to invent. Iftirāʾ — to bring a saying into being where there was none.

The work the word does here must be recorded, and I give it as an observation about the word order:

The objection was "he has invented it" (iftarāh). The answer hands the objection back its own word: "then bring ten invented sūras yourselves."

The answer, that is, takes the other side's claim as granted and lightens the condition: "it need not be revelation; bring something like it even if it is invented."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the word in the sentence. This qualification is not present at al-Baqara 2/23 or at Yūnus 10/38; it is peculiar to Hūd. This is a difference that can be verified from the text.

The last row is worth recording: al-Baqara has lan tafʿalū ("you will never do it"), and this is a categorical negation directed at the future. Hūd does not have that sentence; in its place come a conditional clause and a consequence.

I record this as a datum of the text and build no chronology on it — since it is not known with certainty which was revealed first, the entry in al-Baqara stands.

And the conclusion drawn in the fourteenth verse consists of two items:

And the way the second item is attached here is worth recording. The move is from the inimitability of the text to tawḥīd. I record this as an observation about the word order: the helpers called upon were min dūni'llāh — that is, the challenge was built from the start on who could be called; and the conclusion comes out of exactly that.

فَهَلْ أَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ — "are you then submitting?" A question, not a command. And it is a posture that will be repeated across the whole sūra: the decision is left to the one addressed.

man kāna yurīdu'l-ḥayāta'l-dunyā wa zīnatahā nuwaffi ilayhim aʿmālahum fīhā wa hum fīhā lā yubkhasūn · ulāʾika'lladhīna laysa lahum fi'l-ākhirati illā'l-nār, wa ḥabiṭa mā ṣanaʿū fīhā wa bāṭilun mā kānū yaʿmalūn

"Whoever desires the life of this world and its ornament, We pay them in full there for their deeds, and there they are not given short measure. · Those are the ones who have nothing in the hereafter but the Fire. What they made there has come to nothing, and what they used to do is void."

Two roots come side by side in the verse, and both belong to the field of measure — the words of the Shuʿayb section later in the sūra.

The root و-ف-ي: to be complete, to give without shortfall. The root has been treated in many places across this series (al-Isrāʾ 17/34-35, al-Muṭaffifīn, al-Najm). Nuwaffi — We pay in full.

The root ب-خ-س: to take a thing by lowering its value, to give less than its due. The root was worked out in al-Muṭaffifīn and treated again at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/183. I rely on that treatment.

And what must be recorded is this: these two roots will come back together, ninety-five verses later, in Shuʿayb's mouth.

The same two roots, in the same order, in two distinct fields. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verbal overlap between the two verses: the sūra tells of the return in this world in the language of measure — God gives no one short measure. And what Shuʿayb tells his people is that a human being should imitate that measure. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

The concrete sense of the root is recorded by the lexicographers and is striking: ḥabiṭati'l-ibil — the camel eats a harmful plant, its belly swells and it dies. Ḥabṭ, that is, is a ruin that looks from outside like fullness.

I ascribe this to the lexicographers; the word's use in the Qurʾān is the invalidation of a deed.

وَبَٰطِلٌ مَّا كَانُوا۟ يَعْمَلُونَ — root ب-ط-ل: to come to nothing, to be void.

The difference between the two words is worth recording: ḥabiṭa is a verb (it happened), bāṭil is a noun (it is so). A deed first came to nothing, and then it is said that it was void all along. This is an observation about the word order.

a-fa-man kāna ʿalā bayyinatin min rabbihī wa yatlūhu shāhidun minhu wa min qablihī kitābu Mūsā imāman wa raḥmah, ulāʾika yuʾminūna bih, wa man yakfur bihī mina'l-aḥzābi fa'l-nāru mawʿiduh, fa-lā taku fī miryatin minh, innahu'l-ḥaqqu min rabbik, wa lākinna akthara'l-nāsi lā yuʾminūn

"Is one who stands on a clear proof from his Lord, followed by a witness from Him, and before it the Book of Moses as a leader and a mercy [like one who does not]? Those believe in it. And whoever of the factions denies it, the Fire is his appointed place. So be not in doubt about it; it is the truth from your Lord — but most people do not believe."

The sentence begins with a question, but the second half of the question is never spoken. a-fa-man kāna ʿalā bayyina… — "one who stands on a clear proof from his Lord…" and the side he is to be compared with has been elided.

The completion supplied in the classical sources is this: "…like one who desires the life of this world?" — that is, it attaches to the verses just before (15-16). This is a supplied reading; the verse does not say it in so many words.

The root ب-ي-ن: to separate two things; and from there, clarity. The root was worked out at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/2 (al-kitābu'l-mubīn); I do not repeat it here.

The word bayyina occurs four times in Hūd, and all four describe the standing of a prophet or of a believer:

And it occurs once more in the mouth of the other side, negated: mā jiʾtanā bi-bayyina — "you have brought us no clear proof" (53, the people of Hūd).

Five occurrences, one table. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text, and it belongs to the backbone of the sūra: the two sides are divided by whether or not they hold a bayyina.

Over the referents of the two pronouns in the sentence there is a wide disagreement in the classical sources. I give it in a table and impose no preference.

All four are transmitted. A note, per the method (Method): sectarian arguments have also been conducted over this verse throughout history; in this commentary no side is taken and the argument is not opened.

What is to be recorded is the work the sentence does: three supports are listed — a clear proof, a witness, an earlier book. The verse, that is, points not to a single source but to three testimonies laid one over another.

Two circumstantial accusatives (words reporting a state): imāman and raḥmatan.

The root أ-م-م — imām: the one who stands in front, the one who is followed. The root was treated at al-Zukhruf 43/22 and in al-Qiyāma.

And the same construction occurs in Sūrat al-Aḥqāf as well: wa min qablihī kitābu Mūsā imāman wa raḥmah (al-Aḥqāf 46/12) — word for word the same expression. That verse was treated in al-Aḥqāf. The same sentence in two sūras; this is a repetition that can be verified from the text.

The root م-ر-ي: to milk a thing; and from there, to wrangle, to be in doubt. Mirya — doubt, hesitation.

The word occurs twice in the sūra: here (17) and in the hundred and ninth verse (fa-lā taku fī miryatin mimmā yaʿbudu hāʾulāʾ). In both places the command is the same: fa-lā taku fī mirya. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text.

wa man aẓlamu mimmani'ftarā ʿalā'llāhi kadhibā, ulāʾika yuʿraḍūna ʿalā rabbihim wa yaqūlu'l-ashhādu hāʾulāʾi'lladhīna kadhabū ʿalā rabbihim, alā laʿnatu'llāhi ʿalā'l-ẓālimīn · alladhīna yaṣuddūna ʿan sabīli'llāhi wa yabghūnahā ʿiwajā wa hum bi'l-ākhirati hum kāfirūn · ulāʾika lam yakūnū muʿjizīna fi'l-arḍi wa mā kāna lahum min dūni'llāhi min awliyāʾ, yuḍāʿafu lahumu'l-ʿadhāb, mā kānū yastaṭīʿūna'l-samʿa wa mā kānū yubṣirūn · ulāʾika'lladhīna khasirū anfusahum wa ḍalla ʿanhum mā kānū yaftarūn · lā jarama annahum fi'l-ākhirati humu'l-akhsarūn

"And who does greater wrong than one who invents a lie against God? Those will be brought before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, 'These are the ones who lied against their Lord.' Take note: the curse of God is upon the wrongdoers. · They are the ones who bar others from the path of God and would have it crooked, and who deny the hereafter. · They were never going to frustrate Him on the earth, and they had no protectors besides God. The punishment will be doubled for them. They were not able to hear, and they did not see. · Those are the ones who have lost their own selves; and what they invented has gone astray from them. · Beyond all doubt, in the hereafter they are the greatest losers."

The root ع-و-ج: crookedness. The lexicographers record two vocalisations: ʿiwaj (with kasra) is crookedness in things not seen — a religion, a word, a disposition; ʿawaj (with fatḥa) is crookedness in things that are seen — a wall, a tree.

