14. Sūrat Ibrāhīm

Fifty-two verses. It is widely reported that it was revealed in the Meccan period; reports are also transmitted that verses 28-29 were revealed in Medina, but no preference is adopted in this commentary. It takes its name from Abraham's (Ibrāhīm's) prayer in verses 35-41, which comes towards the end of the sūra.

The source of the name is worth recording: the sūra does not recount Abraham's story. Neither the fire, nor the star, nor the breaking of the idols, nor the offering of the son — none of them is here. The only thing the sūra takes from Abraham is a prayer. And that prayer gathers all the subjects of the sūra into itself: a secure town, a line of descendants that holds the prayer, the inclining of hearts towards a place, provision with fruits, and thanksgiving.

The backbone of the sūra is favour — a favour given, uncountable, and exchangeable. The word occurs at three key points in the sūra: Moses saying to his people "remember God's favour upon you" (6), those who exchange the favour for denial (28), and the announcement that the favours cannot be counted (34). Everything between them is about what is done in the face of what is given.

And the sūra turns upon two verbs: ikhrāj (to bring out) and tathbīt (to make firm). The first is in the first verse (li-tukhrija'n-nāsa mina'ẓ-ẓulumāti ila'n-nūr), the second in the twenty-seventh (yuthabbitu'llāhu'lladhīna āmanū bi'l-qawli'th-thābit). The one conveys movement, the other a standing — and between the two comes the parable of the two trees: the one with its root firm, the other torn up from its root.

Alif-lām-rā · Kitābun anzalnāhu ilayka li-tukhrija'n-nāsa mina'ẓ-ẓulumāti ila'n-nūri bi-idhni rabbihim ilā ṣirāṭi'l-ʿazīzi'l-ḥamīd

"Alif-lām-rā. This is a Book; We have sent it down to you so that you may bring people out of the darknesses into the light, by their Lord's leave, to the path of the Mighty, the Praiseworthy."

The general note on the disconnected letters has been entered in the series (al-Baqara, Qāf, al-Qalam, al-Aḥqāf, al-Zukhruf). Its summary is this: there is no certain knowledge about the meaning of these letters; many explanations are transmitted in the classical commentaries and none of them claims certainty. Per the method (Method) no claims resting on a calculation of letters and numbers are entered into. I do not repeat it here.

All that can be recorded is a fact of word order that can be verified: in every sūra that opens with alif-lām-rā, the Book is mentioned immediately after the opening. Here it comes in a single word: kitābun.

The question of the plural ẓulumāt / the singular nūr was treated at al-Baqara 2/257. The note there holds here too and I do not repeat it; its summary was this:

"Darkness is the absence of light, and absence takes many forms; light is one. The way is lost in more than one manner, but the place arrived at is one."

I rely on that treatment. It was also recorded in al-Baqara that the same verb (ikhrāj) is used in both directions — those who believe are brought out of the darknesses into the light, the others are brought out of the light into the darknesses; that is, the second group too is not left to itself, it is taken.

What belongs here is the following difference, and I record it as an observation about the word order: in al-Baqara the one who brings out was God (yukhrijuhum). Here the one who brings out is the person addressed: li-tukhrija — "so that you may bring out."

The same verb in three places, three different agents. And this is the frame the sūra sets up in its very first verse: the work is God's, but it is carried out through a hand.

And for exactly this reason a note comes immediately after: bi-idhni rabbihim — "by their Lord's leave."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the phrase: the note is placed neither at the beginning nor at the end of the sentence but between the verb and its goal. That is, immediately after the verb "to bring out" is uttered, it is stated to whom the outcome belongs. What is given to the Prophet is not an authority but a task.

The same construct will come once more in the twenty-third verse: khālidīna fīhā bi-idhni rabbihim. Once the leave to bring out, once the leave to remain. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text.

There are two ilās (towards…) in the sentence: ila'n-nūr and ilā ṣirāṭi'l-ʿazīzi'l-ḥamīd.

The second is an explanation of the first — in Arabic this is called ʿaṭf al-bayān (explicative apposition). That is, "the light" is not left abstract; it is answered with the name of a path.

And two names have been chosen: al-ʿAzīz (the mighty, the one who cannot be withstood) and al-Ḥamīd (the one worthy of praise).

I record this as an observation: the two together set up a balance. Had power come alone, the path would be a compulsion; had praise come alone, it would be a preference. With the two standing side by side, a path is described that is both irresistible and willingly embraced.

Allāhi'lladhī lahu mā fi's-samāwāti wa mā fi'l-arḍ · Wa waylun li'l-kāfirīna min ʿadhābin shadīd · Alladhīna yastaḥibbūna'l-ḥayāta'd-dunyā ʿala'l-ākhirati wa yaṣuddūna ʿan sabīli'llāhi wa yabghūnahā ʿiwajā · Ulāʾika fī ḍalālin baʿīd

"Of God, to whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth — to His path. And woe to those who deny, from a severe punishment! They are the ones who prefer the life of this world to the hereafter, who turn others away from the path of God and seek to make it crooked. Those are in a far straying."

The second verse hangs on the last word of the first: ṣirāṭi'l-ʿazīzi'l-ḥamīd → Allāhi'lladhī… That is, the question of who "the Mighty, the Praiseworthy" is, is answered by the giving of the name.

A difference in the variant readings is transmitted and it affects the sense: there are the readings Allāhi (with kasra — attached to the preceding construct) and Allāhu (with ḍamma — the beginning of a new sentence). On the first the sentence continues; on the second a new statement begins. I give no reciter's name; both readings are transmitted and on both the sense comes out at the same place.

The root ح-ب-ب: to love. The pattern here is istifʿāl (Form X), and this pattern generally conveys "to want, to seek." Istaḥabba — "he preferred to love, he set one above another."

And the particle must be recorded: ʿala'l-ākhira — "upon the hereafter." English renders it "they preferred"; but the picture in the word is a placing on top.

I record this as an observation about the language: the verse is not describing the love of this world but the placing of it on top of the hereafter. That is, what is charged is not the presence of the love but its ordering.

The root ع-و-ج: crookedness, deviation from the straight. The lexicographers record a distinction between ʿiwaj (with kasra) and ʿawaj (with fatḥa): the first is used for crookedness in a meaning, in an affair, in religion, the second for crookedness in bodies that is seen with the eye. The one here is ʿiwajā.

And the root had occurred at al-Zumar 39/28: qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan ghayra dhī ʿiwaj — "an Arabic Qurʾān with no crookedness in it."

When the two verses are read together something comes out, and I give this as my own reading: the crookedness is not in the path itself but in the intention of the one who searches. The verb is yabghūna — "they seek, they go after it." That is, it is not a fault that is found but a fault that is looked for.

And the construct ḍalālin baʿīd (a far straying) will return word for word in the eighteenth verse of the sūra (dhālika huwa'ḍ-ḍalālu'l-baʿīd). What is set down in the third verse as an attribute is repeated in the eighteenth as a verdict.

Wa mā arsalnā min rasūlin illā bi-lisāni qawmihi li-yubayyina lahum · Fa-yuḍillu'llāhu man yashāʾu wa yahdī man yashāʾ · Wa huwa'l-ʿAzīzu'l-Ḥakīm

"We sent no messenger except in the tongue of his own people, that he might make things clear to them. After that, God leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. He is the Mighty, the Wise."

The sentence is built with a pattern of ḥaṣr (restriction): mā arsalnā… illā… — "We did not send, except on this condition." In Arabic this pattern conveys that the rule is without exception.

That is, the verse is not describing a practice; it is laying down a principle. Not for one messenger, but for every messenger sent.

The root ل-س-ن: tongue — both the organ in the mouth and the language spoken. English has the same overlap in the word tongue.

The construct lisānan ʿarabiyyan has been treated in two places in the series:

• At Fuṣṣilat 41/1-5, the Book's being described as qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan, and at 41/44 of the same sūra a counterfactual situation had been set up: wa law jaʿalnāhu qurʾānan aʿjamiyyan la-qālū law lā fuṣṣilat āyātuh — "had We made it a Qurʾān in a foreign tongue, they would have said, 'If only its verses had been set out in detail!'" The note there was this: the objection arises not from the content but from the attitude; whichever option had obtained, an objection fitted to it would have been found.
• At al-Zukhruf 43/3 the verb was analysed: innā jaʿalnāhu qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan — the verse does not say "We sent it down", it says jaʿala (to put a thing from one state into another). The note there: the verse speaks not of the Qurʾān's coming into being but of the form in which it was given.

I rely on both and do not repeat them.

What belongs here is this: in Fuṣṣilat and al-Zukhruf the subject was the tongue of this Book. Ibrāhīm 14/4 says the same thing not for a single book but for all who have been sent.

That is, the particular case in al-Zukhruf appears here as a general principle. Its being Arabic is not a privilege but the form that a rule takes for that particular hearer.

And the ground of the choice of tongue is stated plainly in the verse: li-yubayyina lahum — "that he might make things clear to them."

The root ب-ي-ن and tabyīn have been treated in many places in the series (in detail at al-Aḥqāf 46/7-8). The core of the root: the opening of a space between two things, an interval — and from there, becoming distinguishable. I do not repeat it here.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the clause of purpose itself: the verse presents language not as a matter of identity but as a matter of intelligibility. The tongue of the people is chosen because the aim is to be understood. Language is mentioned here not as a value but as an instrument — and the criterion by which the instrument is chosen is written out plainly.

And there is a conclusion that follows from this, and I give it too as my own reading: the first condition of conveying a message is to speak in the language the hearer understands. This is not "language" in the dictionary sense alone; vocabulary, the level of the concepts and the manner of address are within this principle as well. The verse does not say this — but the logic of the principle it lays down reaches this far, and I record it as an inference, not as the wording of the verse.

And here the sentence goes somewhere unexpected: guidance and going astray are mentioned after the intelligibility of the language has been secured.

I record it as an observation about the word order: the letter fāʾ conveys sequence — "and after this". That is, the verse first removes every excuse (the language is intelligible), and then says to whom the outcome belongs. Had the order of the two sentences been reversed, the sense would have been spoiled.

And the fourth verse of the sūra echoes the last two names of the first verse: al-ʿAzīzu'l-Ḥamīd (1) → al-ʿAzīzu'l-Ḥakīm (4). The shared name is al-ʿAzīz; the name that changes passes from praise to wisdom.

Wa laqad arsalnā Mūsā bi-āyātinā an akhrij qawmaka mina'ẓ-ẓulumāti ila'n-nūri wa dhakkirhum bi-ayyāmi'llāh · Inna fī dhālika la-āyātin li-kulli ṣabbārin shakūr

"And We surely sent Moses with Our signs: 'Bring your people out of the darknesses into the light, and remind them of the days of God.' In that there are surely signs for everyone who is much-enduring and much-thanking."

The work given to the Prophet in the first verse appears in the fifth as given to Moses — the same verb, the same two words: mina'ẓ-ẓulumāti ila'n-nūr.

The difference is in the mood: in the first li-tukhrija (a clause of purpose), here akhrij (an imperative). That is, the one is the reason for which the Book was sent down, the other a direct command given to a messenger.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sūra answers the work it gives its own addressee five verses later with an instance out of history. The work is not new; it is shared between two messengers.