And the word here is ʿiwajan, that is, crookedness in the unseen field. This is a note about the language.

And the verb must be recorded: yabghūnahā — "they seek it, they work for it". The crookedness, that is, is not there in the path of itself; it is being sought.

This expression belongs to a field that recurs across this series. The proof from "do they hear?" was treated at Fuṣṣilat 41/5 (fī ādhāninā waqr) and in al-Aḥqāf and Fāṭir. I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded, and it is an observation about the language: the sentence does not say mā kānū yasmaʿūn ("they did not hear"); it says mā kānū yastaṭīʿūna'l-samʿ — "they were not able to hear".

The insertion of the verb of ability (istiṭāʿa) deepens the negation by one degree: the matter is not a failure to hear but the loss of the very possibility of hearing.

And it can be compared with the pattern in the fifteenth verse: there the return in this world was given in full; here the capacity to hear is used up. This is a contrast, and it can be read from the text.

lā jarama is a pattern of emphasis in Arabic: "beyond all doubt, inescapably".

The root ج-ر-م: to cut, to sever; and from there, a crime. The root has been treated in many places across this series (al-Shuʿarāʾ, al-Ṣāffāt, al-Qamar, al-Muṭaffifīn). The lexicographers explain the pattern lā jarama as "definitively, inescapably" — the idea of "cutting" in the root has become the cutting-off of the argument.

And the same root will occur once more in the sūra, in a wholly different office: wa lā yajrimannakum shiqāqī (89, Shuʿayb). The two occurrences do different work and that one will be treated separately in its place.

The root خ-س-ر: to diminish, to suffer loss. The root was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/181 (al-mukhsirīn).

And the word order of the verse must be recorded: in the twenty-first verse a verb (khasirū anfusahum), in the twenty-second an elative (al-akhsarūn). First the act, then the degree.

inna'lladhīna āmanū wa ʿamilū'l-ṣāliḥāti wa akhbatū ilā rabbihim ulāʾika aṣḥābu'l-janna, hum fīhā khālidūn · mathalu'l-farīqayni ka'l-aʿmā wa'l-aṣammi wa'l-baṣīri wa'l-samīʿ, hal yastawiyāni mathalā, a-fa-lā tadhakkarūn

"Those who believe, who do righteous deeds, and who humble themselves before their Lord — those are the people of the Garden; there they remain. · The likeness of the two parties is that of the blind and the deaf, and of the seeing and the hearing. Are the two alike as a likeness? Will you not then take heed?"

The root occurs here for the first time in this series, and its concrete sense must be recorded.

The original sense of the root خ-ب-ت is given by the lexicographers thus: khabt — low ground, a hollow, level land. A place that lies lower than what surrounds it.

And the verb is Form IV: akhbata — "to sink low, to bow, to come to stillness".

The picture in the word is worth recording, and I give it as an observation about the language: submission is told here by way of a landform — ground lying lower than what is around it. And low ground has one property: water gathers there.

I record this connection as my own reading, and it is not binding; the verse draws no such conclusion. What is recorded is the concrete picture the root carries.

Mukhbit also occurs in the Qurʾān at al-Ḥajj 22/34-35 (wa bashshiri'l-mukhbitīn) and was treated in al-Ḥajj.

The twenty-fourth verse closes the first block with a likeness. And the likeness is built from four words:

And the arrangement must be recorded: the two negatives first, the two positives after. The verse does not cross them as aʿmā–baṣīr, aṣamm–samīʿ; it lists the two lacks first and the two intact senses after.

A similar series was treated at Fāṭir 35/19-23 (blind–seeing, darknesses–light, shade–heat, the living–the dead). I rely on that treatment.

The difference here: in Fāṭir there were four separate pairs; here a single human being is described by two of his senses.

And the choice of these two senses ties back to the verse just before in the sūra: in the twentieth verse it was said mā kānū yastaṭīʿūna'l-samʿa wa mā kānū yubṣirūn — the same two senses. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

هَلْ يَسْتَوِيَانِ مَثَلًا — the question is in the dual (yastawiyāni), because what is compared is two groups, not four persons. This is a grammatical note.

This is the most detailed telling of the Noah narrative in the Qurʾān: twenty-five verses.

The comparative table was set up in al-Shuʿarāʾ, and I bring it here with one column added:

Hūd, that is, gives both the longest telling of the Noah narrative and the one with the most speech in it.

Per the rule — I record it explicitly here: in this section no detail the Qurʾān does not give will be entered into. The dimensions of the ark, how long it took to build, the number of those aboard, the name of Noah's son, the geographical extent of the flood — none of this is in the Qurʾān. In the classical commentaries there are reports of the Isrāʾīliyyāt kind that fill these gaps; this commentary does not enter into them (Method). Where the text is silent, silence is kept.

wa laqad arsalnā Nūḥan ilā qawmihī innī lakum nadhīrun mubīn · allā taʿbudū illā'llāh, innī akhāfu ʿalaykum ʿadhāba yawmin alīm

"And We sent Noah to his people: 'I am to you a plain warner. · Serve none but God. I fear for you the punishment of a painful day.'"

In al-Shuʿarāʾ the shared opening of five narratives was tabulated: kadhdhabat … al-mursalīn + idh qāla lahum akhūhum … a-lā tattaqūn + the threefold introduction.

The opening of Hūd is different, and the difference can be counted:

Three data points must be recorded:

One — in Hūd, Noah introduces himself not as rasūlun amīn but as nadhīrun mubīn. The two adjectives differ: amīn reports trustworthiness, mubīn reports clarity.

Two — in Hūd the content of the command is given (allā taʿbudū illā'llāh); in al-Shuʿarāʾ it is not (fa'ttaqū'llāha wa aṭīʿūn — be wary and obey). Hūd, that is, states the content of the call.

Three — the sentence innī akhāfu ʿalaykum does not occur in al-Shuʿarāʾ at all. In Hūd it occurs twice: in Noah's mouth (26) and in Shuʿayb's (84). The messenger is afraid on behalf of the one he addresses. This is a difference that can be verified from the text.

And the sentence allā taʿbudū illā'llāh is word for word the same as the second verse of the sūra. The first sentence placed in Noah's mouth, that is, is the sūra's own opening. This was tabulated in the section on the backbone.

fa-qāla'l-malaʾu'lladhīna kafarū min qawmihī mā narāka illā basharan mithlanā wa mā narāka'ttabaʿaka illā'lladhīna hum arādhilunā bādiya'l-raʾyi wa mā narā lakum ʿalaynā min faḍl, bal naẓunnukum kādhibīn

"The leading men of his people who disbelieved said: 'We see you as nothing but a human being like ourselves. Nor do we see any following you but the lowest among us, [and that] at first glance. Nor do we see in you any superiority over us. On the contrary, we think you are liars.'"

The word order of the verse must be recorded, and it is a datum of the text: the same verb (narā — we see) three times, and all three negated.

And the verb the three share is raʾā: "to see". The whole of the objection, that is, rests on a claim about seeing — not on a proof but on an observation.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the threefold repetition of the verb: the people bring no counter-proof; they make what they see the measure. And in the twenty-eighth verse Noah's answer will land exactly here: fa-ʿummiyat ʿalaykum — "it was hidden from you". The answer, that is, recalls the existence of something that cannot be seen.

The root م-ل-أ: to fill. Malaʾ — those who fill an assembly; the leading men. The word has been treated in many places across this series (al-Naml, al-Muʾminūn, Ṣād).

And what must be recorded is this: the one making the objection is the malaʾ, not the whole of the people. And the subject of the objection is a question of standing — which is consistent with who is speaking.

This objection recurs again and again in the Qurʾān and has been treated across this series (al-Muʾminūn 23/24, 23/33; Yāsīn 36/15; Ibrāhīm 14/10; al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/154, 26/186). I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is that the objection comes first. In al-Shuʿarāʾ the only objection of Noah's people was the matter of the lowest sort; in Hūd that objection stands not third but second, and "you are a human being like us" has been placed in front of it.

This expression was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/111 (wa'ttabaʿaka'l-ardhalūn), and I rely on that treatment. In summary, the entries there were these:

The root ر-ذ-ل: what is worthless, low, of no use in a thing. Ardhal — an elative: the lowest, the most worthless. The Qurʾān uses the same word for the most decrepit stage of life as well: ardhali'l-ʿumur (al-Naḥl 16/70; al-Ḥajj 22/5). And that the word has a social sense is clear from the telling of the same episode at Hūd 11/27: wa mā narāka'ttabaʿaka illā'lladhīna hum arādhilunā bādiya'l-raʾy — "none has followed you but the lowest among us, [and that] at first glance". The objection, that is, looks at economic and social standing. It is of the same family as the objection recorded at al-Zukhruf 43/31: law lā nuzzila hādhā'l-qurʾānu ʿalā rajulin mina'l-qaryatayni ʿaẓīm.

The al-Shuʿarāʾ section had already cited this expression of Hūd's. Now the second half of the expression needs working out: bādiya'l-raʾy.

The construction consists of two words, and in each of them there is a question of reading.

The root ب-د-و: to appear, to come into view. The root was treated in al-Ḥajj, al-Nūr, al-Aḥzāb and al-Mumtaḥana. Bādī — what appears, what is out in the open.

The root ب-د-أ: to begin. Bādiʾ — what is at the beginning, the first.

The variant reading lies here, and it bears on the sense:

Both readings are transmitted in the sources for the variant readings; I name no reciter and I do not impose a preference.

And whom the construction belongs to has also been disputed:

Both readings are transmitted. But the point both readings arrive at is the same, and I record this as my own reading: the measure is the surface. Either the judgement of the followers is counted superficial, or the gaze of the objectors stops at the surface.

And this overlaps with the verb narā, repeated three times in the verse: the whole of the objection is built out of what is visible. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

bal (the particle of retraction, iḍrāb) was treated at Qāf 50/2 and at al-Zukhruf 43/22; I rely on that treatment.

And the verb must be recorded: naẓunnukum — "we think". The root ظ-ن-ن: conjecture, an opinion held without certainty.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the first two of the three objections were built with narā (we see) — a claim to observation. The third is built with naẓunn (we think) — an opinion. The verse thereby shows, in the objection's own language, how weak it is: even in the last word there is no claim to certainty.

qāla yā qawmi a-raʾaytum in kuntu ʿalā bayyinatin min rabbī wa ātānī raḥmatan min ʿindihī fa-ʿummiyat ʿalaykum, a-nulzimukumūhā wa antum lahā kārihūn

"He said: 'My people! Tell me: what if I stand on a clear proof from my Lord, and He has given me a mercy from Himself, and it has been hidden from you? Are we to force it upon you when you have no wish for it?'"

This address occurs sixteen times in the sūra (tabulated in the section on the backbone) and does not occur at all in al-Shuʿarāʾ.

The root ق-و-م: to stand upright. Qawm — the body of people who stand at the head of an affair. And in the construction yā qawmi the yāʾ of the possessive pronoun (ī) has been dropped and the word shortened: "my people."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the messenger calls the very body of people who are denying him "my people". Belonging is not undone by opposition.

a-raʾaytum in Arabic does not mean "did you see?" but "tell me now, what do you say?" The pattern has been treated across this series (al-Furqān 25/43, al-Najm 53/33, al-ʿAlaq 96/9, al-Māʿūn 107/1).

And the work the pattern does here must be recorded: it places the other side inside a supposition. "And what if it were so?" — no answer is wanted; what is wanted is that he think.

And this pattern occurs in the sūra in word-for-word the same sentence in the mouths of three prophets (28, 63, 88). This was tabulated in the section on the backbone.

The root ع-م-ي: blindness. And the verb here is passive and in Form II: ʿummiyat — "it was made hidden, made closed".

What must be recorded is this, and it is a grammatical observation: the verb is used of the mercy, not of the one addressed. The verse does not say "you went blind"; it says "it remained closed to you".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the subject of the verb: the sentence describes the situation without naming the one addressed with a fault. And this is consistent with the refusal of compulsion in the next sentence.

A variant reading is transmitted: it is also reported that the verb is read ʿammaytuhā ("I closed it", as it were); the widespread reading is the passive. I do not go into the detail, because the sense of the widespread reading is given above.

The root ل-ز-م: to cling to a thing, to be inseparable from it. Ilzām — to make a thing obligatory for someone, to stick it onto him.

And the inflection of the verb is grammatically striking: a-nulzimukum-ū-hā. Two object pronouns are joined onto one verb: -kum (you) and -hā (it). The ū between them is a connecting letter that comes in to hold the two pronouns apart. This is a combination rarely met with in Arabic, and it makes the word heavy.

I record this as an observation about the language: the heaviness of the word matches the heaviness of the act it describes — to force two things to stick together.

This sentence is one of the plainest statements of a principle the Qurʾān repeats, and it has been treated in many places across this series:

And what Hūd adds must be recorded: here the sentence is framed not by God but by the messenger himself.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the table above: in the other verses the limit was announced to the messenger; here the messenger states the limit himself. Noah, that is, knows it before he is told.

And the circumstantial clause at the end of the sentence must be recorded: wa antum lahā kārihūn — "when you have no wish for it". The root ك-ر-ه: to find distasteful, not to want.

The refusal of compulsion, that is, is tied to the condition of the addressee's unwillingness. The sentence does not say "nothing can be made acceptable to anyone"; it says "it cannot be forced on one who does not want it." This is a note about the wording.

The sentence draws the line between persuasion and imposition by way of a question. And the one to whom the question is put is not the side that thinks its hand is strong — it is the messenger himself.

I record this as a reading: believing that a view is true does not confer the authority to impose it. Noah holds a bayyina; even so he asks the question.

wa yā qawmi lā asʾalukum ʿalayhi mālā, in ajriya illā ʿalā'llāh, wa mā anā bi-ṭāridi'lladhīna āmanū, innahum mulāqū rabbihim wa lākinnī arākum qawman tajhalūn · wa yā qawmi man yanṣurunī mina'llāhi in ṭaradtuhum, a-fa-lā tadhakkarūn · wa lā aqūlu lakum ʿindī khazāʾinu'llāhi wa lā aʿlamu'l-ghayba wa lā aqūlu innī malakun wa lā aqūlu li'lladhīna tazdarī aʿyunukum lan yuʾtiyahumu'llāhu khayrā, Allāhu aʿlamu bimā fī anfusihim, innī idhan la-mina'l-ẓālimīn

"'My people! I ask you no wealth for this; my payment is due from God alone. And I am not going to drive away those who have believed; they will meet their Lord. But I see that you are a people who behave in ignorance. · My people! If I drove them away, who would help me against God? Will you not take heed? · I do not say to you that the treasuries of God are with me; nor do I know the unseen. I do not say "I am an angel". Nor do I say of those whom your eyes look down on that God will never give them any good. God knows best what is in their souls. If I did, I would indeed be one of the wrongdoers.'"

In Table 5 of al-Shuʿarāʾ it was tabulated that this sentence is word for word the same in five narratives: wa mā asʾalukum ʿalayhi min ajrin, in ajriya illā ʿalā rabbi'l-ʿālamīn (109, 127, 145, 164, 180).

In Hūd the sentence occurs twice, and both differ from the one in al-Shuʿarāʾ:

Three different words, three different attributions. This is a difference that can be verified from the text.

And the mālā in Noah's mouth is worth recording: the word is concrete. Ajr is the return for a service; māl is wealth outright. And the side making the objection was the malaʾ — that is, those who had wealth and standing. The answer is given in the language of the objection.

This sentence was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/114 (wa mā anā bi-ṭāridi'l-muʾminīn), and I rely on that treatment. In summary, the entries there were these:

The root ط-ر-د: to drive off, to expel, to banish. The word order of the sentence: the mā … bi- pattern. In Arabic the bāʾ that comes onto the predicate of a negating mā strengthens the negation: "I am never going to drive them away." And the object must be recorded: the people had called them al-ardhalūn ("the lowest sort"); Noah names the very same people al-muʾminīn. The Qurʾān takes this matter up elsewhere as well: wa lā taṭrudi'lladhīna yadʿūna rabbahum bi'l-ghadāti wa'l-ʿashiyy (al-Anʿām 6/52) — the same root, the same prohibition. And another face of the matter was treated in ʿAbasa.