The construct occurs only here in the Qurʾān, and the lexicographers differ over its meaning:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But the last sentence of the verse gives an indication, and I record this as an observation: li-kulli ṣabbārin shakūr — enduring and thanking. Endurance looks to hardship, thanks to favour. That the two attributes come side by side is favourable to the "days" to be recalled being of two kinds as well. I give this as an indication, not as a preference.

The construct occurs in four places in the Qurʾān and two of them have been treated in the series: Sabaʾ 34/19 (after the scattering of the people of Sabaʾ) and al-Shūrā 42/33 (the wind being stilled and the ships left motionless). I rely on those treatments.

An overlap recorded in the section on al-Shūrā is worth mentioning here too: in that same sūra ghafūrun shakūr (42/23) was used of God and ṣabbārin shakūr (42/33) of man — the same pattern, two sides.

The pattern must be recorded: both are of the intensive form. Ṣabbār (faʿʿāl) and shakūr (faʿūl). That is, the attribute is asked for not as a single act of behaviour but as a settled state.

Wa idh qāla Mūsā li-qawmihi'dhkurū niʿmata'llāhi ʿalaykum idh anjākum min āli Firʿawna yasūmūnakum sūʾa'l-ʿadhābi wa yudhabbiḥūna abnāʾakum wa yastaḥyūna nisāʾakum · Wa fī dhālikum balāʾun min rabbikum ʿaẓīm

"And when Moses said to his people: 'Remember God's favour upon you: when He delivered you from the people of Pharaoh, who were making you taste the worst of punishment, slaughtering your sons and sparing your women. In that was a great trial from your Lord.'"

The concrete sense of the root is a term from herding: sāma'l-māshiya — he turned the animals out to pasture, he grazed them. Sāʾima — a grazing animal; sawm — to graze an animal, to turn it loose.

And from this comes the sense "to impose something on someone continuously, to drive him along." The lexicographers explain the transition thus: the herdsman drives the animal where he wants; when the word is used of a human being it conveys a continuous and involuntary exposure.

I record this as an observation about the word: the verb is not ʿadhdhabūkum (they punished you). The word chosen pictures the punishment not as an event but as a regime — a treatment that goes on and on, that has become daily.

And the verb's coming in the imperfect supports this: yasūmūna, yudhabbiḥūna, yastaḥyūna — all three in the mood of continuance. The deliverance (anjākum) is in the perfect, the oppression in the imperfect. That is, something finished and something still going on are separated by a difference of tense.

Istiḥyāʾ from the root ح-ي-ي: to spare, to leave alive. (From the same root comes ḥayāʾ — modesty; the lexicographers explain this second sense by the picture of "life being drawn back".)

The word order of the sentence is worth recording: the sons are slaughtered, the women are left alive. The second is on the face of it a kindness; but it is placed in the list as part of the oppression.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the list itself: the sparing is here not a mercy but the other half of the cutting off of a people's bearing generation. The verse makes this visible by enumerating the two in a single breath.

The root ب-ل-و: to test, to try; and to wear out (the fraying of a garment). The lexicographers record that beneath the root lies the idea of "bringing out what a thing is by using it."

That the word is used in the Qurʾān for good as well as for evil was treated at al-Anbiyāʾ 21/35 (wa nablūkum bi'sh-sharri wa'l-khayri fitnah) and in al-Fajr. I rely on that treatment.

Two readings are transmitted as to what the pronoun dhālikum here refers back to:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. But this must be recorded: the root itself carries both readings, because a balāʾ is worked with good as well as with evil.

Wa idh taʾadhdhana rabbukum la-in shakartum la-azīdannakum wa la-in kafartum inna ʿadhābī la-shadīd

"And when your Lord proclaimed: 'If you give thanks I shall surely increase you; and if you deny, My punishment is indeed severe.'"

The concrete sense of the root: the ear (udhun). And from this come the senses of hearing, of giving leave, of proclaiming — idhn, adhān, īdhān are from the same root.

Taʾadhdhana is of Form V, and the lexicographers give this pattern here the sense "he made known plainly and decisively, he proclaimed." What the pattern adds is certainty: not a piece of news but a ruling that has been announced.

And the verb is from the same root as bi-idhni rabbihim in the first verse of this same sūra. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra: the root comes once as leave, once as proclamation.

The verse builds two conditional sentences and both begin with the same pattern: la-in shakartum / la-in kafartum. The openings are symmetrical to the letter.

But the answering halves are not symmetrical:

When the differences are counted one by one, what emerges is this, and I record it as my own reading, its ground being the table itself:

One. The answer to the first condition is a verb with emphasis: la-azīdanna — a lām at its head, a heavy nūn at its end. To enclose a verb with both of these in Arabic is the strongest form of pledge that can be given.

Two. The answer to the second condition, however, is not a verb. It does not say "I shall punish you". What is said is: inna ʿadhābī la-shadīd — "My punishment is severe." This is a threat, but not a statement of enforcement.

Three. In the first answer there is a pronoun for the one addressed (azīdanna-kum). In the second answer the one addressed has been taken out of the sentence.

Four. In the first answer the measure of the increase is not specified — what is to be increased, and by how much, is not said. The object has been left open. In the second answer, by contrast, an adjective is specified: shadīd.

The sum of these four differences is a difference of direction: the requital of thanks is given as a pledge, the requital of denial as a warning. The two are not speaking in the same language.

And this asymmetry is not peculiar to this place alone in the Qurʾān. At al-Ḥijr 15/49-50 the same balance comes distributed across two separate verses: nabbiʾ ʿibādī annī ana'l-Ghafūru'r-Raḥīm · Wa anna ʿadhābī huwa'l-ʿadhābu'l-alīm. There too the first side is given with two names, the second side with one adjective. This overlap between the two sūras will be tabulated separately in the section on al-Ḥijr.

The root ش-ك-ر. The lexicographers record two pictures for the concrete sense of the root: an animal that gives much milk on little fodder (nāqatun shakūr), and a dried-up body filling with rain. The shared core: to take little and give much in return.

I record this as an observation about the word: the picture in the root carries exactly what the verse says. Thanks is, in the root itself, a verb of increase — and the verse's answer is likewise la-azīdannakum (I shall increase you). That is, the condition and its answer say the same idea twice.

What is set opposite the root is kufr, and this too must be recorded: the core of the root ك-ف-ر is to cover (analysed in al-Baqara; I do not repeat it). That is, the opposition is not "to believe / not to believe" — it is between giving in return and covering over. The one who gives thanks makes what is given visible; the ingrate covers it.

Wa qāla Mūsā in takfurū antum wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿan fa-inna'llāha la-ghaniyyun ḥamīd

"Moses said: 'Were you and everyone on earth together to deny, know that God is rich beyond need, worthy of all praise.'"

In the seventh verse the condition was addressed to a community (la-in kafartum). In the eighth the same condition is repeated with its scope opened to the limit: antum wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿan — "you and everyone on earth together."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse carries a supposition to its furthest point. And even at that furthest point the outcome does not change.

The root غ-ن-ي: being without need, sufficiency. Ghinā — wealth; but the core of the root is not standing in need of a thing. Ghaniya ʿani'sh-shayʾ — he had no need of it.

And the second name must be recorded: ḥamīd.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two names come together: had ghanī come alone, the sentence would have said no more than "He has no need of you" — a declaration of indifference. When ḥamīd is added the sense changes: His being worthy of praise does not depend on there being anyone to praise Him. That is, the freedom from need is given not as coldness but as the source of the praise not lying outside Him.

And these two names join with the first verse of the sūra: there it was al-ʿAzīzu'l-Ḥamīd. The same name, in two different pairs.

Alam yaʾtikum nabaʾu'lladhīna min qablikum qawmi Nūḥin wa ʿĀdin wa Thamūda wa'lladhīna min baʿdihim, lā yaʿlamuhum illa'llāh · Jāʾathum rusuluhum bi'l-bayyināti fa-raddū aydiyahum fī afwāhihim wa qālū innā kafarnā bimā ursiltum bihi wa innā la-fī shakkin mimmā tadʿūnanā ilayhi murīb

"Has the news of those before you not come to you — of the people of Noah (Nūḥ), of ʿĀd, of Thamūd, and of those after them? None but God knows them. Their messengers came to them with clear proofs; and they turned their hands back to their mouths and said: 'We deny what you have been sent with, and we are in disquieting doubt about that to which you call us.'"

Three peoples are named, the fourth is not: wa'lladhīna min baʿdihim — "and those after them." And immediately after, a note: "none but God knows them."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not close the list, and it says that it does not close it. Per the method (Method) I do not enter here into a counting of peoples, a chronology, or a guess as to who the unnamed communities are — the verse itself declares that it does not give this information.

The expression, word for word: "they turned their hands back into their mouths." And the lexicographers differ over what this idiom conveys. The principal readings:

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

What can be recorded is this, and I give it as an observation: all the readings converge on the point of a speech being cut off. Where they differ is whose the hand is and what feeling it conveys; where they agree is that the outcome is the same. The continuation of the sentence supports this too: immediately afterwards the speaking party changes, and the peoples frame their own sentences.

The root ش-ك-ك: doubt; for the concrete sense of the root the lexicographers record the picture of "piercing a thing and fitting two pieces into one another" — two possibilities lodged in one another.

The root ر-ي-ب: the doubt that unsettles. Rayb is not a dry hesitation; it is a doubt that troubles a person inwardly and sets him moving.

And a point of word order must be recorded: fī shakkin… murīb — the doubt is qualified as doubt-inducing. That is, the word is reinforced not by an adjective from its own root but by an adjective from a kindred root.

I record this as an observation about the language: a usage close to this in Arabic is the intensification of the type laylun layl (a night of nights). What is said here is that the doubt does not stand by itself — it produces disquiet.

Qālat rusuluhum a-fi'llāhi shakkun fāṭiri's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ; yadʿūkum li-yaghfira lakum min dhunūbikum wa yuʾakhkhirakum ilā ajalin musammā · Qālū in antum illā basharun mithlunā turīdūna an taṣuddūnā ʿammā kāna yaʿbudu ābāʾunā fa'tūnā bi-sulṭānin mubīn · Qālat lahum rusuluhum in naḥnu illā basharun mithlukum wa lākinna'llāha yamunnu ʿalā man yashāʾu min ʿibādih

"Their messengers said: 'Is there any doubt about God, the Originator of the heavens and the earth? He calls you in order to forgive you some of your sins and to defer you to a term whose name has been set.' They said: 'You are only human beings like ourselves. You wish to turn us away from what our fathers used to serve. Bring us, then, a clear authority.' Their messengers said to them: 'We are indeed only human beings like yourselves; but God bestows His favour upon whom He wills of His servants.'"

The root ف-ط-ر was analysed at Fāṭir 35/1 and in al-Infiṭār — the core sense is to split, to crack open; and from there "to bring out for the first time" (the bud splitting and the leaf coming out). I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is this: in Fāṭir the attribute stood inside an act of praise, at al-Zumar 39/46 inside a prayer. Here it comes inside a question: a-fi'llāhi shakkun fāṭiri's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ.