Hūd adds two things, and neither is present in al-Shuʿarāʾ:

One — the naming changes: in al-Shuʿarāʾ al-muʾminīn, in Hūd alladhīna āmanū. The second is a verbal clause: "those who have believed" — not an attribute but a thing done.

Two — Hūd adds a ground: innahum mulāqū rabbihim — "they will meet their Lord." Not driving them away, that is, is founded not on human delicacy but on a piece of knowledge about a meeting.

And the thirtieth verse turns this into a question: man yanṣurunī mina'llāhi in ṭaradtuhum — "if I drove them away, who would help me against God?"

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the two verses: in al-Shuʿarāʾ not driving them away was given as an attitude; in Hūd it is given as a risk. The two verses do not conflict; Hūd opens up the ground of the same attitude.

The thirty-first verse is the longest list of negations a prophet frames about himself in the Qurʾān. lā aqūlu / lā aʿlamu occurs four times.

And the first three of the list correspond exactly to the people's demands. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text:

Noah, that is, refuses one by one the attributes expected of him.

And the same threefold list occurs once more in the Qurʾān, in the mouth of the Prophet: qul lā aqūlu lakum ʿindī khazāʾinu'llāhi wa lā aʿlamu'l-ghayba wa lā aqūlu lakum innī malak (al-Anʿām 6/50). The same three sentences word for word, in the mouths of two different prophets. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text.

The root ز-ر-ي: to belittle, to look down on, to find fault with. The root occurs here for the first time in this series. Izdarā (Form VIII) — to hold in low regard.

And the choice of subject must be recorded: tazdarī aʿyunukum — "your eyes look down on". Not the person who looks down, but the eye.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and I tie it to the twenty-seventh verse: the people had said mā narā ("we do not see") three times. Noah puts the very same organ in the place of the subject. The sentence, that is, names the source of the objection: the gaze.

And what the fourth sentence refuses is different from the first three: not an authority but a judgement.

lan yuʾtiyahumu'llāhu khayrā — "God will never give them any good." Noah refuses to say this.

And the ground is given at once: Allāhu aʿlamu bimā fī anfusihim — "God knows best what is in their souls".

This sentence is on the same line as the answer treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/112 (wa mā ʿilmī bimā kānū yaʿmalūn), and I rely on that treatment. The entry there ran: "Noah does not defend those who believe. He does not say 'they are good people'. He says 'I do not know what they have been doing'. The answer refuses the ground the objection rests on."

In Hūd the same posture goes one step further, and I record this as my own reading: in al-Shuʿarāʾ Noah said that he did not know; in Hūd he refuses, because he does not know, to pass judgement. The two are two faces of the same principle.

And the sentence ends with a warning: innī idhan la-mina'l-ẓālimīn — "I would then indeed be one of the wrongdoers." To pass judgement on another's behalf about what God will give is thus named, in the language of the verse, wrongdoing.

The thirty-first verse lists four things a man who calls others will not allow to be attributed to him: ownership of wealth, knowledge of the hidden, standing above his own kind, and speaking about the final outcome of other people.

I record this as a reading, and its ground is the list itself: all four are attributes that the one addressed might wish to load onto the caller, or that the caller might load onto himself. And all four are refused.

qālū yā Nūḥu qad jādaltanā fa-aktharta jidālanā fa'tinā bimā taʿidunā in kunta mina'l-ṣādiqīn · qāla innamā yaʾtīkum bihi'llāhu in shāʾa wa mā antum bi-muʿjizīn · wa lā yanfaʿukum nuṣḥī in aradtu an anṣaḥa lakum in kāna'llāhu yurīdu an yughwiyakum, huwa rabbukum wa ilayhi turjaʿūn

"They said: 'Noah! You have disputed with us, and you have disputed with us at length. Bring us then what you promise us, if you are of the truthful!' · He said: 'Only God will bring it to you, if He wills; and you are not going to frustrate Him. · If God wills to let you go astray, my counsel will not profit you, however much I wish to counsel you. He is your Lord, and to Him you are returned.'"

The root was the backbone of Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin), and five occurrences were tabulated there. The concrete sense of the root — to twist a rope tight, to throw an opponent in wrestling — was treated at al-Baqara 2/197. I do not repeat it here.

The measure recorded in Ghāfir was this: "What is condemned is not disputation itself but its being carried on without any ground — bi-ghayri sulṭānin atāhum."

And the root occurs twice in Hūd, in the mouths of two different sides:

This is one of the most striking contrasts in the sūra, and it will be treated in detail at 11/74-76.

The entry that belongs here is this: in the thirty-second verse the side that counts disputation a fault is the people. The verse does not join in that assessment; it merely transmits it as having been said.

And the form of the verb must be recorded: jādalta — Form III (mufāʿala), which reports reciprocity. The people thereby concede that they too are inside the dispute.

This demand has been treated in many places across this series (al-Raʿd 13/6, al-ʿAnkabūt 29/53, Sabaʾ 34/29, al-Ṣāffāt 37/176, al-Shuʿarāʾ). I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded: the demand is tied to the lengthening of the dispute. qad jādaltanā fa-aktharta jidālanā → fa'tinā. Speech, that is, is counted finished, and the event is asked for.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the demand is not curiosity but an attempt to close a dispute.

Noah does not take to himself the authority to bring the punishment. The pattern of restriction (innamā) and the condition (in shāʾa) come together.

And this is the same limit as innamā anta nadhīr in the twelfth verse. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

The root ن-ص-ح. The concrete sense the lexicographers record is worth setting down: naṣaḥa is used in two senses — the first is "to be pure, unmixed" (ʿasalun nāṣiḥ — pure honey), the second "to sew, to mend a tear" (naṣaḥa'l-thawb — he sewed up the garment).

I ascribe both explanations to the lexicographers. And the word's use in the Qurʾān supports both: when Noah, Hūd and Ṣāliḥ say to their peoples "I am counselling you", they are saying that they are doing a work of mending.

And the root occurs in Sūrat Hūd only in this verse — twice in the thirty-fourth (nuṣḥī and anṣaḥa). This is a note about the text.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: lā yanfaʿukum nuṣḥī in aradtu an anṣaḥa lakum — "my counsel will not profit you however much I wish to counsel you". Noah, that is, ties the effect of the counsel not to his own intention but to another condition.

The root غ-و-ي: to swerve from the right way, to go astray. The root was treated at al-Najm 53/2 (mā ḍalla ṣāḥibukum wa mā ghawā) and at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/224 (al-ghāwūn). I rely on that treatment.

And the sentence opens onto a question of divine decree. I enter a note per the method (Method) and I do not open the theological dispute.

In the classical sources two main directions are transmitted for reading the sentence:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And what is to be recorded is that the sentence is in the conditional: in kāna. Noah is not announcing a ruling; he is putting a possibility into words. And the end of the sentence is not a piece of information but a reminder: huwa rabbukum wa ilayhi turjaʿūn.

am yaqūlūna'ftarāh, qul ini'ftaraytuhū fa-ʿalayya ijrāmī wa anā barīʾun mimmā tujrimūn

"Or do they say, 'He has invented it'? Say: 'If I have invented it, my crime is upon me; and I am free of the crimes you commit.'"

This verse stands right in the middle of the Noah narrative, and it changes the addressee: the sentence is spoken not to Noah's people but to those the Prophet addresses. The command qul (say) shows this plainly.

And the verse opens with a word-for-word repetition of the thirteenth: am yaqūlūna'ftarāh.

The same claim, two different answers. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text.

And the placing of the verse in the middle of the narrative is worth recording. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the verse: the Noah narrative was in the very midst of a scene of denial (32); the verse steps out of it, turns to the present addressee and cites the same claim. The sūra, that is, breaks the impression that the narrative "belongs to the past".

The root ج-ر-م: to cut, to sever; and from there, a crime. Ijrām — to commit a crime.

And the construction of the sentence is an application of the principle of burden treated across this series:

The principle lā taziru wāziratun wizra ukhrā was treated at Fāṭir 35/18, al-Najm 53/38, al-Zumar 39/7 and al-Isrāʾ 17/15. I rely on that treatment.

And this principle will come back in its hardest form in the forty-sixth verse of the sūra — in the matter of Noah's son. That will be treated separately in its place.

wa ūḥiya ilā Nūḥin annahū lan yuʾmina min qawmika illā man qad āmana fa-lā tabtaʾis bimā kānū yafʿalūn · wa'ṣnaʿi'l-fulka bi-aʿyuninā wa waḥyinā wa lā tukhāṭibnī fi'lladhīna ẓalamū, innahum mughraqūn

"It was revealed to Noah: 'None of your people will believe now except those who have already believed. So do not grieve at what they have been doing. · Build the ark under Our eyes and by Our revelation. And do not address Me about those who have done wrong; they are to be drowned.'"

This verse changes the structure of the narrative: the section of dispute closes here and the section of work begins.

And the sentence that announces the turn is a piece of knowledge: lan yuʾmina … illā man qad āman. The outcome of the call, that is, is announced before the call has ended.

The particle lan reports a categorical negation directed at the future — this was treated at al-Baqara 2/24.

The root ب-أ-س: severity, hardship, difficulty. Baʾs — severity; baʾsāʾ — hardship; bāʾis — sorrowful.

And the verb is Form VIII: ibtaʾasa — "to grieve, to be inwardly straitened".

I record this as an observation about the word order, and I tie it to the twelfth verse of the sūra: there it was the Prophet's breast that was straitened (ḍāʾiqun bihī ṣadruk); here Noah is commanded not to grieve. Two messengers, the same state, two separate sections of the sūra.

And the sentences bākhiʿun nafsak at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/3 and al-Kahf 18/6 are on the same line. I rely on that treatment.

The root ص-ن-ع: to make a thing with skill, to manufacture. The root was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/129 (maṣāniʿ).

بِأَعْيُنِنَا — "before Our eyes / under Our watch."

I enter a note per the method (Method): this construction is read within the same limit set for the sentences about the throne. The two postures tabulated at al-Sajda 32/4 (consignment and interpretation) hold here as well, and the shared principle is al-Shūrā 42/11. I do not impose a preference; I build no description of modality.

The same construction is used in the Qurʾān for Moses as well: wa li-tuṣnaʿa ʿalā ʿaynī (Ṭāhā 20/39) — it occurs in Ṭāhā.

And the naming of the two means together is worth recording: bi-aʿyuninā wa waḥyinā.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not say that Noah built the ark by his own knowledge; but the one who builds it is Noah. The two things stand together.

The root خ-ط-ب: to utter speech, to address. Khiṭāb — speech exchanged between two parties.

And the subject of the prohibition must be recorded: Noah is forbidden to speak about those who have done wrong.

I record this as my own reading, and it is the preparation for the forty-fifth verse: in the forty-fifth verse Noah will speak about his son, and in the forty-sixth he will receive a warning. The prohibition in the thirty-seventh verse, that is, will be tested nine verses later. This is a link that can be verified from the text, and it will be treated in detail in its place.

wa yaṣnaʿu'l-fulka wa kullamā marra ʿalayhi malaʾun min qawmihī sakhirū minh, qāla in taskharū minnā fa-innā naskharu minkum kamā taskharūn · fa-sawfa taʿlamūna man yaʾtīhi ʿadhābun yukhzīhi wa yaḥillu ʿalayhi ʿadhābun muqīm

"He was building the ark, and every time the leading men of his people passed by him they mocked him. He said: 'If you mock us, we shall mock you just as you mock. · You will come to know upon whom a punishment will come that disgraces him, and upon whom a lasting punishment will descend.'"

In the thirty-seventh verse there was an imperative (wa'ṣnaʿ), in the thirty-eighth there is an imperfect (wa yaṣnaʿu).

This is the technique of narration called in Arabic ḥikāyat al-ḥāl: a past event is told in the present tense and the scene is brought to life.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not say "he built the ark", it says "he was building it" — and immediately after comes kullamā (every time). What is described, that is, is not a single event but a scene that repeats.

That the particle kullamā reports repetition was treated at Nūḥ 71/7, and I rely on that treatment. There too the same particle described a settled reflex.

And there is an overlap between the two verses, and it can be read from the text:

The direction is reversed in the two sūras: in one Noah goes, in the other they come. And in both the outcome is the same.

The root س-خ-ر: to mock, to belittle; and to make subservient (taskhīr). The root has been treated in many places across this series.

And Noah's answer must be recorded, because it is out of the ordinary: in taskharū minnā fa-innā naskharu minkum. The messenger says he will meet mockery with mockery.

But the continuation of the sentence defines what he means, and the definition matters: fa-sawfa taʿlamūna man yaʾtīhi ʿadhābun yukhzīh. What he calls "mockery", that is, is that what is laughed at today will be reversed tomorrow.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the adjacency of the two verses: Noah frames no counter-insult; he reports a difference in time. And the Qurʾān builds the same structure elsewhere — the laughter of the believers in the hereafter (al-Muṭaffifīn 83/34, treated in al-Muṭaffifīn). I rely on that treatment.

The root خ-ز-ي: to be disgraced, to be brought low. Yukhzīh — that which shames him.

The root ق-و-م: muqīm — lasting, settled in place.

The two attributes of punishment look to two different times:

And this pair will return word for word in Shuʿayb's mouth: sawfa taʿlamūna man yaʾtīhi ʿadhābun yukhzīh (93). This is a repetition that can be verified from the text, and it will be tabulated in its place.

ḥattā idhā jāʾa amrunā wa fāra'l-tannūru qulnā'ḥmil fīhā min kullin zawjayni'thnayni wa ahlaka illā man sabaqa ʿalayhi'l-qawlu wa man āman, wa mā āmana maʿahū illā qalīl

"Until, when Our command came and the oven boiled over, We said: 'Load into it two of every kind, and your household — except those against whom the word has already gone forth — and those who have believed.' And only a few had believed with him."

This construction is the most repeated structural element in the sūra. It was tabulated in the section on the backbone:

Five occurrences. And Noah's is different: it begins with ḥattā idhā.

ḥattā in Arabic reports the end of a process: "until". In the other four there is lammā — "when".

I record this as an observation about the word order: in the Noah narrative a process had been told (the building of the ark, the repeated mockery); ḥattā marks the point at which that process ends. In the other four narratives no such process is told.

And the word amrunā (Our command) must be recorded: the destruction is named not by the name of a natural event but by a command. This is the same in all five narratives.

The root ف-و-ر: to boil, to gush, to overflow. The root was treated in al-Muʾminūn and at al-Mulk 67/7 (tafūr) — there it was used of the boiling of the Fire.

تَنُّور — the lexicographers record that the word may have come into Arabic from another language; the English tandoor is the same word. Its common sense: the oven in which bread is baked.

Over what the expression describes there is disagreement in the classical sources, and I give it in a table:

All four readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

A note, per the rule: in the classical commentaries there are detailed reports about where this oven was, whose it was, from whom it had come down. These are not in the Qurʾān and they are not passed on in this commentary (Method — the prohibition on Isrāʾīliyyāt and on reports without a ground).

And what can be recorded is the function of the expression, and this can be read from the text: fāra'l-tannūr stands in the same sentence as the coming of the command, and serves as a sign. The verse does not describe how the flood came about; it says how it was known that it had begun.

There is a variant reading, and it bears on the sense:

Both readings are transmitted in the sources for the variant readings; I do not impose a preference.

The root ز-و-ج: a pair, a mate. The root was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/7 (min kulli zawjin karīm).

And the construction itself is worth recording: zawjayni'thnayni — "two pairs" or "two of each as a pair". Both words report duality; the repetition reinforces the exactness of the number.

Per the rule: which creatures were taken, and how many, is not enumerated in the Qurʾān. I do not go into the detail.