That is, the attribute carries the answer to the question. The messengers do not leave the question empty; together with the question they give the ground of the answer as well.

There is a particle in the verse and the lexicographers dwell on it: li-yaghfira lakum min dhunūbikum — "of your sins".

All three readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference and I draw no legal conclusion from this.

The construct ajalin musammā was treated at al-Aḥqāf 46/3, al-Zumar 39/42 and Fāṭir 35/45. I rely on those treatments: the term is fixed and its name has been set; but the one who set the name is not man.

The difference here must be recorded: the construct occurs as the content of a call. The messengers' call promises two things: forgiveness and a term. That is, what is offered in return for answering the call is, before any reward belonging to the hereafter, a respite given in this world.

The other side frames an objection: in antum illā basharun mithlunā — "you are only human beings like ourselves."

And the messengers' answer is worth recording: they do not reject the objection. In naḥnu illā basharun mithlukum — they repeat the same sentence, changing the pronoun.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the only difference between the two sentences is the shift mithlunā → mithlukum. The objection is accepted just as it stands; then a note is added with lākin.

The same objection was treated at al-Furqān 25/7 (mā li-hādha'r-rasūli yaʾkulu'ṭ-ṭaʿāma wa yamshī fi'l-aswāq), and it was recorded there that the sūra answers this objection with a definition of servanthood. I rely on that treatment. The answer here, however, is shorter: the humanity is granted, and the being chosen is set down as a separate heading.

The word sulṭān (proof, argument) was treated in al-Ṣāffāt and al-Ṭūr; it was recorded there that the root carries the idea of "superiority, dominion" and that the proof is named as "the thing that decides". I rely on that treatment.

Wa mā lanā allā natawakkala ʿala'llāhi wa qad hadānā subulanā · Wa la-naṣbiranna ʿalā mā ādhaytumūnā · Wa ʿala'llāhi fa'l-yatawakkali'l-mutawakkilūn

"And what is it with us that we should not trust in God? And He has already guided us to our ways. We shall surely endure the harm you do us. Let those who trust put their trust in God alone."

The messengers do not frame a statement. Mā lanā allā natawakkala — "what is it with us that we should not trust?"

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence takes trust out of being an attitude that must be defended and reverses what it is that requires explaining. The question asked is not "why do you trust"; it is "why should we not trust."

Subul (ways) is plural, and the possessive pronoun must be recorded: subula-nā — "our ways."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the pronoun: the sentence does not say "He guided us to the way"; it says "He guided us to our own ways." That is, guidance is mentioned not as a single route imposed from outside but as each one's finding of his own way.

And the distinction between the singular ṣirāṭ and the plural subul is worth recording: in the first verse of the sūra ṣirāṭi'l-ʿazīzi'l-ḥamīd was singular. In the same sūra, one singular and one plural. I give this distinction as an observation; I draw no ruling from it.

And the verb comes with emphasis: la-naṣbiranna — with a lām and a doubled nūn. A pattern of pledge as strong as la-azīdannakum in the seventh verse — there it was God's pledge, here the messengers'.

The object of the endurance is specified too: ʿalā mā ādhaytumūnā — "the harm you do us." That is, endurance is given not as an abstract virtue but as a pledge against something that has been named.

Wa qāla'lladhīna kafarū li-rusulihim la-nukhrijannakum min arḍinā aw la-taʿūdunna fī millatinā · Fa-awḥā ilayhim rabbuhum la-nuhlikanna'ẓ-ẓālimīn · Wa la-nuskinannakumu'l-arḍa min baʿdihim · Dhālika li-man khāfa maqāmī wa khāfa waʿīd

"Those who denied said to their messengers: 'Either we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall surely return to our religion.' And their Lord revealed to them: 'We shall surely destroy the wrongdoers · and We shall surely settle you in the land after them. That is for whoever fears My station and fears My threat.'"

There is a fact of word order that must be recorded: across four verses the pattern lām + doubled nūn comes six times.

That is, this part of the sūra is a section of oath against oath. All three parties speak in the strongest pattern of pledge. And the last word remains with the party that uses the same pattern twice.

The verb must be recorded: la-taʿūdunna — "you shall return." The root ع-و-د: to return, to repeat.

I record this as an observation about the language: the verb presupposes that the messengers were formerly in that religion. Yet the text says no such thing.

The lexicographers explain this usage in two ways:

Both are transmitted. The second explanation is worth recording as an observation: the party that says "you shall return" is getting its own position accepted as the point of origin. This runs along the same line as yabghūnahā ʿiwajā in the third verse of the sūra: the measure is framed according to the one who measures.

The root ق-و-م. Maqām — the place where one stands, the standing-place.

The lexicographers differ over the meaning of the construct:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The ground given for the second reading is verse 33 of Sūrat al-Raʿd. This verse has not yet been treated in the series (there is no file for Sūrat al-Raʿd), so I mention it not as a cross-reference but only as an opportunity for comparison.

And the construct had occurred at al-Raḥmān 55/46 (wa li-man khāfa maqāma rabbihi jannatān). There the same expression is mentioned together with a reward, here together with a settling.

Wa'staftaḥū wa khāba kullu jabbārin ʿanīd · Min warāʾihi jahannamu wa yusqā min māʾin ṣadīd · Yatajarraʿuhu wa lā yakādu yusīghuhu wa yaʾtīhi'l-mawtu min kulli makānin wa mā huwa bi-mayyit · Wa min warāʾihi ʿadhābun ghalīẓ

"They sought a decision; and every obstinate tyrant came to nothing. · Before him is Hell; and he is given to drink of a water of pus. · He tries to gulp it down and can hardly swallow it. Death comes to him from every side, yet he does not die. And beyond that is a heavy punishment."

The root ف-ت-ح was analysed in detail in al-Fatḥ by way of the sūra's name (to open what is closed; and the sense of giving judgement: fattāḥ — the one who decides). I do not repeat it here.

The agent of the verb here is not stated and the lexicographers differ:

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

The root's sense of "giving judgement" makes the first reading easier, and at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/118 Noah's prayer is in exactly this pattern: fa'ftaḥ baynī wa baynahum fatḥā. I record this as an indication, not as a preference.

The root ج-ب-ر: to set a broken bone by force, to bring a thing by force into a certain state. Jabīra — the splint for binding a fracture. From this comes jabbār: one who forces his will upon another.

The root ع-ن-د: to set oneself against knowingly, to deviate. The lexicographers define ʿinād as "to reject the truth although one knows it".

That the two attributes come side by side is worth recording: the one conveys conduct towards another person (tyranny), the other an attitude towards the truth (obstinacy). That is, the description looks in two directions at once.

And the same pair had occurred at Qāf 50/24 (kullu kaffārin ʿanīd). There it is paired with kaffār, here with jabbār.

The root و-ر-ي / و-ر-أ. Warāʾ is among the words in Arabic that can mean both "behind" and "before", and the lexicographers explain this by the root's core of "what lies outside the field of vision": the unseen side may be behind as well as ahead.

The construct occurs twice in these three verses: in 16 for Hell, in 17 for the heavy punishment. What lies between the two occurrences must be recorded: in between are the water given to drink and the death that does not come. That is, the sentence builds a frame — the scene is pressed between two warāʾs.

The root ص-د-د, with which ṣadīd is connected, is according to the lexicographers the pus of a wound, a discharge mixed with blood.

And the word has an echo within the sūra: in the third verse there was wa yaṣuddūna ʿan sabīli'llāh (those who turn others away from the path of God). Two words from the same root, one a verb and one a noun. I record this as an observation about sound and root; I draw no link of meaning between the two words, because the lexicographers are not of one opinion about the root of ṣadīd.

The root ج-ر-ع: to sip. The tafaʿʿul form here conveys doing a thing with difficulty, little by little: yatajarraʿu — "he tries to drink it down gulp by gulp, with effort."

The root س-و-غ: a drink's passing easily down the throat. Sāʾigh — easily swallowed. The word had been used at Fāṭir 35/12 for sweet water: hādhā ʿadhbun furātun sāʾighun sharābuh.

The same root, in two contrary states. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

The construction of the sentence is worth recording: death comes but does not happen.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not set up a contradiction; it describes a continuance. Death's "coming from every side" is the holding of the ending permanently at the threshold. And at al-Aʿlā 87/13 (thumma lā yamūtu fīhā wa lā yaḥyā) the same state had been conveyed with different words. I rely on that treatment.

Mathalu'lladhīna kafarū bi-rabbihim aʿmāluhum ka-ramādin ishtaddat bihi'r-rīḥu fī yawmin ʿāṣif · Lā yaqdirūna mimmā kasabū ʿalā shayʾ · Dhālika huwa'ḍ-ḍalālu'l-baʿīd

"The likeness of those who deny their Lord is this: their deeds are as ashes which the wind scatters violently on a stormy day. Of what they have earned they have power over nothing. That is the very thing that is the far straying."

The choice of word must be recorded, and it carries the whole weight of the likeness.

Ashes are what is left of something burnt. That is, the likeness is not saying that the deeds never existed; it is saying that something once was there, and that what remains of it is a residue light enough to be blown away.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the word itself: the verse does not say "dust" or "nothing". It says ashes — and ashes are the proof of a burning. Labour was spent; what remains is not the labour itself.

The same idea has been treated three times in the series with different words:

In all three places the scattering agent is the same: the wind. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

And there is a difference between the likeness in al-Kahf and the one here, and I give it as my own reading: in al-Kahf what is scattered was the life of this world; here what is scattered is the deeds themselves. That is, the one recounts the end of what is transient, the other the end of the labour spent on what is transient.

The verb is built in a curious way: ishtaddat bihi'r-rīḥ — word for word, "the wind grew violent with it."

The expected pattern would have been "the wind scattered it." Instead of this, the verse folds the ashes into the violence of the wind itself.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence takes the ashes out of being an object and makes them part of the wind's movement. That is, the scattering is pictured not as an event coming from outside but as the ashes' having become indistinguishable from the wind.

فِى يَوْمٍ عَاصِفٍ — and the adjective is given to the day: "a stormy day." In Arabic this is the transfer of an adjective from its real owner (the wind) to the time; the lexicographers call it majāz ʿaqlī. It is not the wind but the day that is called "stormy".

And the block closes with the last construct of the third verse: ulāʾika fī ḍalālin baʿīd (3) → dhālika huwa'ḍ-ḍalālu'l-baʿīd (18).

The difference must be recorded: in the third verse the construct was indefinite, here it is definite and huwa has come in between. In Arabic the pronoun huwa coming in like this conveys restriction (ḥaṣr): "this is the far straying itself."

That is, the sūra turns an attribute into a definition fifteen verses later.

Alam tara anna'llāha khalaqa's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa bi'l-ḥaqq · In yashaʾ yudhhibkum wa yaʾti bi-khalqin jadīd · Wa mā dhālika ʿala'llāhi bi-ʿazīz

"Have you not seen that God created the heavens and the earth with truth? If He wills He can take you away and bring a new creation. · And that is no hard thing for God."