This exception is one of the most important sentences in the narrative, and it is usually passed over.

The command is this: "load your household — except the one against whom the word has already gone forth."

Noah, that is, is told before he boards the ark that one of his household will be left outside.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the verses: in the forty-fifth verse Noah will say "my son is of my household"; whereas in the fortieth it had been said "of your household, except the one against whom the word has gone forth". There is a gap in knowledge between the two verses, and the forty-sixth will close that gap.

This is a link that can be verified from the text. What it means will be treated in detail at 11/45-47.

And the verse gives no number: illā qalīl — "only a few".

Per the rule: in the classical sources figures are transmitted for the number of those on the ark, and they do not agree with one another. Since the Qurʾān gives no number, none is given here either.

And the choice of the word is worth recording, and it is read together with Nūḥ: in Sūrat Nūḥ it is told that the call went on for a long time and that the method was changed again and again. The illā qalīl here is the outcome of that process.

wa qāla'rkabū fīhā bismi'llāhi majrāhā wa mursāhā, inna rabbī la-ghafūrun raḥīm

"He said: 'Board it. In the name of God is its sailing and its mooring. My Lord is indeed much forgiving, most merciful.'"

In Arabic the verb rakiba takes a direct object: rakiba'l-safīna (he boarded the ship). Here the particle fī comes between: irkabū fīhā.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and I pass on the explanation the lexicographers record: the particle fī reports that the boarding is not onto but into. Not as one mounts an animal, that is, but as one steps inside a vessel.

The root ج-ر-ي: to run, to flow. The root ر-س-و: to be fixed, to cast anchor. Mursā — the place or moment of stopping; from the same root comes rawāsī (the firm mountains), treated across this series (al-Raʿd 13/3, Luqmān 31/10).

The two words form a pair:

And both are attached to bismi'llāh.

A variant reading is transmitted: it is recorded that the words are read majrāhā / mursāhā (with fatḥa, as nouns of time and place) or mujrāhā / mursāhā (with ḍamma, as passive verbal nouns of Form IV). On the second reading the sense becomes "its being made to sail and its being made to stop". Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And the place of the basmala here is worth recording. The basmala was treated in al-Fātiḥa. What belongs here is this: the places in the Qurʾān where the basmala is spoken inside an event, from a person's mouth, are few; this is one of them.

I record this as an observation: the sentence attaches both the motion of the ark and its rest to the same name. Neither its sailing is attached to Noah's skill, that is, nor its stopping to his decision.

And the choice of the two names at the end of the sentence is worth recording.

The names cited at the moment the flood begins are al-Ghafūr and al-Raḥīm — not names of punishment or of power.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the sentence is spoken to those boarding the ark; the attributes cited for them are forgiveness and mercy. This is an explanation.

wa hiya tajrī bihim fī mawjin ka'l-jibāli wa nādā Nūḥuni'bnahū wa kāna fī maʿzil, yā bunayya'rkab maʿanā wa lā takun maʿa'l-kāfirīn · qāla sa-āwī ilā jabalin yaʿṣimunī mina'l-māʾ, qāla lā ʿāṣima'l-yawma min amri'llāhi illā man raḥim, wa ḥāla baynahumā'l-mawju fa-kāna mina'l-mughraqīn

"The ark was carrying them through waves like mountains. Noah called out to his son, who was standing apart: 'My dear son! Board with us, and do not be with the disbelievers!' · He said: 'I shall take refuge on a mountain that will protect me from the water.' Noah said: 'Today there is nothing that protects from the command of God — except the one He has had mercy on.' And the wave came between them; and he was among the drowned."

These two verses are among the most densely told scenes in the Qurʾān, and they are built out of four elements:

And two words from the same root stand facing one another: ka'l-jibāl (the waves like mountains) and ilā jabal (I shall take refuge on a mountain).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two words are present in the same scene: the son wants to shelter himself on a mountain; but the scene itself has already said that the water stands as high as the mountains. The invalidity of the answer, that is, is given by the description before it is given by any sentence. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

The root ع-ز-ل: to separate, to draw aside. Maʿzil — the place where one stands apart. It has no connection with the English "isolate"; the word is Arabic.

And note the mood of the sentence: wa kāna fī maʿzil — a past tense, reporting continuity. The son, that is, did not draw aside when the flood came; he was already apart.

This address was treated in Luqmān as the backbone of that sūra, and I rely on that treatment. In summary, the entries there were these:

At the centre of the sūra there is a list of counsels, and the list passes between a father and a son. … The address each time is yā bunayya — "my dear son" — in the diminutive, reporting affection.

In Luqmān the address occurs three times (13, 16, 17). In Hūd once (42). And a comparison of the two places is worth recording:

All five rows are data of the text.

And the most striking difference is the second from last: Luqmān's son never speaks in the Qurʾān. Noah's son speaks — and refuses.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the Qurʾān attaches the same address to two different outcomes. The warmth of the address, that is, does not determine the outcome. This is consistent with a line repeated across the whole sūra: the messenger delivers, and does not carry the outcome.

A variant reading is transmitted: it is recorded that the word is read yā bunayya (with fatḥa) or yā bunayyi (with kasra). The sense does not change; both mean "my dear son".

The call uses the same particle twice: maʿanā and maʿa'l-kāfirīn.

I record this as an observation about the word order: what is offered is not a place but a being-together. And what is refused is likewise not a place but another being-together.

And the structure of the command must be recorded: a positive imperative plus a negative one. Together they close off the alternative: there is no third place.

And the son's answer is looking for exactly a third place: sa-āwī ilā jabal.

The root ع-ص-م: to hold, to protect, to prevent. The root was treated in al-Ḥajj, al-Aḥzāb and al-Mumtaḥana. From the same root come iʿtiṣām (to hold fast) and ʿiṣma (being kept from harm).

And the concrete sense of the word is recorded by the lexicographers thus: ʿiṣām is the cord that ties the mouth of a vessel, or the strap of a waterskin — that is, a tie that keeps a thing from falling.

And the two occurrences in the verse must be recorded:

Noah meets his son's verb with a noun. In Arabic the lā of absolute negation of the genus (lā ʿāṣima) reports an unqualified negation: "there is no protector at all."

I record this as a grammatical observation: the son was speaking of a possibility; the answer removes the very category of the possibility.

Over the exception at the end of the sentence there is disagreement, and I give it in a table:

All three readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The point all three arrive at is the same: protection is not the work of a place or of a precaution.

The root ح-و-ل: to come between, to turn, to change. From the same root come ḥāl, ḥawl and iḥtiyāl.

And the ending of the verse is worth recording, and I give it as an observation about the word order: the narration does not depict the drowning. A single sentence: "and the wave came between them." After it there is only a verdict: fa-kāna mina'l-mughraqīn.

Per the rule: the details told in the classical sources about the sequel to this scene, the son's last words, Noah's reaction, are not in the Qurʾān, and they are not passed on here.

wa qīla yā arḍu'blaʿī māʾaki wa yā samāʾu aqliʿī wa ghīḍa'l-māʾu wa quḍiya'l-amru wa'stawat ʿalā'l-Jūdiyyi wa qīla buʿdan li'l-qawmi'l-ẓālimīn

"And it was said: 'Earth, swallow your water! Sky, hold back!' The water subsided, the matter was ended, and the ark came to rest upon al-Jūdī. And it was said: 'Away with the wrongdoing people!'"

This verse is an example frequently cited in the sources of Arabic rhetoric. The reason is the shortness of the sentences and the way they are lined up. I set the verse out as a table:

Four of the eight sentences are passive. And this is a feature of the word order worth recording: the agent is nowhere named.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the table above: the verse never fills in the distance between the one who gives the command and the one who receives it. The command is spoken, the result is reported; there is no stage in between.

The root ب-ل-ع: to swallow, to draw in. The root occurs here for the first time in this series.

The choice of word must be recorded: the verse does not say jaffī (dry up) or inshafī (soak it in). It says "swallow" — the act of a living thing.

And the command given to the sky is of the same kind: aqliʿī. The root ق-ل-ع: to pull up, to tear off; and to leave off a thing. Aqlaʿa ʿan — he withdrew his hand from a thing, he stopped. The sky, that is, is told "leave off raining".

The root غ-ي-ض: the receding, the diminishing of water.

And this root was treated at al-Raʿd 13/8 (wa mā taghīḍu'l-arḥāmu wa mā tazdād), and I rely on that treatment. The same root in both verses, with the same core sense: diminishing, receding.

I record this as an observation about the word: the root occurs in two places in the Qurʾān, and in both a diminishing that is not seen is described.

The root ق-ض-ي: to complete a matter, to settle it by decree, to bring it to an end.

And the construction occurs elsewhere in the Qurʾān as well (Maryam 19/21, al-Baqara 2/210). Its work here is to report that the flood is over.

The root س-و-ي: to be level, to be set right, to settle. Istawat — it came to rest, it settled.

ٱلْجُودِىّ — it is the name of a place, and it occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

A note, per the rule: as to which geographical point this name designates, differing views are transmitted in the classical sources and in the later literature. The Qurʾān gives no description of a location. In this commentary no place is identified and the argument is not opened.

This construction occurs four times in the sūra, and it was tabulated in the section on the backbone:

And Noah's is different: the name of the people is not given, and an attribute is put in its place — al-ẓālimīn.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and I tie it to a principle of the method: in this commentary no blanket ruling is issued about a community; it is the attributes the verse describes that count (Method). The forty-fourth verse does this itself: it names not the name but the attribute.

The root ب-ع-د: to be far. Buʿdan — an expression of imprecation or verdict in the pattern of the absolute object (mafʿūl muṭlaq): "away with them". And in the ninety-fifth verse the word will be reinforced with a verb: kamā baʿidat Thamūd.

wa nādā Nūḥun rabbahū fa-qāla rabbi inna'bnī min ahlī wa inna waʿdaka'l-ḥaqqu wa anta aḥkamu'l-ḥākimīn

"Noah called out to his Lord: 'My Lord! My son is of my household. Your promise is the truth. And You are the most just of judges.'"

Noah frames three sentences, and all three are statements; there is no request among them.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and it is the most striking side of the verse: in the sentence there is no verb of request at all. Noah does not say "save him". Three statements are set side by side and a question is left in between.

And the second sentence must be recorded: Noah himself confirms the truth of the promise. He raises no objection, that is.

The promise Noah relies on is the command in the fortieth verse: iḥmil fīhā … wa ahlaka — "load your household".

And there was an exception there: illā man sabaqa ʿalayhi'l-qawl — "except the one against whom the word has gone forth".

This is the knot of the narrative, and I set it out as a table:

In the forty-fifth verse, that is, Noah is asking about something he does not know: whom the exception covers.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the arrangement of the three verses. And the warning in the forty-sixth verse (fa-lā tasʾalni mā laysa laka bihī ʿilm) supports this reading: what is missing is, in the verse's own language, knowledge.

The root ح-ك-م occurred in the first verse as uḥkimat and ḥakīm; here it occurs twice more: aḥkam and al-ḥākimīn.

I record this as an observation: the root by which the sūra describes the Book comes back at the most critical moment of the narrative as a form of address. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text.

qāla yā Nūḥu innahū laysa min ahlik, innahū ʿamalun ghayru ṣāliḥ, fa-lā tasʾalni mā laysa laka bihī ʿilm, innī aʿiẓuka an takūna mina'l-jāhilīn

"He said: 'Noah! He is not of your household; he is a deed that is not righteous. So do not ask of Me what you have no knowledge of. I counsel you not to be among the ignorant.'"

This verse is one of the sentences in the sūra that most needs dwelling on, and it holds three separate questions: the variant reading, the definition of "household", and its link with the principle of burden.

Two readings are transmitted for this sentence, and the reading changes the sense. I give it in a table:

The first reading is the widespread one (that of the majority). The second is also transmitted in the sources for the variant readings; it is widely attributed to al-Kisāʾī. I give this attribution with a hedge, with the note "this is how it is widely reported", and I claim no certainty.

The difference between the two readings must be recorded:

And both readings arrive at the same conclusion: the separation is not by lineage but by deed. The difference is in how the separation is expressed.

I do not impose a preference. But I enter a note about the language, and it is my own reading: the first reading is a structure used in Arabic for intensification — naming a person by a verbal noun or by a noun (as in "he is justice itself"). The first reading, that is, can also be read as a more emphatic form of the second. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

The root أ-ه-ل: to belong to a place or a person; to settle. Ahl — those who belong to a house, a work, a place.

And over what the sentence says there is disagreement in the classical sources. I give it in a table:

The third view is transmitted but is counted weak, and it strains against the wording of the verse: in the forty-second verse Noah called him yā bunayya, and in the forty-fifth said ibnī ("my son"); the verse does not correct either expression.

I pass on the first and second readings without imposing a preference. And what they have in common must be recorded: in both, lineage does not determine the scope.

A note, per the rule: on the basis of this verse various accounts about Noah's family have been produced in the classical sources and in the later literature. These are not in the Qurʾān; they are not passed on in this commentary.

The principle of burden was treated at Fāṭir 35/18, and it was recorded there that the principle is tested at its most demanding point. I rely on that treatment. The table there was this:

And in the Fāṭir section this entry was made: "The clause dhā qurbā (a near relative) names the most natural place in the world for a load to be shared. By saying that even there it is not shared, the verse builds the principle at its most durable point."

Hūd 11/46 is the application of that same principle inside an event. And a comparison of the two texts must be recorded:

And the difference must be recorded: in Fāṭir the one who asks is the person carrying the load; in Hūd the one who asks is speaking on another's behalf.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is how the two texts are built: Fāṭir builds the principle from the side of what cannot be carried; Hūd shows the same principle from the side of what cannot be interceded for. The principle works, that is, in both directions: no one can carry another's load, and no one can lighten that load for another.

And there is another entry on the same line across this series: in al-Taḥrīm the wives of Noah and of Lot were treated as an example that nearness does not deliver. I rely on that treatment. Hūd 11/46 is the same principle shown by way of a son.

And the second half of the verse does work distinct from the first: it is a warning about method.

The subject of the prohibition must be recorded: what is forbidden is not asking but asking without knowledge. The sentence does not end at lā tasʾalnī; there is the qualification mā laysa laka bihī ʿilm.

And this ties back to the command in the thirty-seventh verse: wa lā tukhāṭibnī fi'lladhīna ẓalamū.

The two prohibitions are different, and that difference must be recorded. I record this as my own reading: in the forty-fifth verse Noah is not counted as having broken the prohibition of the thirty-seventh — because he did not know that his son was among "those who do wrong". And the warning of the forty-sixth verse lands exactly here: a lack of knowledge.

And the same principle was treated at al-Kahf 18/68 (wa kayfa taṣbiru ʿalā mā lam tuḥiṭ bihī khubrā) and this entry was made there: "the withholding of judgement where knowledge is lacking." I rely on that treatment and record that Hūd 11/46 stands on the same line.

The root و-ع-ظ: to counsel, to admonish.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: aʿiẓuka an takūna mina'l-jāhilīn — "I counsel you not to be among the ignorant."

In Arabic this structure reports a warning against an outcome; it does not say that the person already bears that attribute.

I give this as a grammatical note and set a limit per the method (Method): no ruling of fault regarding a prophet is to be drawn from this verse. The wording of the verse is a caution, not a characterisation.

And the forty-seventh verse confirms this: Noah withdraws at once.

qāla rabbi innī aʿūdhu bika an asʾalaka mā laysa lī bihī ʿilm, wa illā taghfir lī wa tarḥamnī akun mina'l-khāsirīn

"He said: 'My Lord! I take refuge with You from asking of You what I have no knowledge of. If You do not forgive me and have mercy on me, I shall be among the losers.'"

Noah does not meet the warning of the forty-sixth verse with a defence. He does not say "I did not know"; he does not say "I was right".

The sentence consists of two parts:

And the words of the first part are the words of the forty-sixth verse:

The only difference is the pronoun: laka → lī. Noah, that is, repeats what was said to him, turning it into the first person. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the answer shows, by its very wording, that the warning has been understood.