The expression occurs three times in the sūra: 19, 24, 28. And the subject of the three differs:

I record this as an observation about the word order: three lookings open the last three blocks of the sūra — one at the universe, one at a parable, one at a community. And in all three the verb is a verb of seeing, yet the second and the third are not things to be seen with the eye. That is, ruʾya here means "to grasp, to become aware", and the lexicographers name this ruʾya qalbiyya.

The root ح-ق-ق has been treated in many places in the series (in detail in al-Ḥāqqa by way of the sūra's name; the core of the root is to be in its right place, to be fixed and real). I do not repeat it here.

Its function here must be recorded: the note bi'l-ḥaqq conveys that the creation was with a purpose and by a measure. And the sentence that comes immediately after is the consequence of this: if the creating is with a purpose, then a generation that does not carry the purpose can be replaced.

The sentence is a conditional structure, and the conditional particle is in (not law). This difference must be recorded: in Arabic law conveys a condition that has not come about, while in conveys a possible condition.

That is, the verse is not recounting "something that will not happen"; it leaves the possibility open.

The same sentence occurs at Fāṭir 35/16-17 in almost the same words (in yashaʾ yudhhibkum wa yaʾti bi-khalqin jadīd · wa mā dhālika ʿala'llāhi bi-ʿazīz). Two sentences identical word for word in two sūras — this is a repetition that can be verified, and it was treated in the section on Fāṭir. I rely on that treatment.

بِعَزِيزٍ — and the word is worth recording: in the first and fourth verses of the sūra al-ʿAzīz had occurred as a name of God. Here the same word is used of a task: "this is not ʿazīz (hard, beyond power) for God."

That is, the same word means in one place "the one who cannot be withstood" and in the other "what cannot be coped with". I record this as an observation about the word: the core of the root (ع-ز-ز — firmness, difficulty, rarity) carries both usages.

Wa barazū li'llāhi jamīʿan fa-qāla'ḍ-ḍuʿafāʾu li'lladhīna'stakbarū innā kunnā lakum tabaʿan fa-hal antum mughnūna ʿannā min ʿadhābi'llāhi min shayʾ · Qālū law hadāna'llāhu la-hadaynākum · Sawāʾun ʿalaynā ajaziʿnā am ṣabarnā mā lanā min maḥīṣ

"They all come forth before God. The weak say to those who were arrogant: 'We followed you; can you now ward off from us anything of God's punishment?' They say: 'Had God guided us we would have guided you. Now it is all one for us whether we cry out or endure; there is no place of escape for us.'"

The root ب-ر-ز: to come out into the open, to emerge from where one was hidden. Barāz — open ground, empty land. From the same root come bāriz (prominent) and mubāraza (coming out to fight in single combat).

And the verb comes in the perfect tense, though the event recounted is in the future. In Arabic this is the manner of recounting a future that is certain to come about in the past tense, and it has been treated in several places in the series (the same usage was recorded in scenes of the resurrection in al-Takwīr and al-Ḥāqqa). I rely on that treatment.

The verb will occur twice in the sūra: here and in verse 48 (wa barazū li'llāhi'l-Wāḥidi'l-Qahhār). There is a difference between the two occurrences:

In the first occurrence the stress falls on those who come forth (jamīʿan — all of them), in the second on the One before whom they come (two names). This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

Tabaʿ may be the plural of tābiʿ, and it may also be a verbal noun; taken as a verbal noun, a heavier sense comes out, something like "we were nothing but following you". The lexicographers record both possibilities.

And the question of the weak is worth recording: they do not ask for deliverance. Hal antum mughnūna ʿannā min ʿadhābi'llāhi min shayʾ — "anything" — the smallest part of it.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the request, reduced to its least, still goes unanswered. And the second min before min shayʾ (partitive) performs this diminishing with the language itself.

The answer is a law sentence (a condition that has not come about). That is, those who were arrogant set out their situation not as an excuse but as a statement of fact: we were not guided, and so we could not guide.

What must be recorded is this, and I give it as an observation: the verse gives no reply to this answer. It neither confirms it nor denies it; the sentence is left as it stands, and immediately afterwards comes the speech of Satan — and there the same matter will be taken up once more, but with the place of responsibility stated plainly (verse 22: fa-lā talūmūnī wa lūmū anfusakum).

That is, the sūra leaves the answer to a verse later. This is an arrangement that can be verified from the word order.

The root ج-ز-ع: a thing's being split in two down the middle; and from there the breaking of endurance, the snapping of forbearance. The lexicographers define jazaʿ as the opposite of endurance: crying out, wailing.

And the word was treated at al-Maʿārij 70/20 (idhā massahu'sh-sharru jazūʿā). I rely on that treatment.

The construction of the sentence must be recorded: sawāʾun ʿalaynā — "the two are one for us." That is, endurance is mentioned here with no promise of benefit. I record this as my own reading: the value of endurance lies where it can change the outcome; where the outcome is closed, both attitudes come out at the same place — and the verse has them say this with their own mouths.

م-ح-ص / ح-ي-ص — maḥīṣ: a place to flee to for refuge. The root ح-ي-ص: to turn aside, to flee.

Wa qāla'sh-shayṭānu lammā quḍiya'l-amru inna'llāha waʿadakum waʿda'l-ḥaqqi wa waʿadtukum fa-akhlaftukum · Wa mā kāna liya ʿalaykum min sulṭānin illā an daʿawtukum fa'stajabtum lī · Fa-lā talūmūnī wa lūmū anfusakum · Mā ana bi-muṣrikhikum wa mā antum bi-muṣrikhiyy · Innī kafartu bimā ashraktumūni min qabl

"When the affair was decided, Satan said: 'God promised you a true promise; I too promised you, but I broke my word to you. I had no power over you at all — I only called you, and you answered me. So do not blame me; blame yourselves. I cannot save you, nor can you save me. I disown your having associated me with Him before.'"

The note of time in the sentence must be recorded: the speech comes after the affair has been decided.

I record this as an observation about the word order: what Satan says is true; the verse does not deny it. But the moment at which it is said is the moment when what is said can serve no purpose whatever. The whole weight of the sentence gathers into this note of time.

That the whole of the influence is reduced to two verbs must be recorded:

There is no compulsion between the two verbs. Sulṭān (power, authority to decide) is plainly denied: mā kāna liya ʿalaykum min sulṭān.

This is an answer within the sūra: in the tenth verse the other side had demanded of the messengers a sulṭānin mubīn (a clear authority). The same word occurs here in Satan's mouth, as "I had no such thing." This is a weave of words that can be verified within the sūra.

And at al-Ḥijr 15/42 the same limit will be set once more, but this time as God's word: inna ʿibādī laysa laka ʿalayhim sulṭān. The same word in two sūras, once as a confession and once as a ruling.

Two imperatives from the same verb, one negative and one positive. Lawm — to blame, to reproach.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence does not abolish the blaming — it changes its address. The same structure was used at Fāṭir 35/10 for might and at al-Zumar 39/43 for intercession: the wish or the act is not rejected; the place it is directed to is corrected. I rely on those treatments.

The root ص-ر-خ: to cry aloud, to call out for help. Ṣārikh — one who cries out; muṣrikh — one who runs to the cry, who comes to the rescue.

The pattern of the word is worth recording: the active participle of the ifʿāl form, that is, "one who answers a cry." And the sentence is negated in both directions at once: mā ana bi-muṣrikhikum wa mā antum bi-muṣrikhiyy — "neither do I come to your rescue, nor you to mine."

I record this as an observation: the second half may look superfluous — nobody was expecting help from Satan. But by building the symmetry the sentence says that the relationship was mutual and that it collapses mutually.

And a difference in the variant readings is transmitted: the readings differ over the vowel of the final yāʾ of the word bi-muṣrikhiyya (fatḥa / kasra). It gives rise to no difference of sense; I give no reciter's name.

Wa udkhila'lladhīna āmanū wa ʿamilu'ṣ-ṣāliḥāti jannātin tajrī min taḥtiha'l-anhāru khālidīna fīhā bi-idhni rabbihim · Taḥiyyatuhum fīhā salām

"Those who believed and did righteous deeds are brought into gardens beneath which rivers run, abiding there by their Lord's leave. Their greeting there is 'peace'."

The construct had occurred in the first verse of the sūra: li-tukhrija'n-nāsa… bi-idhni rabbihim. Here it comes for the second and last time.

It is a ring built between the beginning and the middle of the sūra, and it can be verified. I record this as my own reading: both the beginning of the journey and the staying at the place arrived at are given with the same note — both depend on a leave.

Taḥiyya from the root ح-ي-ي: a greeting, a welcome. The lexicographers record that the word is in origin "the wishing of life" — from the Arabs' saying to one another ḥayyāka'llāh (may God give you life).

The root س-ل-م was treated at al-Baqara 2/131 and in al-Ḥashr: to be sound, flawless, without defect. I do not repeat it here.

What must be recorded is that the block closes with this word. What has been spoken of throughout the section running from the fifteenth verse to the twenty-second: ruin, pus, death, blame, crying out. And the block closes with a sentence of a single word: salām.

Alam tara kayfa ḍaraba'llāhu mathalan kalimatan ṭayyibatan ka-shajaratin ṭayyibatin aṣluhā thābitun wa farʿuhā fi's-samāʾ · Tuʾtī ukulahā kulla ḥīnin bi-idhni rabbihā · Wa yaḍribu'llāhu'l-amthāla li'n-nāsi laʿallahum yatadhakkarūn

"Have you not seen how God has struck a parable: a good word is like a good tree — its root firm, its branch in the sky? · It gives its fruit at every season by its Lord's leave. God strikes these parables for people that they may take heed."

The concrete sense of the root ض-ر-ب is to strike; and in Arabic the idiom ḍaraba mathalan is used for "to give an example". The construction of this idiom was tabulated in al-Zukhruf — there the root was used within the sūra for three different tasks. I rely on that treatment.

A note on the language: the lexicographers explain the verb "to strike" in the idiom by the picture of a stamp being struck onto material (the striking of a coin). That is, a parable is the impressing of an idea upon the mind.

The two parables are set against one another across three verses, and their elements match one for one. This is the most tightly built section of the sūra:

What the table shows is not a balance but a disproportion, and I record this as my own reading, its ground being the number of elements: the good tree is described in four sentences, the evil tree in two. And the two sentences that are missing are precisely those belonging to what is above and to fruit.

That is, the description of the evil tree is the description of the good tree with things taken away. The opposition is built not by adding a negative attribute but by removing attributes.

The root أ-ص-ل: the bottom of a thing, its foundation, the place it comes out of. Aṣl — the part of a tree that holds to the soil; and from there, lineage, foundation, source.

The root ث-ب-ت: not to be shifted from one's place, to stand fixed.

What must be recorded is that this root returns in the twenty-seventh verse of the sūra: yuthabbitu'llāhu'lladhīna āmanū bi'l-qawli'th-thābit. The same root, three verses apart, once for the root of a tree and once for the word of a human being.

I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified: the parable recounts a tree, and the verse that comes immediately after ties the parable to the human being and does so by using the same root.

The root ف-ر-ع: the upper part of a thing, what is above. Farʿ — a branch; and from there the sense of "what comes out of the root" (the distinction between uṣūl and furūʿ in jurisprudence comes from this).

That the two words come together must be recorded: aṣl and farʿ. These two words form a pair in Arabic: root and branch, foundation and derivative. The verse builds the parable with exactly this pair.

Fi's-samāʾ — "in the sky". The dictionary sense of the word is "that which is above" (recorded in al-Nabaʾ and al-Mulk). The sky need not be intended here; the force of the expression is "reaching upward".

Ukul from the root أ-ك-ل: what is eaten, the produce a tree gives. (From the same root comes akl — the act of eating.)

The lexicographers differ over the construct kulla ḥīn:

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

The lexical situation of the word is this, and it must be recorded: ḥīn in Arabic is a piece of time of undetermined extent. The lexicographers agree that the word itself conveys no fixed span; those who give a figure derive it from the context of the verse or from reports, not from the word itself. I record this distinction and make no choice among the readings that give figures.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the indefiniteness of the word: the work of the parable is not to give a calendar. What is said is that the fruit is not cut off — and the word kulla (every) already secures this, whatever the span may be.

And the note of leave comes for the third time in this sūra:

The three occurrences are in three different sections of the sūra, and all three say the same thing: the work is done, but the outcome of the work does not belong to the one who does it.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the arrangement of the three occurrences: the tree strikes root, reaches up, gives fruit — and the verse says that the fruit comes by a leave. The soundness of the root does not guarantee the fruit; it is counted the condition of the fruit but not its cause.

The root ذ-ك-ر and tadhakkur have been treated in many places in the series. The pattern must be recorded: the tafaʿʿul form conveys effort — "to try to remember, to think a thing over."

That is, the aim of the parable is set down not as giving information but as reminding. This overlaps with the command in the fifth verse of the sūra: wa dhakkirhum bi-ayyāmi'llāh. The same root, once as a command given to a messenger, once as the ground of a parable.

Wa mathalu kalimatin khabīthatin ka-shajaratin khabīthatin ijtuththat min fawqi'l-arḍi mā lahā min qarār

"And the likeness of an evil word is this: it is like an evil tree, torn up from the face of the earth, having no place to stand."

The root is analysed for the first time in this commentary here.

The concrete sense of the root ج-ث-ث: to pull a thing up by the root, to tear it from its place together with its trunk.

Its derivatives:

• جُثَّة (jussa) — the body, the trunk of a thing. The Turkish word cüsse (a person's bulk or build) is this word.
• جَثِيث — according to what the lexicographers record, a date-palm shoot torn from its root and planted elsewhere.
• ٱجْتَثَّ — Form VIII: he tore it up by the root, he wrenched it out with its trunk.

The picture beneath the root: the severing of a thing's bond with the soil.

And the verb is passive: ijtuththat — "it was torn up." Who tore it up is not stated.

I record this as an observation about the word order: for the root of the good tree an adjective was given, not a verb (thābit — it is firm, a state). For the evil tree a verb is given, and a passive verb at that. The two descriptions are in different grammatical categories: the one a condition, the other something that has happened to it.

The construct is worth recording and the lexicographers dwell on it. Not "from below the ground" but "from above the ground" it was torn.

Two explanations are transmitted:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But the first explanation accords well with the opposition of the parable, and I record this as an indication: the root of the good tree was thābit — that is, it had taken hold deep down. Its opposite is not having taken hold at all.

The root ق-ر-ر: to stay in a place, to settle, to remain fixed. From the same root come qarār (the place where one settles), mustaqarr (the place of settling), and qurra (the eye's coming to rest on something and not sliding away — recorded for qurrata aʿyun at al-Furqān 25/74).

The word occurs twice in the sūra: here and in the twenty-ninth verse (jahannama yaṣlawnahā wa biʾsa'l-qarār).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the meeting of the two occurrences: the evil word has no place to stand in this world; in the hereafter, however, there is a place, and that place has been named. The sūra sets "having no standing" and "an evil standing" side by side three verses apart.

The verse does not say what "the good word" and "the evil word" are. Various equivalents are transmitted in the classical commentaries — the word of tawḥīd, faith, a righteous word; and on the other side the word of associating partners, denial. I transmit these equivalents, but since the wording of the verse gives no definition I do not present any one of them as the text's own word.

What the text gives is not a definition but a criterion, and I record this as my own reading: the parable measures the goodness of a word not by its content but by four properties — a root it holds to, a trunk reaching upward, a fruit that is not cut off, and the fruit's not belonging to itself. These four criteria can be applied to any word whatever.

Yuthabbitu'llāhu'lladhīna āmanū bi'l-qawli'th-thābiti fi'l-ḥayāti'd-dunyā wa fi'l-ākhirah · Wa yuḍillu'llāhu'ẓ-ẓālimīn · Wa yafʿalu'llāhu mā yashāʾ

"God makes those who believe firm with the firm word, in the life of this world and in the hereafter. God leads the wrongdoers astray. God does what He wills."

The verse comes immediately after the parable of the two trees, and it takes the root of the parable (ث-ب-ت) and gives it to the human being.

Two words from the same root: yuthabbitu (a verb, Form II — to make firm) and al-thābit (an adjective). That is, the root occurs twice in the sentence.

And with aṣluhā thābit in the twenty-fourth verse, three times.

The three occurrences carry the parable from description to ruling. I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified.

Two adverbial phrases must be recorded: the making firm spreads across two domains at once.

In the classical commentaries it is widely said that "the making firm in the hereafter" points to the questioning in the grave, and reports are transmitted to this effect. I transmit this interpretation as the widespread tendency of the tradition; I do not transmit any particular report with its source, because I do not write an attribution I am not sure of.

What the wording of the verse says is this, and I keep within it: the making firm covers both domains, and no break is set up between the two.

The block closes with this sentence, and the sentence's placing must be recorded.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the parable had been recounting an order — the root holds, the branch reaches up, the fruit comes. The last sentence of the block says that this order is not a mechanism. The tree's fruit was "by its Lord's leave" (25); at the end of the section the same idea is repeated in its most general form.

Alam tara ila'lladhīna baddalū niʿmata'llāhi kufran wa aḥallū qawmahum dāra'l-bawār · Jahannama yaṣlawnahā wa biʾsa'l-qarār

"Have you not seen those who exchanged God's favour for denial and brought their people down into the abode of ruin? · Hell; they enter it. What an evil place to stand!"

The root ب-د-ل: to put something else in a thing's place, to exchange. Badal — what takes the place of another; tabdīl — to change a thing's place.

The construction of the verb must be recorded: baddala A for B — in Arabic what comes first is what is given up, what comes second is what is taken. That is, the favour is what was given up, denial what was taken.

And this sentence is the enactment of the seventh verse:

I record this as an observation about the word order: what the sūra set down as a possibility in the seventh verse it shows as having come about in the twenty-eighth. And in between stands the parable of the two trees — that is, a criterion has been placed between the condition and its fulfilment.

The root ح-ل-ل: to come down somewhere and encamp (in nomadic life, to set down the load and pitch the tent). Ḥalla — he encamped; aḥalla — he made to encamp, he brought down. From the same root come ḥulūl (entering into a place) and maḥalla (a place of encampment).

That the verb comes in a transitive form must be recorded: aḥallū qawmahum — "they brought their people down."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the object of the verb: the verse is not speaking of their own end alone. What is said is that they took a people somewhere. That is, responsibility is mentioned not as a personal choice but as a decision that carries others with it.

The root ب-و-ر: to become useless, to find no market, to fall into ruin. Bāra'l-matāʿ — the goods went unsold and were left on his hands. Bawār — destruction, coming to nothing.

And the word had occurred in a positive context at Fāṭir 35/29: yarjūna tijāratan lan tabūr — "they hope for a commerce that will not go unsold."

The same root, once negated and once as a noun. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

Different views are transmitted in the classical sources as to whom this verse was revealed about — certain leading men of Mecca, or Quraysh in general. I give no name, because I do not write an attribution I am not sure of.

And the language of the verse gives no name in any case: alladhīna baddalū — a description by way of an attribute. Per the method (Method) I record it: the ruling is attached not to a community but to a behaviour.

Wa jaʿalū li'llāhi andādan li-yuḍillū ʿan sabīlih · Qul tamattaʿū fa-inna maṣīrakum ila'n-nār

"They set up equals to God — in order to lead astray from His path. Say: 'Enjoy yourselves, then; your journey's end is to the Fire.'"

The plural of nidd. The root ن-د-د: to be a thing's equal, its like, its counterpart; and from there the sense of "to flee, to take fright and scatter."

The lexicographers record a distinction between nidd and mithl: mithl is likeness in general, while nidd is an equal set opposite, counted as a rival. That is, the word conveys not a resemblance but a setting over against.

The word had occurred at al-Baqara 2/22 (fa-lā tajʿalū li'llāhi andādan wa antum taʿlamūn) and was treated there. I rely on that treatment.

The imperative here does not convey a command. In Arabic this is called tahdīd (a threat in the form of a command) and it has been treated in several places in the series (iʿmalū mā shiʾtum at Fuṣṣilat 41/40, kulū wa tamattaʿū qalīlā at al-Mursalāt 77/46). I rely on those treatments.

What must be recorded is the second half of the sentence: fa-inna maṣīrakum ila'n-nār. The command is given together with its ground — and the ground annuls the command from within. I record this as an observation about the word order: when "enjoy yourselves" and "your journey's end is to the Fire" stand in the same sentence, the first half becomes not a permission but a statement of measure.

م-ص-ر / ص-ي-ر — maṣīr: the place one arrives at, the place of return. The root ص-ي-ر: to turn from one state into another.

Qul li-ʿibādiya'lladhīna āmanū yuqīmu'ṣ-ṣalāta wa yunfiqū mimmā razaqnāhum sirran wa ʿalāniyatan min qabli an yaʾtiya yawmun lā bayʿun fīhi wa lā khilāl

"Say to My servants who believe: let them hold the prayer upright and spend, secretly and openly, of what We have provided them — before there comes a day in which there is neither trading nor friendship."

The construction of the sentence is striking in Arabic. The command is not given to the servants directly; the Prophet is told "say", and then the verbs come in the jussive: yuqīmū, yunfiqū.

The lexicographers explain this structure in two ways:

Both explanations are transmitted; they give rise to no difference of sense.

Two adverbs must be recorded: secretly and openly. Neither of the two is chosen over the other.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the conjunction is wa: the verse does not hold giving in secret to be superior to giving openly; it commands both. Had a preference been set up between the two, the conjunction would have been aw (or).

The same matter was treated at al-Baqara 2/271 (in tubdu'ṣ-ṣadaqāti fa-niʿimmā hiya wa in tukhfūhā… fa-huwa khayrun lakum). I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

Two words, two kinds of relationship:

• بَيْع — root ب-ي-ع: trading, the mutual changing of hands. That is, a relationship that runs by exchange.
• خِلَال — root خ-ل-ل: an interval, the space between two things. Khalīl — a friend; the lexicographers explain the word as "one whose love has seeped into the person" (takhallala — it entered into the gaps). That is, a relationship that runs by regard.

That the two are negated together is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading: there are two ways of obtaining a thing in this world — by paying or through someone one knows. The verse closes both. The sentence conveys not a lack but a completeness.

And the word khalīl connects with the subject of the next block: Abraham, from whom the sūra takes its name, is called khalīlu'llāh in the Qurʾān (al-Nisāʾ 4/125 — this sūra has not yet been treated in the series; I mention it only for the verbal link). I draw no connection between the negation of the word here and the coming of Abraham's prayer five verses later; I only record the word's place in the sūra.

Allāhu'lladhī khalaqa's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa wa anzala mina's-samāʾi māʾan fa-akhraja bihi mina'th-thamarāti rizqan lakum · Wa sakhkhara lakumu'l-fulka li-tajriya fi'l-baḥri bi-amrih · Wa sakhkhara lakumu'l-anhār · Wa sakhkhara lakumu'sh-shamsa wa'l-qamara dāʾibayn · Wa sakhkhara lakumu'l-layla wa'n-nahār · Wa ātākum min kulli mā saʾaltumūh · Wa in taʿuddū niʿmata'llāhi lā tuḥṣūhā · Inna'l-insāna la-ẓalūmun kaffār

"God is He who created the heavens and the earth, and sent down water from the sky and brought forth fruits with it as provision for you. He made the ships subservient to you, that they might run upon the sea by His command; and He made the rivers subservient to you. · He made the sun and the moon subservient to you, both unceasing; and the night and the day. · And He gave you of everything you asked of Him. Were you to count God's favour you could not reckon it up. Man is indeed much given to wrong, much given to covering over."

The verb is repeated four times in three verses: the ships, the rivers, the sun and the moon, the night and the day.

The root س-خ-ر: to bring a thing under submission and set it to a particular work. The lexicographers explain the word's concrete use by "making someone work without pay": sukhra — getting work done without recompense. (The same root also carries the sense sukhriyya — mockery; the lexicographers record the shared point of the two branches as "belittling someone and making him subject to one's own purpose.")

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse could have joined the list with a single verb. Its repeating the verb at every item takes the list out of being a single whole and makes it things given one by one. The sense of an enumeration is built by this repetition — and in the thirty-fourth verse it will be said, "you could not reckon them up."

The root د-ء-ب: to keep at a task without wearying, without a break. Daʾaba fī ʿamalih — he kept on at his work untiringly. Daʾb — a continuous behaviour that has become habitual.

The word comes in the dual: dāʾibayn — "both of them unceasing."

Per the method (Method) I draw a boundary: I derive from this word no modern description of the motion of the heavenly bodies. The dictionary sense of the word is "going on without a break"; what the verse says to its hearer is that the sun and the moon do their work without interruption. To produce a piece of astronomy from this would be to make the text say what it does not say.

The lexicographers differ over the understanding of the sentence, and the disagreement rests on the particle:

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

There is a fact about the language that must be recorded: the third reading is possible in Arabic because mā can be both a relative pronoun and a particle of negation. But since the continuation of the sentence (wa in taʿuddū) is tied to the idea of counting, the first two readings run more smoothly. I give this as an indication, not as a preference.

This sentence occurs in two places in the Qurʾān in exactly the same words: here and at al-Naḥl 16/18.

Sūrat al-Naḥl has not yet been treated in the series — for this reason I cannot give a cross-reference to it. A comparison of the two occurrences is work that can be done when al-Naḥl's turn comes. Here I record only that it is found in two places.

Two verbs must be recorded, and the difference between them is the whole point of the verse:

The concrete sense of the root ح-ص-ي is worth recording: ḥaṣā — a pebble. The Arabs used pebbles when counting; from this the word passed to the sense "to count out, to keep the reckoning of". The root was treated at al-Jinn 72/28 and at al-Kahf 18/49 (lā yughādiru ṣaghīratan wa lā kabīratan illā aḥṣāhā). I rely on those treatments.

And the logic of the sentence lies in this distinction: the verse does not say "you cannot count them" — it says "were you to set about counting them you could not finish." The conditional sentence grants that counting is possible; what is negated is the completing of the count.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two verbs: the verse does not forbid the counting of favours; it says that the count has no end. And this joins with the sūra's theme of thanksgiving: the subject of thanks is not what can be counted but what cannot.

Two intensive forms side by side: ẓalūm (faʿūl) and kaffār (faʿʿāl).

And their order must be recorded: ẓalūm — much given to wrong; kaffār — much given to covering over. The opposition of the sūra's seventh verse (thanks / denial) returns here in the second word.

I record this as an observation: the block begins with a counting of favours and ends with an attribute of man. And the attribute is not "unbelieving" but "covering over" — that is, making invisible what he has seen. The core of the root ك-ف-ر was analysed in al-Baqara; I do not repeat it.

And the verdict is given not to a community but to al-insān. Per the method (Method) I record it: the verse gives no name of a group, it describes a human tendency — and other instances of this pattern have been treated in the series (al-ʿĀdiyāt 100/6, al-Maʿārij 70/19, al-Fajr 89/15-16). I rely on those treatments.

Wa idh qāla Ibrāhīmu rabbi'jʿal hādha'l-balada āminan wa'jnubnī wa baniyya an naʿbuda'l-aṣnām

"And when Abraham said: 'My Lord! Make this town secure; and keep me and my sons away from serving idols.'"

Across seven verses nine requests are set out. In each of them two things are separately determined: what is asked and for whom it is asked.

Three things emerge from the table and must be recorded, and I give them as my own reading, their ground being the table itself:

One. Only two of the nine requests are directly for himself (2 and 5) — and both are requests for a protection or for an act of service, not requests for gain.

Two. The requests do not narrow, they widen. They begin with a town, open to his own children, then to a line of descendants, then to his parents, and at the last to all the believers. The last word of the prayer is tied to a date: yawma yaqūmu'l-ḥisāb.

Three. The address comes in two forms: rabbi (my Lord — singular) and rabbanā (our Lord — plural). And the choice is not random: in the requests concerning himself the singular predominates, in the requests that take in others the plural. This is an order that can be verified from the word order.

The same prayer occurs at al-Baqara 2/126 with one word slightly different: rabbi'jʿal hādhā baladan āminā — "make this a secure town."

The difference is one letter and the lexicographers dwell on it:

The explanation widely transmitted is this: the prayer in al-Baqara was made when there was as yet no settlement there; the prayer in Ibrāhīm after the town had been founded. I transmit this explanation; I make no claim to a definite chronology, because the text gives no date.

What was recorded in the section on al-Baqara holds here too, and I rely on it: the prayer is built in the order safety first, provision after — and the same order returns as a statement at Quraysh 106/4: alladhī aṭʿamahum min jūʿin wa āmanahum min khawf.

The order here is the same and can be verified: safety is asked for in verse 35, provision in verse 37.

The root ج-ن-ب: the side. Janb — the flank, the side. Ajnaba — he put a thing to one side, he kept it away. From the same root come ajnabī (a stranger — one who stays outside) and ijtināb (avoidance).

The form of the verb must be recorded: ajnaba is transitive and its object is the person who is kept away. That is, the prayer does not say "keep the idols away from me"; it says "draw me to one side, away from the idols."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the object of the verb: the request is not that the danger be removed — it is that he himself be positioned away from the danger. The idols remain; what is asked for is distance.

ٱلْأَصْنَام — the plural of ṣanam. The lexicographers record a distinction between ṣanam and wathan: ṣanam is generally used for what has been given a shape or form, wathan for a shapeless stone or mass. The distinction is not given identically in every source; I do not adopt a preference.

Rabbi innahunna aḍlalna kathīran mina'n-nās · Fa-man tabiʿanī fa-innahu minnī · Wa man ʿaṣānī fa-innaka Ghafūrun Raḥīm

"'My Lord! They have led many of mankind astray. Whoever follows me is of me; and whoever disobeys me — You are indeed forgiving, merciful.'"

The pronoun and the verb come in the feminine plural: innahunna aḍlalna — "they led astray."

A note on the language: in Arabic the plural of things without reason may take a feminine singular or a feminine plural pronoun. Here the feminine plural is chosen.

But what really must be recorded is the verb itself: the prayer attributes the act of leading astray to the idols. Yet an idol is a mute object.

I record this as an observation about the language: in Arabic an outcome that a thing has caused may be attributed to that thing; the lexicographers call this the attribution of an act to its cause. That is, the sentence does not give the idols a will; it names them as the occasion of the going astray.

And the same matter was treated at al-Furqān 25/17-19: there the beings that had been served denied on the day of reckoning that they had been served. I rely on that treatment.

The expression is worth recording: minnī — "is of me".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particle itself: min here conveys not a lineage but a belonging. That is, the sentence ties attachment to Abraham not to blood but to following.

And this prepares the hardest sentence in the sūra concerning the prayer.

The construction of the sentence is striking in Arabic and is a point of word order.

The answer to the conditional sentence does not logically fit the condition:

"Whoever disobeys me — You are forgiving."

The expected answer would have been a verdict: "he is not of me" or "I leave him to You." Instead of this the verse sets down two names of forgiveness.

The lexicographers explain this structure thus: the answer has been elided (left unsaid) and in its place the ground of the answer has been set. In Arabic this is called ellipsis and the giving of a ground.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the incompleteness of the sentence: Abraham frames no sentence of judgement for the one who disobeys. He leaves off pronouncing the verdict and names two names of the One who will pronounce it. In the first half a belonging is declared; in the second half a denial of belonging is not framed.

And at al-Mumtaḥana 60/4 Abraham's asking forgiveness for his father was treated; it was compared there with 60/12 of the same sūra and it was recorded that the difference lies in the one addressed, not in the act itself. I rely on that treatment.

Rabbanā innī askantu min dhurriyyatī bi-wādin ghayri dhī zarʿin ʿinda baytika'l-muḥarram · Rabbanā li-yuqīmu'ṣ-ṣalāta fa'jʿal afʾidatan mina'n-nāsi tahwī ilayhim wa'rzuqhum mina'th-thamarāti laʿallahum yashkurūn

"'Our Lord! I have settled some of my offspring in a valley where nothing grows, by Your inviolable House. Our Lord! That they may hold the prayer upright. So make the hearts of some people incline towards them, and provide them with fruits — that they may give thanks.'"

The place is described by a negative attribute: ghayri dhī zarʿ — "possessing no sown crop."

The root ز-ر-ع: to put the seed into the soil. And there was a detail recorded of this root at al-Fatḥ 48/29 which can be carried over here: the word zarʿ names the work man does not do — man sows, and another brings it up. I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation: the valley is defined by the impossibility of agriculture. And two verses later what is asked for is precisely produce (wa'rzuqhum mina'th-thamarāt). That is, the prayer asks for the very thing the description makes impossible.

The root ح-ر-م: to make inviolable, to take within a forbidden precinct. Ḥaram — an area within which entry and certain acts are forbidden; iḥrām — the state assumed on entering that area.

And the construct must be recorded: baytika'l-muḥarram — a passive participle, that is, "the House that has been made inviolable." The verb is in the passive pattern; the one who confers the inviolability is stated in the construct itself: baytika — "Your House."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the inviolability is given not as the House's own attribute but as an attribute arising from whose it is.

The most striking sentence of the prayer.

أَفْـِٔدَة — the plural of fuʾād. The root ف-ء-د: the burning of an ember, catching fire. The word was treated at al-Sajda 32/9 and at al-Mulk 67/23; it was recorded there that choosing afʾida rather than qulūb carries the idea of a "centre of grasping". I rely on those treatments.

And the particle must be recorded: afʾidatan mina'n-nās — "hearts of some people." Min conveys the partitive; not all people.

A note on this particle is transmitted in the classical sources: had the prayer been in the form afʾidata'n-nās (the hearts of all people), other communities too would have turned towards that valley. This is transmitted as a fine point the lexicographers derive from the particle; I do not transmit it as a report.

The root ه-و-ي was analysed in detail in al-Qāriʿa and taken up once more in al-Nāziʿāt and at al-Najm 53/1. I do not repeat it here.

What was recorded in the section on al-Najm is decisive here, and I rely on it:

هَوَىٰ — to fall from a height downward; هَاوِيَة — the place fallen into; ٱلْهَوَىٰ — the desire of the self, the thing that drags a person down. And on the choice of the verb: "Ufūl is a disappearance; hubūṭ is a descent; hawā is a fall drawn by weight. The word says that the thing falling does not come down by its own will."

Now the question belonging here is this: why is a verb of falling used for hearts "inclining"?

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the data on the root analysed in the section on al-Najm: Arabic has other verbs for turning towards a place (tatawajjah, tamīlu, tanziʿu). The verb chosen conveys a movement that comes about not by will but by weight.

That is, the prayer asks not that people go there by deciding to, but that they be drawn towards it. And the verb's coming in the imperfect (tahwī) makes this movement continuous: not a single arrival but an ongoing flow.

And the second branch of the root carries an additional sense here: the word hawā in the Qurʾān names the desire of the self, the thing that drags a person down (recorded for ittakhadha ilāhahu hawāh at al-Furqān 25/43). The same root: in one place the pull that takes a person off the way, here the pull that turns him towards a place. I record this shared root as an observation about the word; I draw no ruling from it.

And the root will return once more in this sūra, in the forty-third verse: wa afʾidatuhum hawāʾ. The ring between the two occurrences will be tabulated separately at that verse.

And the prayer ends with the sūra's backbone word: yashkurūn.

I record this as an observation about the word order: in the seventh verse thanksgiving was a condition (la-in shakartum). Here it comes as a hope — and is made the ground of the provision. That is, the sūra uses the same concept once inside a ruling and once inside a prayer.

Rabbanā innaka taʿlamu mā nukhfī wa mā nuʿlin · Wa mā yakhfā ʿala'llāhi min shayʾin fi'l-arḍi wa lā fi's-samāʾ · Al-ḥamdu li'llāhi'lladhī wahaba lī ʿala'l-kibari Ismāʿīla wa Isḥāq · Inna rabbī la-samīʿu'd-duʿāʾ

"'Our Lord! You know what we hide and what we make known. Nothing in the earth or in the sky is hidden from God. · Praise belongs to God, who bestowed upon me, in my old age, Ishmael (Ismāʿīl) and Isaac (Isḥāq). My Lord is indeed the hearer of prayer.'"

The second half of the thirty-eighth verse must be recorded: the address changes.

Rabbanā innaka taʿlamu… (second person — Abraham is speaking) Wa mā yakhfā ʿalā Allāhi min shayʾ… (third person)

In Arabic this is called iltifāt (a shift in the direction of address) and it has been treated in many places in the series (in detail at al-Zukhruf 43/11). I do not repeat it here.

The lexicographers give two explanations of its function here:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And the first half of the thirty-eighth verse uses the same pair as the thirty-first verse of the sūra:

The same pair, once as a command and once as an acknowledgement. I record this as a weave within the sūra and it can be verified: the servant is to give in secret and openly; and for the One who knows, the difference between secret and open does not exist.

The construct is worth recording: ʿalā here conveys "in spite of".

And at al-Ḥijr 15/54 the same word will come from Abraham's mouth inside a question: a-bashshartumūnī ʿalā an massaniya'l-kibar. The two sūras give the same situation in two different moods:

The same word, once at the moment of the good news and once afterwards. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified and it will be taken up separately in the section on al-Ḥijr.

The construct must be recorded: samīʿu'd-duʿāʾ — "the hearer of prayer."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the placing of the sentence is meaningful. Abraham says this after a prayer that has already been answered — a child has been given, and then it is said "He is the hearer of prayer." That is, the attribute is drawn not from a wish but from an experience.

And this prepares the request in the next verse: rabbanā wa taqabbal duʿāʾ.

Rabbi'jʿalnī muqīma'ṣ-ṣalāti wa min dhurriyyatī · Rabbanā wa taqabbal duʿāʾ · Rabbana'ghfir lī wa li-wālidayya wa li'l-muʾminīna yawma yaqūmu'l-ḥisāb

"'My Lord! Make me one who holds the prayer upright, and some of my offspring too. Our Lord, accept my prayer. · Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents and all the believers on the day the reckoning stands.'"

The prayer does not say "let me perform the prayer." Ijʿalnī muqīma'ṣ-ṣalāt — "make me a person who holds the prayer upright."

The pattern must be recorded: muqīm is an active participle, and in Arabic the active participle, unlike a verb, can convey a settled attribute.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the pattern itself: what is asked for is not an act but an identity. Had a verb been asked for, individual prayers would have been asked for; when a noun is asked for, it is the person who performs those prayers that is asked for.

The root ق-و-م and the construct iqāmatu'ṣ-ṣalāt have been treated in many places in the series (in al-Baqara, in al-Rūm and in al-Jumuʿa). The core of the root is "to raise upright, to hold straight", and the construct conveys more than "to perform": to keep a thing standing and in good order. I rely on those treatments.

And as the request is widened a note is set: wa min dhurriyyatī — "and some of my offspring."

The same particle was there in the thirty-seventh verse too: askantu min dhurriyyatī. In both occurrences min conveys the partitive.

I record this as an observation: the prayer does not ask a guarantee for the whole of the line. And this accords with the answer given at al-Baqara 2/124 (al-Baqara) when Abraham asked for his offspring: lā yanālu ʿahdi'ẓ-ẓālimīn — "My covenant does not reach the wrongdoers." I rely on that treatment.

Abraham's asking forgiveness for his father is taken up as a question in the Qurʾān: al-Tawba 9/114 declares that this asking arose from a promise and was later abandoned; and at al-Mumtaḥina 60/4 this asking is set outside the behaviour to be taken as a model — this was treated in al-Mumtaḥana and I rely on that treatment.

In the classical commentaries the principal views transmitted for the word wālidayya (my parents) in this verse are these:

For the reading intended in the third item the sources give differing formulations; I do not attribute it to a particular reciter and I do not use this variant reading as a datum.

I transmit the views and impose no preference. And I draw no legal ruling from this question.

What the wording of the verse says is this, and I keep within it: the prayer widens in three rings — himself, his parents, all the believers.

And the last words of the prayer are a note of time.

The verb yaqūmu is from the same root as muqīma'ṣ-ṣalāt, which occurred thirteen words earlier (ق-و-م).

The same root two verses apart, once as man's work and once as that day's work. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two verbs share a root: the prayer joins with a single word the thing that is held upright and the thing that will stand up.

And the closing of the block is a turning point in the structure of the sūra: the prayer is tied to a day of reckoning, and the next verse begins to recount that day directly.

Wa lā taḥsabanna'llāha ghāfilan ʿammā yaʿmalu'ẓ-ẓālimūn · Innamā yuʾakhkhiruhum li-yawmin tashkhaṣu fīhi'l-abṣār · Muhṭiʿīna muqniʿī ruʾūsihim lā yartaddu ilayhim ṭarfuhum wa afʾidatuhum hawāʾ

"Do not suppose that God is heedless of what the wrongdoers do. He only defers them to a day on which the eyes will stare fixedly. · They hurry forward with their heads thrust up; their gaze does not come back to them, and their hearts are empty."

The verb is an emphatic prohibition: lā taḥsabanna — "do not suppose." And the one addressed is the Prophet.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse meets the possibility of the delay being read as indifference in the mind of its own addressee, not of the other side. That is, the question is treated not as an objection expected from outside but as a doubt that could arise from within.

And the same prohibition will come once more in the forty-seventh verse: fa-lā taḥsabanna'llāha mukhlifa waʿdihi rusulah. Two prohibitions, five verses apart, with the same verb.

The first concerns knowledge, the second a word given. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The verb had occurred in the messengers' call in the tenth verse: wa yuʾakhkhirakum ilā ajalin musammā — there the deferral was presented as a favour.

The same verb, in two contrary directions. I record this as my own reading, its ground being the meeting of the two occurrences: the deferral carries no verdict of itself; what determines the verdict is what the deferred time does.

And the same idea was treated at Fāṭir 35/45: wa lākin yuʾakhkhiruhum ilā ajalin musammā — there too it was recorded that the delay does not come from incapacity. I rely on that treatment.

The concrete sense of the root: a thing's rising up from its place, standing out and coming forward.

Its derivatives:

• شَخْص (shakhṣ) — a shape made out from a distance, the body of a thing becoming distinct. The Turkish word şahıs (person) is this word, and its origin is "a mass seen from afar".
• شَخَصَ بَصَرُهُ — the eye fixed on a point without moving, staring without blinking; and the heavier sense the lexicographers record: the eye opening as though it would start from its socket.
• شُخُوص — to set out from a place and take to the road.

The picture beneath the root: to rise from one's place and come forward.

I record this as an observation about the word: the verse does not convey fear by the name of an emotion. What it conveys is the behaviour of an organ — the eye leaves the place where it should be. The root of the word and the scene itself perform the same movement.

The root ه-ط-ع: to walk quickly with the neck stretched out, without turning the gaze away. The lexicographers define ihṭāʿ as "the summoned person's running with his head thrust forward". The word had occurred at al-Qamar 54/8 (muhṭiʿīna ila'd-dāʿ). I rely on that treatment.

The root ق-ن-ع. And this root carries two branches, and the lexicographers record both:

The muqniʿī ruʾūsihim of the verse is from the first branch: "with their heads held up."

The picture the two descriptions give together must be recorded: they are running, their heads are up, but their gaze does not come back to them.

The root ط-ر-ف: the tip of a thing, its edge. Ṭarf — the edge of the eyelid; and from there, the blink, the glance.

The sentence, word for word: "their gaze does not return to them."

The lexicographers explain this in two ways:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The word must be recorded: hawāʾ — root ه-و-ي.

Hawāʾ in Arabic is the void between two things: the empty space between earth and sky. And the lexicographers attach this word to the root's sense of "falling": the place one falls into, the void with no support beneath it.

And now the ring within the sūra must be recorded — this is a textual datum that can be verified:

In both verses the same two roots come side by side: fuʾād and hawā. In the thirty-seventh verse hearts fall towards a place; in the forty-third the inside of the hearts has become the very void that is fallen into.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the pairing of the roots in the two verses: what the prayer asked for was that the heart be attached to a place. The state described in the scene of the resurrection is the heart's being attached to nowhere. The sūra uses the same two words six verses apart in two contrary situations.

The lexicographers give principally two equivalents for afʾidatuhum hawāʾ:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. And both readings rest on the root's picture of "void / falling".

Wa andhiri'n-nāsa yawma yaʾtīhimu'l-ʿadhābu fa-yaqūlu'lladhīna ẓalamū rabbanā akhkhirnā ilā ajalin qarībin nujib daʿwataka wa nattabiʿi'r-rusul · A-wa-lam takūnū aqsamtum min qablu mā lakum min zawāl

"Warn people of the day the punishment comes to them. On that day the wrongdoers will say: 'Our Lord! Defer us to a near term; we will answer Your call and follow the messengers.' — 'Did you not swear before that there would be no passing away for you?'"

The verb comes for the third time in the sūra, and this time as a request:

The three occurrences draw a curve, and I record this as my own reading: the deferral was first offered, then applied, and at the last asked for. The moment it is asked for is the moment what was offered has come to an end.

The root ز-و-ل: a thing's departing from its place, its ceasing to be.

And the root will occur once more in the sūra, two verses later: wa in kāna makruhum li-tazūla minhu'l-jibāl (46). The two occurrences must be recorded:

I record this as a weave within the sūra and it can be verified: those who admit no passing away for themselves frame a scheme that would shift mountains from their places. The same root, once as a claim about themselves and once as a design concerning something else.

Wa sakantum fī masākini'lladhīna ẓalamū anfusahum wa tabayyana lakum kayfa faʿalnā bihim wa ḍarabnā lakumu'l-amthāl · Wa qad makarū makrahum wa ʿinda'llāhi makruhum wa in kāna makruhum li-tazūla minhu'l-jibāl

"You dwelt in the dwellings of those who wronged themselves; it became clear to you what We did with them, and We struck parables for you. · They schemed their scheme; but their scheme is with God — even were their scheme such as to move mountains from their places."

The verse sets out three pieces of evidence against the one addressed, and all three are given in the past tense:

I record this as an observation about the word order: the evidence is ordered from the lived to the recounted. First place, then seeing, then speech. That is, the verse enumerates every channel of knowledge the hearer has to hand.

And the third item names the very work the sūra itself is doing: al-amthāl — the parables. The sūra had given two parables in the twenty-fourth verse; in the forty-fifth it counts this as an item of evidence.

The root س-ك-ن occurs three times in the sūra: la-nuskinannakum (14 — the promise of settling), askantu min dhurriyyatī (37 — Abraham's settling), sakantum fī masākin (45 — the addressee's dwelling). Three occurrences, three different parties. This is a weave within the sūra that can be verified.

The root م-ك-ر: a hidden measure, an order laid without being noticed. The root was treated at Fāṭir 35/10 and 35/43 (wa lā yaḥīqu'l-makru's-sayyiʾu illā bi-ahlih). I rely on that treatment.

The word occurs three times in the forty-sixth verse: makarū makrahum wa ʿinda'llāhi makruhum wa in kāna makruhum.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the repetition builds an effect of accumulation. And at the second occurrence the sentence states a place: ʿinda'llāh — "with God." The scheme is not denied; its address is given.

There is a disagreement over the reading of the sentence and it changes the sense markedly:

Both readings are transmitted. I give no reciter's name and impose no preference.

The difference of sense the two readings give must be recorded: the first diminishes the scheme, the second magnifies it. And on either reading the verdict of the sentence does not change, because the verdict had been given in the preceding sentence: wa ʿinda'llāhi makruhum.

Fa-lā taḥsabanna'llāha mukhlifa waʿdihi rusulah · Inna'llāha ʿAzīzun Dhu'ntiqām · Yawma tubaddalu'l-arḍu ghayra'l-arḍi wa's-samāwāt · Wa barazū li'llāhi'l-Wāḥidi'l-Qahhār

"Do not suppose that God will break the promise He made to His messengers. God is indeed Mighty, the Lord of retribution. · On the day the earth is changed into other than the earth, and the heavens too, and they come forth before God, the One, the Overwhelming."

The construction of the construct is striking in Arabic: mukhlifa waʿdihi rusulah — "one who breaks the promise He made to His messengers."

There are two objects: waʿdahu (His promise) and rusulahu (His messengers). And the construct attaches both to the active participle.

A point of word order must be recorded: rusulah stands at the end of the sentence, although in sense it belongs to waʿd. In Arabic this postponement gives emphasis to the word placed at the end. That is, the stress falls on to whom the word was given.

And this sets up a contrast with the twenty-second verse:

The same root (خ-ل-ف), in the same sūra, once as a confession and once as a denial. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the shared root of the two occurrences and their being in the same sūra: the sūra first has the breaking of a word confessed by Satan's own mouth, then forbids it concerning the other party.

The root ن-ق-م: to find a thing abhorrent and reject it; and from there to punish. The root was treated in al-Zukhruf in the table of repetitions within that sūra and at al-Dukhān 44/16. I rely on that treatment.

The pattern of the construct must be recorded: Dhu'ntiqām — "the possessor of retribution." Not a name but a construct of possession. The lexicographers record that this pattern conveys that the attribute is attached not to the Essence but to an act.

The verb is from the same root as the twenty-eighth verse of the sūra (ب-د-ل):

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference of voice: the sūra first gives the verb of changing to man, then answers it with a change in which man is not the agent. A small changing and the greatest changing are recounted with the same root.

Different explanations of what the change is are transmitted in the classical commentaries — a change in the quality of the earth, the coming of another earth, the levelling of the earth's surface. The wording of the verse specifies none of these; for this reason I adopt no preference and do not enter into description.

ٱلْوَٰحِدِ ٱلْقَهَّار — these two names were treated together at al-Zumar 39/4 and at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/16. I rely on those treatments.

And the verb barazū comes for the second time after the twenty-first verse — this was tabulated above.

Wa tara'l-mujrimīna yawmaʾidhin muqarranīna fi'l-aṣfād · Sarābīluhum min qaṭirānin wa taghshā wujūhahumu'n-nār · Li-yajziya'llāhu kulla nafsin mā kasabat · Inna'llāha sarīʿu'l-ḥisāb

"On that day you will see the guilty bound together in fetters. · Their garments are of tar, and the fire covers their faces. · This is so that God may requite every soul for what it has earned. God is swift in reckoning."

The root ق-ر-ن: to bind two things side by side. Qarn — a horn; qarīn — a companion, one who is alongside; iqrān — to bind together. The word was treated at al-Zukhruf 43/53 (al-malāʾikatu muqtarinīn) and at 43/36 (fa-huwa lahu qarīn). I rely on that treatment.

The root ص-ف-د: a bond, a shackle. Ṣafad — a fetter; ṣafd — to bind.

The two words must be recorded together: muqarranīna fi'l-aṣfād — bound both to one another and in shackles. That is, what is described is not merely a restraint but a being together.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the verb iqrān comes without an object: the word does not say who is bound to whom. And the sūra had already recounted a being-together in the twenty-first verse: the weak and those who were arrogant, the one having followed the other. A link is set up between the two scenes; but I give this not as the wording of the verse but as my own reading.

Sarābīl, the plural of sirbāl: a shirt, a garment worn over. The word occurs at al-Naḥl 16/81 as well; that sūra has not yet been treated in the series.

قَطِرَان — tar: according to what the lexicographers record, a thick, sticky and readily flammable substance obtained from trees or from resin. It used to be smeared on the skin of camels for mange.

A difference in the variant readings is transmitted: the word has been read as qaṭirān (one word) and as qiṭrin ānin (two words: "molten copper" and "extremely hot"). On the second reading the sense changes. I give no reciter's name; I record both readings.

The choice of the word is worth recording, and I give this as an observation: three properties of tar are mentioned together — its clinging, its dark colour and its catching fire. A garment is a thing that protects; here the garment itself is what burns.

The root غ-ش-ي: to cover a thing over and envelop it. The root was analysed in al-Ghāshiya by way of the sūra's name. I do not repeat it here.

And the scene closes with a ground: li-yajziya — "so that He may requite."

I record this as an observation about the word order: this sentence, coming after two verses of description, brings the scene under a measure. The description is not left as a frightening in itself; it is named as the outcome of a reckoning.

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ سَرِيعُ ٱلْحِسَابِ — and it joins with the prayer in the forty-first verse: yawma yaqūmu'l-ḥisāb. The same word, once in Abraham's prayer and once in the sūra's verdict.

Hādhā balāghun li'n-nāsi wa li-yundharū bihi wa li-yaʿlamū annamā huwa ilāhun wāḥid · Wa li-yadhdhakkara ulu'l-albāb

"This is a conveying to people; that they may be warned by it, and may know that He is one God, and that those who possess understanding may take heed."

The root ب-ل-غ: to arrive somewhere, to reach; bulūgh, tablīgh, balāgha are from the same root.

The word was treated at al-Aḥqāf 46/35 and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment:

"A sentence of a single word: balāgh — 'it is a conveying'. The word passes a verdict about the sūra itself: the work of this text is to convey… To compel, to take on the outcome, or to call to account is not the work the text gives itself."

The difference belonging here is this, and it must be recorded: in al-Aḥqāf the word came by itself. Here an addressee is specified: balāghun li'n-nās — "a conveying to people."

And this overlaps with the first verse of the sūra: there too it was said li-tukhrija'n-nāsa. The sūra opens with the word "people" and closes with the same word. This is a frame that can be verified.

The verse sets out three grounds with three lāms and their order must be recorded:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the change of agent in the third item: the agent of the first two grounds is general (hum — people), the agent of the third narrows. That is, the work of the text does not reach everyone in the same degree; warning and knowledge belong to all, thinking to those who bear a certain attribute.

ٱلْأَلْبَٰب — the plural of lubb. The root ل-ب-ب: the kernel of a thing, its inside. The edible part inside the shell of an almond or a walnut is called lubb. The word was treated at al-Zumar 39/21 and at Ṣād 38/29. I rely on that treatment.

The picture in the word is worth recording: the intellect is named not by the name of a faculty but as the kernel inside the shell. That is, ulu'l-albāb are not "the intelligent" but "those who have a kernel".

That the asymmetry of the two conditions at 14/7 rests on four separate pieces of linguistic data; that at 14/18 the word "ashes" is the proof of a burning; that at 14/24-26 the description of the evil tree is built by taking away from the description of the good tree; that at 14/25 the condition of the fruit is not counted a guarantee; that at 14/28 the verb aḥallū qawmahum names responsibility as a decision that carries others with it; that at 14/31 bayʿ and khilāl close off two kinds of relationship at once; that at 14/34 the difference between taʿuddū and tuḥṣū negates not the counting but the finishing of the count; that at 14/35 the verb ajnaba is concerned not with the danger but with the distance; that at 14/37 the verb tahwī conveys a movement that comes about by weight and not by will; the fuʾād + hawā ring between 14/37 and 14/43; that at 14/40-41 the root ق-و-م is distributed between two different subjects; that between 14/42 and 14/10 the deferral carries no verdict of itself; that at 14/52 the three grounds are set out in narrowing order.

The textual data on which they rest (roots, patterns, particles, the order of verses) were shown separately in each case.