The root ع-و-ذ: to take refuge, to withdraw to a place for protection. The root was treated in al-Falaq and al-Nās.

And what is taken refuge from must be recorded: Noah takes refuge not from an enemy, a punishment or a danger, but from a request he himself might make.

I record this as an observation and compare it with the uses of aʿūdhu across this series: in Sūrat al-Falaq and Sūrat al-Nās what refuge is taken from is an evil coming from outside. Here it is a behaviour coming from within.

The conditional clause: wa in lā → wa illā.

And the order of the two verbs is worth recording: taghfir (forgiveness) and tarḥam (mercy). And the same two names occurred in the forty-first verse: inna rabbī la-ghafūrun raḥīm — as Noah was boarding the ark.

The same two roots, six verses apart, in two different directions. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

And in Nūḥ the order of the same structure within that sūra was tabulated: forgiveness is first hoped for on another's behalf (71/7), then the asking of it is taught to others (71/10), and at the very end the man asks it for himself (71/28). Hūd 11/41-47 repeats the same order over a shorter distance. I rely on that treatment and record this as an overlap.

qīla yā Nūḥu'hbiṭ bi-salāmin minnā wa barakātin ʿalayka wa ʿalā umamin mimman maʿak, wa umamun sa-numattiʿuhum thumma yamassuhum minnā ʿadhābun alīm

"It was said: 'Noah! Come down with peace from Us, and with blessings upon you and upon the peoples that will come from those with you. And there will be peoples We shall let enjoy life for a while, and then a painful punishment from Us will touch them.'"

As was tabulated in the section on the backbone, not one of Hūd's five closing patterns is struck in full on the Noah narrative. Noah's closing is peculiar to itself and runs to two verses (48-49).

And the difference must be recorded: the other four peoples are sent off with buʿdan; Noah is met with bi-salām.

This is the only positive closing among the six narratives of Sūrat Hūd. This is a difference that can be verified from the text.

The root ه-ب-ط: to go down. The root was treated at al-Baqara 2/36 and 2/38 (ihbiṭū).

And the concrete sense of the word is exactly in place here: the ark had come to rest on a height (al-Jūdiyy); the descent is from there.

And it can be compared with the use in al-Baqara, and I record this as an observation: there the same verb reported an expulsion; here it comes together with a greeting of peace. The word carries no value on its own.

The root س-ل-م — soundness, freedom from flaw, completeness — was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/25, and it was recorded there: "the greeting of peace is not a wish but a guarantee." I rely on that treatment.

The root ب-ر-ك: continuance, increase, a good that stays. The lexicographers relate the root to birka (a pool): water gathering and remaining in one place.

And the patterns of the two words differ, and this is worth recording:

And the construction umamin mimman maʿak must be recorded: the blessing is given not to those on the ark but to the peoples who will come from them. The addressee of the promise, that is, is the future.

And the sentence ends with a warning: deliverance is not a permanent guarantee.

The root م-ت-ع occurred in the third verse of the sūra: yumattiʿkum matāʿan ḥasanan ilā ajalin musammā.

The same root, two different outcomes. And the difference lies in the particle thumma: in the third verse the enjoyment was tied to a term; here what comes after the enjoyment is stated.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the root the two verses share: nowhere does the sūra count enjoyment (matāʿ) as an outcome. And the same thing had been said in the fifteenth verse: nuwaffi ilayhim aʿmālahum fīhā — but laysa lahum fi'l-ākhirati illā'l-nār.

tilka min anbāʾi'l-ghaybi nūḥīhā ilayk, mā kunta taʿlamuhā anta wa lā qawmuka min qabli hādhā, fa-ṣbir inna'l-ʿāqibata li'l-muttaqīn

"These are among the tidings of the unseen that We reveal to you. Neither you nor your people knew them before this. So be patient; the outcome belongs to those who are mindful."

The verse closes the Noah narrative and turns directly to the Prophet. And it does three things:

tilka is the demonstrative for what is distant. This use was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/2, and two explanations were recorded there: distance, or magnification (taʿẓīm).

The use here is worth recording: the narrative has only just ended, so it is "near"; even so it is referred to with the distant demonstrative.

The root ن-ب-أ: news that is weighty, that has some use. The root was worked out in al-Nabaʾ, and I rely on that treatment. The entry there: a nabaʾ is not just any piece of news; it is news that has consequences.

And the construction occurs in a few places in the Qurʾān, and all of them stand at the end or the beginning of a narrative (Āl ʿImrān 3/44; Yūsuf 12/102; Hūd 11/49; Hūd 11/100 — min anbāʾi'l-qurā).

There is a pronoun of emphasis in the sentence: taʿlamuhā anta. In Arabic, when the pronoun inside the verb would suffice, the addition of anta reports emphasis.

And the scope is widened: wa lā qawmuk. The claim, that is, is not about the Prophet alone but about the whole of his surroundings.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence frames a verifiable claim — that the source of these tidings is not local knowledge.

The root ص-ب-ر: to hold a thing in one place, to confine it; and from there, to endure. The root was treated in al-ʿAṣr and al-Balad.

And the place of the command must be recorded: at the end of a narrative twenty-five verses long, a command of a single word.

This is the first of the four commands the sūra gives the messenger, and it was tabulated in the section on the backbone:

The root ع-ق-ب: to come after, to follow a trace. The root was treated at al-Raʿd 13/11 and 13/22. ʿĀqiba — what comes at the end.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: inna'l-ʿāqibata li'l-muttaqīn — the lām of ownership (the lām of belonging). The outcome, that is, is made to belong to those who are mindful.

wa ilā ʿĀdin akhāhum Hūdā, qāla yā qawmi'ʿbudū'llāha mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh, in antum illā muftarūn · yā qawmi lā asʾalukum ʿalayhi ajran, in ajriya illā ʿalā'lladhī faṭaranī, a-fa-lā taʿqilūn · wa yā qawmi'staghfirū rabbakum thumma tūbū ilayhi yursili'l-samāʾa ʿalaykum midrāran wa yazidkum quwwatan ilā quwwatikum wa lā tatawallaw mujrimīn

"And to ʿĀd [We sent] their brother Hūd. He said: 'My people! Serve God; you have no god but Him. You are only inventing. · My people! I ask you no payment for this; my payment is due only from the One who brought me into being. Will you not use your minds? · My people! Ask forgiveness of your Lord, then turn back to Him, and He will send the sky upon you in abundant rain and add strength to your strength. And do not turn away as criminals.'"

The Noah narrative had opened with wa laqad arsalnā. The narratives of Hūd, Ṣāliḥ and Shuʿayb open with a different pattern:

Three narratives open with the same pattern, and in all three the verb is elided (arsalnā is supplied). This is a structure that can be verified from the text.

And the sense of the word akhūhum was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/106, and I rely on that treatment: "akh here reports not brotherhood by lineage but membership of the people. In Arabic one of a community is called 'their brother' with reference to that community."

And a datum recorded in al-Shuʿarāʾ holds here too: in al-Shuʿarāʾ the people Shuʿayb addressed were named by a place (aṣḥābu'l-Ayka) and akhūhum had dropped out. In Hūd, by contrast, those addressed are Madyan — again a place name; but here akhāhum is present.

This is a countable difference between the two sūras and must be recorded. In the classical sources it is disputed whether Madyan and al-Ayka are the same people or different ones; I do not impose a preference.

This sentence occurs three times in the sūra, word for word, in the mouths of three different prophets: 50 (Hūd), 61 (Ṣāliḥ), 84 (Shuʿayb). This was tabulated in the section on the backbone.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: command plus ground.

In Arabic the min in the structure mā lakum min ilāhin is a redundant particle and generalises the negation: "you have no god whatsoever." This is a grammatical note.

And Hūd adds a sentence that the other two prophets do not say: "you are only inventing."

The root ف-ر-ي was treated at the thirteenth and thirty-fifth verses (iftarā, muftarayāt).

And the distribution of the word across the sūra is worth recording: