15. Sūrat al-Ḥijr

Ninety-nine verses. It is widely reported that it came down in the Meccan period. It takes its name from the construct أَصْحَٰبُ ٱلْحِجْرِ in the eightieth verse (the people of al-Ḥijr).

The origin of the name is worth recording: al-Ḥijr occurs in the Qurʾān only in this verse, as the name of the homeland of the people of Thamūd. And the sūra gives them only five verses (80-84). That is, the name of the sūra is taken from its short stories.

The root of the word (ح-ج-ر), however, suits the sūra as a whole — and this will be taken up separately in the eightieth verse.

The backbone of the sūra gathers into two words: ḥifẓ (preservation) and maʿlūm (known, determined).

The first: the sky is preserved (17), the reminder is preserved (9), Lot's guests are protected (65), and the people of al-Ḥijr supposed themselves protected (82 — buyūtan āminīn). The sūra compares real protection with false protection.

The second is a repetition of vocabulary that can be verified — the attribute maʿlūm occurs three times in the sūra, and all four set a boundary:

That is, throughout the sūra time, measure, respite and share — all are named as determined. This is the tightest weave of the sūra and can be verified from the text.

Alif-lām-rā · Tilka āyātu'l-kitābi wa qurʾānin mubīn

"Alif-lām-rā. These are the verses of the Book and of a clear Qurʾān."

The general note about the disconnected letters was entered in the index and repeated at Ibrāhīm 14/1. I do not repeat it here.

A point of word order must be recorded: al-kitāb is definite, qurʾānin is indefinite.

The lexicographers explain this difference in two ways:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The sense of the two names is worth recording: kitāb means what is written, qurʾān what is recited (the roots ك-ت-ب and ق-ر-أ were treated in al-ʿAlaq and at al-Qiyāma 75/17-18; I do not repeat it here).

I record this as an observation: the text names itself with two separate verbs — one belonging to writing, the other to sound. And in the ninth verse it will be named with a third name: al-dhikr — what is mentioned, what is brought to mind.

The two-way readability of the attribute mubīn (clear in itself / making clear) was set out in a table at al-Zukhruf 43/2. I rely on that treatment.

Rubamā yawaddu'lladhīna kafarū law kānū muslimīn

"Those who disbelieve will one day wish that they had been Muslims."

The particle is built of two parts: rubba + mā.

Rubba in Arabic is a particle of fewness. The classical description of the lexicographers is this: rubba is used for what is few, kam for what is many. Rubba rajulin laqītuhu — "many a man have I met" (but few in number).

And when mā is added, the particle becomes able to attach to a verb rather than a noun — rubba normally enters only upon a noun; mā opens to it the door of the verbal sentence. The lexicographers call this mā al-kāffa (the restraining mā).

Now the real matter: the verse announces that those who disbelieve will feel this regret. And it says so with a particle of fewness. Why?

The classical explanations run mainly along three lines:

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

There is a datum of word order that can be recorded, and I give it as an observation: in Arabic, when a particle of fewness is used with an unexpected piece of news, it produces not diminishment but unignorability. Had the sentence said "they will regret it much", it would stand like a prediction; when it says "they will regret it, if only a little", the weight of that little is left to the reader.

And the verb must be recorded: yawaddu — root و-د-د: to love, to desire, to wish. The word was treated at Maryam 19/96 and at al-Mumtaḥana 60/7 (mawadda). I rely on that treatment.

So what is said is not that they acquire a piece of knowledge — but that a desire is born. The verb of the sentence has to do not with the mind but with wanting.

Dharhum yaʾkulū wa yatamattaʿū wa yulhihimu'l-amal · Fa-sawfa yaʿlamūn

"Leave them; let them eat, let them take their enjoyment, and let hope divert them. Soon they will know."

The verb is from wadhara, whose perfect is not used; only the imperfect and imperative forms are current. This is a fact of the language recorded in the index at al-Insān 76/27, and it was stated there that this root must not be confused with ن-ذ-ر and ذ-ر-ر. I rely on that treatment.

The one addressed by the command is the Prophet, and what is commanded is an inaction.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the second verse of the sūra announced a future, the third says what is to be done in the present — and what is said is: do not intervene. In the ninety-fourth verse the sūra will command the opposite (fa-ṣdaʿ bimā tuʾmar). The difference between the two commands will be taken up at the end of the sūra.

The ل-ه-و root: a diversion that keeps one from a task. Lahw — an occupation that draws one away from the real work. The root was analysed in detail at al-Takāthur 102/1 (alhākumu'l-takāthur). I do not repeat it here.

The أ-م-ل root: hope, expectation. Amal — an expectation directed forward.

The word order of the verb must be recorded: yulhihimu'l-amal — the doer is hope, not they.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the doer: the sentence does not say "they are being diverted". A thing that diverts is named, and that thing is not an evil desire — it is hope.

And at al-Kahf 18/46 the same word occurred in a positive context: wa'l-bāqiyātu'l-ṣāliḥātu khayrun ʿinda Rabbika thawāban wa khayrun amalā. I rely on that treatment.

The word is the same; what changes is where it is attached. This is a verifiable overlap between sūras.

Wa mā ahlaknā min qaryatin illā wa lahā kitābun maʿlūm · Mā tasbiqu min ummatin ajalahā wa mā yastaʾkhirūn

"Every town We destroyed had a known writing. · No community can outrun its term, nor can they hold it back."

The attribute will occur four times in the sūra (4, 21, 38, and in 44 on the same pattern as maqsūm); it was set out in a table in the section on the structure.

Its use here must be recorded: kitāb and maʿlūm side by side. The word comes not as the name of a document but as a determinedness.

And the pattern of the sentence is a ḥaṣr: wa mā ahlaknā… illā… — without exception. That is, destruction, however sudden it may appear, carries a time.

The sentence is negated in two directions at once: it can neither go ahead nor fall behind.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the first verb is feminine singular (tasbiqu — for umma), the second masculine plural (yastaʾkhirūn).

I record this as an observation about the language: the sentence begins with the word umma (a community — feminine), then passes to the persons who make up the community (plural). That is, the term is attached first to the community, then to the individuals.

The same sentence occurs at al-Aʿrāf 7/34 and Yūnus 10/49 as well; these sūras have not yet been treated in the index, and I record only the places where they occur.

Wa qālū yā ayyuhā'lladhī nuzzila ʿalayhi'l-dhikru innaka la-majnūn · Law mā taʾtīnā bi'l-malāʾikati in kunta mina'l-ṣādiqīn · Mā nunazzilu'l-malāʾikata illā bi'l-ḥaqqi wa mā kānū idhan munẓarīn

"They said: 'O you upon whom the reminder has been sent down! You are surely possessed. · If you are of the truthful, why do you not bring us the angels!' · We send the angels down only with the truth; and then they would be given no respite."

The form of address must be recorded: yā ayyuhā'lladhī nuzzila ʿalayhi'l-dhikr — "O you upon whom the reminder has been sent down."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the first half of the sentence carries an acceptance — they say "the reminder was sent down to you." The second half rejects: "you are possessed." The two halves do not hold together.

The lexicographers explain this in two ways:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. On either reading the work of the sentence is the same: the claim is repeated and immediately an attempt is made to demolish it.

ٱلذِّكْر — and the third name of the Book comes here: al-dhikr. The word will return in the ninth verse and will be treated there.

Law mā, in Arabic, like hallā, is a particle conveying incitement or reproach: "why do you not do it, do it then."

The demand was treated at al-Furqān 25/7 and 25/21 (law lā unzila ilayhi malakun fa-yakūna maʿahu nadhīrā; law lā unzila ʿalaynā'l-malāʾika). I rely on that treatment.

The answer does not reject the demand — it states its condition.

Bi'l-ḥaqq is explained here by the lexicographers in two ways:

Both are transmitted. The second half of the verse lends itself to the first reading, and I record this as a supporting indication: wa mā kānū idhan munẓarīn — "and then they would have been given no respite."

From the root ن-ظ-ر, inẓār: to grant a term, to defer. And the word will return in the thirty-seventh verse of the sūra: fa-innaka mina'l-munẓarīn — the respite given to Iblīs. The same word, one a respite refused and one a respite granted. This is a repetition within the sūra that can be verified.

I record this as my own reading: the thing demanded (the coming of the angels), had it been given, would have ended the term of the one demanding it. The answer does not refuse the request; it states the price of the request.

Innā naḥnu nazzalnā'l-dhikra wa innā lahu la-ḥāfiẓūn

"It is We who sent down the reminder, and it is We who will preserve it."

The verse is one of the most densely emphasised sentences in the Qurʾān. They can be counted one by one:

Seven elements, in one sentence. I record this as an observation about the word order: the weight of the sentence is proportionate to the weight of what it says.

And the symmetry of the two halves must be recorded:

Sending down is given as a completed act, preserving as a continuing attribute. In Arabic a nominal sentence conveys continuity, a verbal sentence an event; the verse uses this distinction.

The wording of the verse says this: what was sent down is al-dhikr, and what will be preserved is that (the pronoun lahu returns to al-dhikr). Beyond this, different explanations of what the preserving covers are transmitted in the classical commentaries:

All four explanations are transmitted in the sources. I do not impose a preference, and I do not enter the debates conducted by way of this verse.

I keep within what the wording of the verse says, and I record two things:

One. The subject of the sentence is the same from beginning to end: the one who sent down and the one who preserves are the same party. The work of preserving is not handed over to another.

Two. The verb is ḥifẓ, and this root will come once more eight verses later in the sūra: wa ḥafiẓnāhā min kulli shayṭānin rajīm (17). The same verb, one for a text and one for the sky.

I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified: the sūra names preservation in two separate fields — and in both the preserving party is the same.

Wa laqad arsalnā min qablika fī shiyaʿi'l-awwalīn · Wa mā yaʾtīhim min rasūlin illā kānū bihi yastahziʾūn · Kadhālika naslukuhu fī qulūbi'l-mujrimīn · Lā yuʾminūna bihi wa qad khalat sunnatu'l-awwalīn

"We sent messengers before you among the parties of the ancients. · No messenger came to them but they mocked him. · Thus do We insert it into the hearts of the guilty. · They do not believe in it; yet the way of the ancients has passed."

The plural of shīʿa. The root ش-ي-ع: to follow someone, to go after him; and from this, a body of partisans. Tashyīʿ (seeing someone off) is from this root too: going after someone.

The word was treated at al-Rūm 30/32 (wa lā takūnū mina'l-mushrikīn… wa kānū shiyaʿā). I rely on that treatment.

The س-ل-ك root: to pass a thing through a narrow place, to insert as one threads a needle. Salaka'l-khayṭa fī'l-ibra — he threaded the thread through the needle. That is, the verb recounts a thing's being passed through somewhere.

The lexicographers differ over what the pronoun hu returns to:

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

And the continuation of the verse lends itself to the second reading: lā yuʾminūna bihi — the same pronoun is repeated. I record this as a supporting indication, not as a preference.

The voice of the verb must be recorded: naslaku — first person plural, active. This is a pattern treated in several places in the index (the sealing at al-Baqara 2/7, the turning aside of hearts at al-Ṣaff 61/5). I rely on those treatments, and what was recorded there holds here too: the verb recounts not a beginning but the registering of the end of a process — the order of the verses shows this, because the mocking is named first.

The س-ن-ن root: to make a thing flow smoothly, to open a way. Sunna — an opened road, one that is walked upon. The root was treated at al-Fatḥ 48/23 (sunnatallāh), and a boundary was set there per the method (Method): the application of the concept to contemporary events is not entered into. I rely on that treatment.

The verb must be recorded: khalat — "it has passed, it has been left behind." That is, the way is named not as a rule but as something that has happened.

Wa law fataḥnā ʿalayhim bāban mina'l-samāʾi fa-ẓallū fīhi yaʿrujūn · La-qālū innamā sukkirat abṣārunā bal naḥnu qawmun masḥūrūn

"Even if We opened a gate to them from the sky and they kept climbing up through it, · they would surely say: 'Our eyes have been dazzled; no, we are a people bewitched.'"

The sentence is built with a law (a condition unrealised), and this is the same structure treated at Fuṣṣilat 41/44: "what would they say had it been otherwise?" I rely on that treatment.

The difference here is this, and it must be recorded: in Fuṣṣilat the assumed change was the language of the Book. Here what is assumed is that the requested miracle is given in excess.

In the seventh verse the angels had been demanded. Here they are given the possibility of climbing into the sky — something beyond the demand. And the answer is again an objection.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the two verses: the sūra does not content itself with refusing the demand. It also shows what would happen if the demand were met — and what it shows is that the proof would this time be referred to perception: "our eyes have been dazzled."

The lexicographers differ over the root of the word:

Both explanations are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. And it must be recorded that both senses are counted branches of the same root: intoxication is the "closing" of the mind.

The particle bal is used in Arabic to turn from what has been said and state something more decisive (iḍrāb).

A point of word order must be recorded: in the first sentence the verb was passive and the object was "our eyes" — a partial disorder. In the second sentence the subject becomes "we" and the attribute covers the whole: qawmun masḥūrūn — a bewitched people.

I record this as an observation: the objection magnifies itself. And the point reached is this: in order not to accept what he sees, a person sacrifices his own perception.

And the word masḥūr carries an echo: the same attribute is used in the Qurʾān in the accusations directed at the Prophet. Here the other side uses it of itself. A similar usage was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/153 (innamā anta mina'l-musaḥḥarīn). I rely on that treatment.

Wa laqad jaʿalnā fī'l-samāʾi burūjan wa zayyannāhā li'l-nāẓirīn · Wa ḥafiẓnāhā min kulli shayṭānin rajīm · Illā mani'staraqa'l-samʿa fa-atbaʿahu shihābun mubīn

"We made constellations in the sky and adorned it for those who look. · And We guarded it from every accursed satan. · Except one who steals a hearing — then a clear flame pursues him."

This subject was treated in detail twice in the index: in the section on al-Jinn 72/8-9 and at al-Ṣāffāt 37/6-10. In both, these verses (15/16-18) were already named and quoted. I do not repeat the findings made there.

But the note of boundary made there must be repeated here as well:

The verse does not describe a heavenly body. It does not recount a physical event. It does not give a piece of astronomy.

Per the method (Method) this commentary does not go down that road. No matching will be made with notions such as meteorites, shooting stars or cosmic radiation.

The frame recorded in the section on al-Jinn holds here too, and I rely on it: this group of verses is part not of a lesson in cosmology but of a dispute about a source. One of the accusations directed at the Prophet in Mecca was that what he said came from a jinn; these passages are an answer to that accusation.

And it was recorded at al-Ṣāffāt that what is peculiar to al-Ṣāffāt is the "ordering" — adornment first, guarding after. The same order is here too and can be verified: zayyannāhā (16) → ḥafiẓnāhā (17).

The difference of these three verses from the other two passages lies in two words.

بُرُوج — the plural of burj. The word was treated at al-Burūj in connection with the name of that sūra, and I rely on that treatment.

The concrete sense of the root ب-ر-ج: to come out into the open, to be conspicuous, to rise. From the same root comes tabarruj (the display of adornment). And burj in the language means "a high and visible structure, a fortress tower".

There is disagreement over what the word burūj corresponds to in the Qurʾān, and it was recorded in the section on al-Burūj. The principal readings for the context here:

I do not impose a preference. And I record it per the method (Method): I do not derive from the word an astronomical classification or a star map.

The third reading agrees at the level of vocabulary with ḥafiẓnāhā in the seventeenth verse, and I record this as a supporting indication, not as a preference: a burj is a defensive structure; and immediately after it comes an announcement of guarding.

لِلنَّٰظِرِينَ — "for those who look."

This word is not in al-Ṣāffāt or in al-Mulk; it is peculiar to al-Ḥijr.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the word's absence from the other two passages: the adornment is named as having been made not for itself but for someone who looks. That is, the verse takes into the sentence the existence of one who beholds the sky. The one for whom the adornment is meant is stated.

And this agrees with the general line of the sūra: in the fourteenth verse the other side would deny what it saw even if it were taken up to a gate in the sky. Two verses later the sky is named as adorned "for those who look". I record this encounter between two verses as an observation about the word order.

The word was analysed at al-Jinn, and it was recorded there: shihāb is not the name of a heavenly body; it means flame. In the Qurʾān it is used both for the live coal Moses (Mūsā) saw (al-Naml 27/7 — bi-shihābin qabas) and here. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

The attribute here is mubīn (clear); in al-Ṣāffāt it was thāqib (piercing). The two sūras name the same thing with two different attributes: one looks to visibility, the other to penetration.

Wa'l-arḍa madadnāhā wa alqaynā fīhā rawāsiya wa anbatnā fīhā min kulli shayʾin mawzūn · Wa jaʿalnā lakum fīhā maʿāyisha wa man lastum lahu bi-rāziqīn

"And the earth We spread out; We set firm mountains in it and made grow in it of every measured thing. · And in it We made means of living for you, and for those whose provision is not from you."

The م-د-د root: to stretch, to spread, to extend. The root was treated with a near word at al-Mulk and at al-Zukhruf 43/10 (jaʿala lakumu'l-arḍa mahdā). I rely on those treatments.

I draw a boundary per the method (Method): I derive from this verb no conclusion about the shape of the earth — neither to confirm a claim nor to refute one. The lexical sense of the word is "to spread out"; what the verse says to the one it addresses is that a breadth to be walked upon has been prepared. The same boundary was set at al-Zumar 39/5 for the verb yukawwiru; I rely on that treatment.

رَوَٰسِى — the plural of rāsiya. Root ر-س-و: to be fixed in a place, to cast anchor. Mursā — the place where a ship anchors.

The verb must be recorded: alqaynā — "we cast, we set down." The lexicographers record that this verb is used here in the sense of "to place".

The و-ز-ن root: to weigh. Mīzān — the balance; wazn — weight. The root was treated in detail at al-Raḥmān 55/7-9 (wa waḍaʿa'l-mīzān). I rely on that treatment.

Mawzūn is a passive participle: "weighed, its measure determined."

The lexicographers differ over what the word corresponds to here:

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

What must be recorded is the word's place within the sūra: two verses later bi-qadarin maʿlūm (with a determined measure) will come. That is, mawzūn and qadar say the same idea with two different roots, two verses apart.

The plural of maʿīsha. The root ع-ي-ش: to live. Maʿīsha — the means of living, livelihood.

The framing of the sentence must be recorded, and the lexicographers differ over what man attaches to:

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

But the first reading says something, and I record this as my own reading, its ground being the expression lastum lahu bi-rāziqīn itself: the verse says that man is not the only one addressed on the earth. And it does this by naming creatures man does not feed. That is, the scope spills beyond man's field of responsibility.

Wa in min shayʾin illā ʿindanā khazāʾinuhu wa mā nunazziluhu illā bi-qadarin maʿlūm

"There is nothing whose storehouses are not with Us; and We send it down only in a determined measure."

The plural of khizāna. The root خ-ز-ن: to keep a thing hidden, to take it into safekeeping, to store it up. Khāzin — a treasurer, one who keeps.

The picture in the word is worth recording: a store is not what is unused but what is kept; it is held to be brought out at the moment of need.

And the pattern of the sentence is twice a ḥaṣr: wa in min shayʾin illā… and wa mā nunazziluhu illā… — two restrictions in succession, leaving no exception.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the first restriction determines the scope (nothing is excluded), the second the measure (no sending down is without measure).

The ق-د-ر root was analysed in detail at al-Qadr and taken up once more at al-Qamar 54/49 (innā kulla shayʾin khalaqnāhu bi-qadar). I do not repeat it here.

What was recorded in the section on al-Qadr holds here too, and I rely on it:

Qadara — he measured, he shaped, he determined its quantity. Its derivatives: qadar (a determined measure), miqdār, taqdīr, qudra. And the relation between determining and worth is built into the language itself: to know the qadr of a thing is to give it its right measure.

The difference belonging here is this, and it must be recorded:

In al-Qamar the measure is attached to creating, here to giving. And an attribute has been added to the measure here: maʿlūm — known. In al-Qamar this attribute is absent.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the presence of the attribute: the measure's being "known" says that there is one who knows it. That is, the verse does not merely state a quantity; it says that the quantity is not random, that it is on record. And this is the same attribute as the kitābun maʿlūm of the fourth verse of the sūra.

Wa arsalnā'l-riyāḥa lawāqiḥa fa-anzalnā mina'l-samāʾi māʾan fa-asqaynākumūh · Wa mā antum lahu bi-khāzinīn

"We sent the winds as fertilisers; We sent down water from the sky and gave it to you to drink. It is not you who store it up."

The ل-ق-ح root. The concrete sense of the root is given by the lexicographers thus: the she-camel's conceiving; and the fertilising of the date palm (talqīḥu'l-nakhl) — the transfer of the pollen of the male palm to the female.

Its derivatives: lāqiḥ — a pregnant camel; laqūḥ — one that has conceived; talqīḥ — fertilising.

The lexicographers differ over the grammatical status of the word lawāqiḥ, and this determines the sense:

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

This verse is one of the most forced verses of the modern period, and an explicit note must be entered here.

In this commentary no meteorological or botanical information is derived from the verse. No matching will be made with notions such as cloud physics, the formation of rainfall, the carrying of pollen, or condensation nuclei. The same boundary was set at al-Zumar 39/5 and at al-Ṣāffāt 37/6-10; I rely on those treatments.

The reason is this, and I give it as a note of method: the lexical sense of the word is fertilisation, and this sense existed in Arabic before the verse and after it. The one the verse addressed was a society that fertilised date palms, and it understood the word. To tear a word away from the sense its addressee understood and attach it to a piece of knowledge a thousand years later is contrary to the principle the verse itself declares: wa mā arsalnā min rasūlin illā bi-lisāni qawmihi li-yubayyina lahum (Ibrāhīm 14/4). The principle treated there works here as a boundary.

I keep within the classical explanations, and those too were given in the table: the wind is either a fertiliser (of the cloud or of the plant), or it is laden. Deciding which of these two readings is correct is not the business of this commentary.

And the sentence is joined to the preceding verse at the level of vocabulary: ʿindanā khazāʾinuhu (21) → wa mā antum lahu bi-khāzinīn (22).

The same root (خ-ز-ن), two verses apart, one positive and one negative.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the shared root in the two verses: the sūra first says where the storehouse is, then who is not the storekeeper. The two sentences together say a single thing: the holding of water is not man's work.

And there is a weave with the twentieth verse too: wa man lastum lahu bi-rāziqīn (20) — wa mā antum lahu bi-khāzinīn (22). Two negative sentences very close to one another in two verses, on the same pattern. Both name a work man does not do: one feeding, the other storing. This is a repetition of word order within the sūra that can be verified.

Wa innā la-naḥnu nuḥyī wa numītu wa naḥnu'l-wārithūn · Wa laqad ʿalimnā'l-mustaqdimīna minkum wa laqad ʿalimnā'l-mustaʾkhirīn · Wa inna Rabbaka huwa yaḥshuruhum · Innahu Ḥakīmun ʿAlīm

"We give life and We give death; and it is We who remain. · We know those of you who go ahead, and We know those who stay behind. · Your Lord will gather them. He is wise, knowing."

The و-ر-ث root: to come into possession of what is left after someone.

The word's use here must be recorded: inheritance comes about by the going of the owner. The verse says who remains after everyone has gone.

And the pattern is a plural active participle (al-wārithūn), not a verb. That is, it conveys not an event but a state.

The two words are active participles of the istifʿāl form: "those who go ahead" and "those who stay behind."

The lexicographers differ over their sense:

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

What must be recorded is the repeated framing of the sentence: wa laqad ʿalimnā… wa laqad ʿalimnā… — the verb twice, with the same emphasis.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence could have gathered the two groups under one verb. Its repeating the verb emphasises that the two groups are known separately. The knowledge is given not collectively but as directed at each of the two sides separately.

And its link with the maʿlūm weave must be recorded: in four places the sūra speaks of a determined measure; here what is known is not measures but persons.

The block closes with two names, and the second is from the same root as the verb of the block: ʿalimnā (24) → ʿAlīm (25). The verb belongs to the servant, the name to God.

Wa laqad khalaqnā'l-insāna min ṣalṣālin min ḥamaʾin masnūn · Wa'l-jānna khalaqnāhu min qablu min nāri'l-samūm

"We created man from dry clay, from a moulded black mud. · And the jānn We created before, from the fire of the scorching wind."

The root was analysed at al-Raḥmān 55/14, and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment.

A summary of what was recorded in the section on al-Raḥmān:

The root is a muḍāʿaf rubāʿī — a four-letter root built by the doubling of a two-letter core. This type of root was analysed at al-Zilzāl: doubled roots recount a repeated, back-and-forth movement and the sound that movement makes. And the first item of the list of examples given there was exactly this word: ṣalṣala — to ring, the clinking of dry clay.

The two branches the lexicographers record for the word were given there too, and I do not repeat them: one is ringing dry clay, the other clay whose smell has altered (ṣalla'l-laḥm — the meat went off).

The same word occurs in two sūras within two different constructions, and the difference must be recorded:

The difference lies at two points, and I record it as an observation about the word order:

One. In al-Raḥmān there is a comparison (ka'l-fakhkhār — like pottery); in al-Ḥijr there is a statement of what it is from (min ḥamaʾin masnūn — from this mud). One says what it resembles, the other what it is made of.

Two. The second element in al-Raḥmān looks to being fired (fakhkhār — pottery, passed through fire), the one in al-Ḥijr to being shaped. That is, the two sūras name two different stages of the same material.

I record this difference; I do not derive from the two verses an order of creation or a table of stages. The text does not recount a process.

The ح-م-أ root: thick, blackish clay whose smell has altered. Ḥamaʾ — the black mud gathered at the bottom of a pool of water. The lexicographers record the word's aspect of having darkened and gone rank.

And this word supports the second branch of ṣalṣāl — because ḥamaʾ is already clay whose smell has altered. I record this as a supporting indication.

مَّسْنُون — root س-ن-ن. The lexicographers differ over what the word corresponds to:

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

There is a shared root that must be recorded: in the thirteenth verse sunnatu'l-awwalīn occurred — the same root. And there it was in the sense of "an opened road". I set up no link of meaning between the two usages; I only record that the same root occurs in two different branches within the sūra.

The س-م-م root: pore, opening; and poison. Samūm — the scorching hot wind that works into the pores.

The word was analysed at al-Ṭūr 52/27 (wa waqānā ʿadhāba'l-samūm), and its occurrence at al-Wāqiʿa 56/42 was named there too. I rely on those treatments.

What was recorded in the section on al-Ṭūr:

The word names a phenomenon known in the desert: a waterless, very hot wind that dries a person out. And note: the word is the name of a wind.

The difference belonging here is this, and it must be recorded:

The same word: in two sūras the name of a punishment, here the material of a being. I record this as an observation about the vocabulary.

At al-Raḥmān 55/14-15 it was recorded that the two sentences are in exactly the same mould and that this conveys equal treatment of the two kinds (khalaqa'l-insāna min… / wa khalaqa'l-jānna min…). I rely on that treatment.

Here the mould is different, and this must be recorded:

In Arabic the bringing of the object before the verb conveys emphasis. And a note of time is added to it: min qablu — "before."

I record this as an observation about the word order: in al-Raḥmān the two kinds were set side by side; in al-Ḥijr the second is pulled forward in respect of time. And this is necessary for the scene that is to come immediately after: Iblīs's objection will rest on the priority of his own material.

Wa idh qāla Rabbuka li'l-malāʾikati innī khāliqun basharan min ṣalṣālin min ḥamaʾin masnūn · Fa-idhā sawwaytuhu wa nafakhtu fīhi min rūḥī fa-qaʿū lahu sājidīn · Fa-sajada'l-malāʾikatu kulluhum ajmaʿūn · Illā Iblīsa abā an yakūna maʿa'l-sājidīn

"Recall when your Lord said to the angels: 'I am creating a human being from dry clay, from a moulded black mud. · When I have shaped him and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down before him in prostration.' · All the angels prostrated together; · only Iblīs refused to be with those who prostrated."

These two stages were treated at Ṣād 38/71-74, and the expression nafakhtu fīhi min rūḥī was analysed at al-Taḥrīm 66/12. I rely on those treatments and do not repeat them.

The note of "two stages" recorded in the section on Ṣād holds here too: taswiya (the completion of the shape) and nafkh (the breathing). The command to prostrate is attached to the end of both.

The difference between Ṣād and al-Ḥijr must be recorded: in Ṣād the material was ṭīn (clay), here ṣalṣālin min ḥamaʾin masnūn. The same scene is recounted with the name of the material changed.

The و-ق-ع root: to fall, to come down upon a place. Qaʿū — "fall down, drop at once."

The verb must be recorded: the command is not "prostrate" but "fall down as those who prostrate". That is, both the movement (wuqūʿ) and the state (sājidīn) are stated.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence pictures the prostration not as a ceremony but as a falling that happens in an instant. And this will meet the word used for Iblīs in the thirty-first verse of the sūra: he abā — he held out.

In Arabic kull and ajmaʿ are both emphases of scope; the two used together leave no exception.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence closes the scope twice, and then an exception comes. That is, the exception comes not from within the scope but from outside it — and the dispute over whether Iblīs was of the angels is born here.

I do not enter this dispute. What the wording of the verse says is this: the command to prostrate was given to the angels, and Iblīs did not prostrate. In another place in the Qurʾān (al-Kahf 18/50 — al-Kahf) it is announced that Iblīs was of the jinn; I rely on that treatment and do not join the two pieces of information to set up a new ruling.

The أ-ب-ي root: to refuse outright, to have nothing to do with. The lexicographers describe ibāʾ as "the harshest form of not wanting": not the choice of not doing, but a refusal to come near doing.

And in Ṣād different words were used in the same place: istakbara wa kāna mina'l-kāfirīn (38/74).

The same event, with two different verbs. One names the cause (pride), the other the act (refusal). This is a verifiable overlap between sūras.

Qāla yā Iblīsu mā laka allā takūna maʿa'l-sājidīn · Qāla lam akun li-asjuda li-basharin khalaqtahu min ṣalṣālin min ḥamaʾin masnūn · Qāla fa-khruj minhā fa-innaka rajīm · Wa inna ʿalayka'l-laʿnata ilā yawmi'l-dīn

"'O Iblīs! What is the matter with you, that you are not with those who prostrate?' · He said: 'I am not one to prostrate before a human being You created from dry clay, from a moulded black mud.' · 'Then get out of it; you are accursed. · And upon you is the curse until the day of judgement.'"

The question is not "why did you not prostrate": mā laka allā takūna maʿa'l-sājidīn — "what is the matter with you, that you are not with those who prostrate?"

I record this as an observation about the word order: the question looks not at the act but at the rank. The matter is not a single piece of behaviour but parting from the company. And Iblīs's answer accepts exactly this point: lam akun li-asjuda — "I was not one to prostrate."

The sentence does not say "I did not prostrate". Lam akun li-asjuda — word for word: "it would not have been in my way to prostrate."

In Arabic this pattern (lām al-juḥūd) conveys that an act is contrary to the condition of the person. That is, Iblīs presents his not prostrating not as a decision but as a requirement of his own position.

And the ground must be recorded: li-basharin khalaqtahu min ṣalṣālin min ḥamaʾin masnūn.

I record this as an observation about the word order: Iblīs repeats the material of man — with the very words the verse itself used. That is, the objection does not reject the information given; it uses it as evidence.

And in Ṣād this objection was given in the form of a comparison: anā khayrun minhu khalaqtanī min nārin wa khalaqtahu min ṭīn (38/76). Here only one half of the comparison is present: he does not speak of his own material.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the comparison of the two texts: in al-Ḥijr the claim of superiority is not stated, it is assumed. The sentence puts his own position outside discussion. And the sūra had already prepared this in the twenty-seventh verse: by saying that the jinn was created before.

The referent of the pronoun is not stated in the verse. The lexicographers differ:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference, and I do not enter into a description of place.

رَجِيم — root ر-ج-م: to stone, to drive off. Rajm — stoning; rajīm — stoned, driven off.

And the word had occurred in the seventeenth verse of the sūra: min kulli shayṭānin rajīm. That is, the attribute had already been used in the sūra before it was given to Iblīs. This is a repetition within the sūra that can be verified, and I record it as an observation about the word order: the sūra recounts first the attribute, then the moment at which the attribute was laid on.

Qāla Rabbi fa-anẓirnī ilā yawmi yubʿathūn · Qāla fa-innaka mina'l-munẓarīn · Ilā yawmi'l-waqti'l-maʿlūm

"He said: 'My Lord! Then give me respite until the day they are raised.' · 'You are of those given respite · — until the day of the known time.'"

What must be recorded is the difference between what was asked and what was given:

The request is accepted, but the term is described with another word.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two expressions: Iblīs asked for a day that he himself knew (the raising). The answer bound the limit to a time that is known — but by whom it is known was not said. That is, the term is given; the knowledge that determines the term is not left to the other party.

And the attribute maʿlūm comes for the third time in the sūra (4, 21, 38) — it was set out in a table in the section on the structure.

م-ن-ظ-ر / ن-ظ-ر — inẓār: to grant a term. And the word had occurred in the eighth verse of the sūra: wa mā kānū idhan munẓarīn — had the angels been sent down they would have been given no respite.

I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified: the same word, twenty-nine verses apart, one a respite refused and one a respite granted.

Qāla Rabbi bimā aghwaytanī la-uzayyinanna lahum fī'l-arḍi wa la-ughwiyannahum ajmaʿīn · Illā ʿibādaka minhumu'l-mukhlaṣīn

"He said: 'My Lord! For Your having led me astray, I shall surely make things fair-seeming to them on the earth and shall surely lead them all astray · — except those of Your servants who have been made pure.'"

This is one of the strongest textual data of the sūra and needs to be given in a table.

The ز-ي-ن root and the verb tazyīn were treated in several places in the index. And in every place where it was treated, what was recorded was that the verb comes in the passive — that is, that the one who adorns is not named:

What the table shows is this, and I record it as my own reading, its ground being the differences of voice and person in the verbs:

One. The making of an evil deed fair-seeming is recounted in the Qurʾān with the passive pattern — in Fāṭir and in Ghāfir alike. In the section on Fāṭir this was recorded under the heading "the one who adorns is not named".

Two. The active pattern is used in two places, and in both the object is the sky — in al-Ṣāffāt and in the sixteenth verse of this sūra. That is, when the doer of the verb tazyīn is stated openly, it is attached to a good work.

Three. And the place in the Qurʾān where the verb is ascribed to Iblīs is here — and this is not a report but an undertaking out of Iblīs's own mouth.

Four. The verb comes with emphasis: la-uzayyinanna — the lām and the doubled nūn. That is, the strongest pattern of undertaking.

The sum of these four gives the following finding, and I record it as my own reading: the Qurʾān generally does not say by whom the making fair-seeming is done. And here the one who says it is not the text — it is the adorner himself. That is, the information is given not as an announcement but as a confession.

It is important to preserve this distinction: when the text recounts a person's seeing evil as beautiful, it gives no doer. The one who states the doer is the party declaring his own work.

The غ-و-ي root: to stray from the road, to go astray. Ghayy — the opposite of the right road, error.

The lexicographers differ over the function of the particle bimā:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And it must be recorded that the verb will return within the sūra: wa la-ughwiyannahum (39) → illā mani'ttabaʿaka mina'l-ghāwīn (42). The same root, one an undertaking and one a limit.

The خ-ل-ص root was analysed in detail at al-Zumar 39/1-3, and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment:

The root: a thing's being separated from what has been mixed into it and becoming pure. The straining of oil or milk and its separation from its dregs is recounted with this root. That is, ikhlāṣ is not the adding of something — but the sifting out.

And in the section on al-Zumar two patterns were set out in a table:

Now a third pattern is added here, and the difference must be worked out:

The word in the verse is al-mukhlaṣīn — a passive participle.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the pattern itself: the group Iblīs leaves outside is named not as those who become pure by their own effort but as those who have been made pure. The doer of the verb is not in the sentence; but the pattern says that the work is done from outside.

And this agrees with the other half of the verse: ʿibādaka — "Your servants." The belonging is already stated.

A difference of variant reading is transmitted, and it bears directly on this distinction: the word has been read both as mukhlaṣīn (passive participle) and as mukhliṣīn (active participle). I give no imam's name. The two readings correspond to the two patterns above and change the sense markedly; I do not impose a preference.

The same word occurs at Ṣād 38/83 as well (illā ʿibādaka minhumu'l-mukhlaṣīn) — the same sentence in two sūras, to the letter. This is a repetition that can be verified.

Qāla hādhā ṣirāṭun ʿalayya mustaqīm · Inna ʿibādī laysa laka ʿalayhim sulṭānun illā mani'ttabaʿaka mina'l-ghāwīn

"He said: 'This is a straight path leading to Me. · Over My servants you have no power — except those of the erring who follow you.'"

There is the particle ʿalā in the sentence, and the lexicographers differ over what it conveys:

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

A difference of variant reading is also transmitted: the word has also been read as ʿaliyyun (exalted); on that reading the sense becomes "this is an exalted and straight road". I give no imam's name.

What must be recorded is where the sentence is said: immediately after Iblīs's undertaking. That is, what is given in answer to a threat is the existence of a road. I record this as an observation about the word order: the answer rests not on refuting the threat but on setting something over against it.

Sulṭān — proof, argument; and the power of decision. The root س-ل-ط: to have the power of disposal over something.

And this sentence is the same as what Satan says out of his own mouth at Ibrāhīm 14/22: wa mā kāna liya ʿalaykum min sulṭānin illā an daʿawtukum fa'stajabtum lī.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two verses use the same word: the same limit is declared at the outset in one sūra and confessed at the end in the other. The two texts confirm one another.

And the exception must be recorded: illā mani'ttabaʿaka mina'l-ghāwīn — "except those of the erring who follow you."

A point of word order: the exception conveys not Satan's power but the consequence of following. The verb is ittabaʿa — to follow; that is, the movement comes from the other side. This is on the same line as the two-verb description at Ibrāhīm 14/22 (daʿawtukum / fa'stajabtum lī).

Wa inna jahannama la-mawʿiduhum ajmaʿīn · Lahā sabʿatu abwābin li-kulli bābin minhum juzʾun maqsūm

"Hell is the appointed meeting place of them all. · It has seven gates; for each gate there is an allotted portion of them."

A noun of place or time from the و-ع-د root: a place or time of meeting, an appointed point.

The choice of the word is worth recording, and I give this as an observation: hell is named here not as a place of punishment but as a place of appointment. The word carries a sense announcing that the parties come there by agreement — and this agrees with the verb ittabaʿaka (they followed) of the preceding verse.

The number is in the wording of the verse and I record it as it stands.

Various explanations of what the gates are and by what they are divided are transmitted in the classical commentaries. The wording of the verse gives no classification; for this reason I set up no table and do not enter into description.

I record it further per the method (Method): no calculation is built upon this number. The same boundary was set at al-Qadr for the thousand months; I rely on that treatment.

The ق-س-م root: to divide, to apportion. Qisma — the share set apart.

Maqsūm is a passive participle and its pattern must be recorded: the same pattern as the maʿlūm weave of the sūra. It was set out in a table in the section on the structure: maʿlūm at 4, 21, 38, and maqsūm here.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the shared pattern: throughout the sūra time, measure and respite were named as determined; here, with the same pattern, a share is determined. All four words say "not at random".

Inna'l-muttaqīna fī jannātin wa ʿuyūn · Udkhulūhā bi-salāmin āminīn · Wa nazaʿnā mā fī ṣudūrihim min ghillin ikhwānan ʿalā sururin mutaqābilīn · Lā yamassuhum fīhā naṣabun wa mā hum minhā bi-mukhrajīn

"Those who guard themselves are in gardens and springs. · 'Enter it in peace, secure.' · We drew out whatever was in their breasts of rancour; they are brothers, on couches facing one another. · No weariness touches them there, nor are they driven out of it."

The أ-م-ن root: to be secure. The root was treated at al-Baqara and at Quraysh 106/4. I rely on that treatment.

And the word will occur twice in the sūra — and the two occurrences are opposites of one another:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the two occurrences of the same word: the sūra sets the two sources of security over against one another. One is said to a person, the other he digs with his own hand. And in the eighty-third verse what the second comes to will be seen: fa-akhadhathumu'l-ṣayḥatu muṣbiḥīn.

The ن-ز-ع root: to pull a thing out of the place it is in. The root was treated at al-Nāziʿāt in connection with the name of that sūra. I rely on that treatment.

The غ-ل-ل root: a thing's entering into something secretly. Ghill — rancour hidden within, concealed enmity. From the same root come ghull (a yoke) and ghulūl (secretly taking goods from the spoils). The common core: to get inside secretly.

I record this as an observation about the vocabulary: the root of the word says that rancour settles unnoticed. And the verb (nazaʿnā — we drew out) sets up the picture of something settled being extracted. The two words together give a consistent picture: what got in secretly is taken out by force.

إِخْوَٰنًا عَلَىٰ سُرُرٍ مُّتَقَٰبِلِينَ — "facing one another."

The word mutaqābilīn was treated at al-Ṣāffāt 37/44 and at al-Wāqiʿa 56/15-16. I rely on that treatment.

The order must be recorded: first the rancour is taken out, then they sit facing one another. I record this as an observation about the word order: sitting face to face is named after what stood between has been removed.

The ن-ص-ب root: to set up; and toil, weariness. The lexicographers join the two branches by way of "the effort spent in setting a thing up".

And the last sentence must be recorded: wa mā hum minhā bi-mukhrajīn — "they are not driven out of it."

The verb is from the same root (خ-ر-ج) as the thirty-fourth verse of the sūra: qāla fa-khruj minhā fa-innaka rajīm — what was said to Iblīs.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the two occurrences of the same root: the sūra uses the act of driving out first as the name of a punishment, then gives its negation as a reward. There are fourteen verses between the two, and both are in the same block.

Nabbiʾ ʿibādī annī ana'l-Ghafūru'l-Raḥīm · Wa anna ʿadhābī huwa'l-ʿadhābu'l-alīm

"Inform My servants that I am the much-forgiving, the much-merciful · and that My punishment is the painful punishment."

The two verses are the two halves of a single sentence and are built symmetrically. But the symmetry is not complete — and the difference must be recorded:

The difference is this, and I record it as my own reading, its ground being the table: in the first sentence the predicate is attached directly to the Essence — "I am the forgiving." In the second sentence a word comes in between: the punishment. That is, it does not say "I am the one who punishes"; it says "My punishment is painful."

And while there are two names on the side of forgiveness, there is one attribute on the side of punishment.

The same balance was set up in the seventh verse of Sūrat Ibrāhīm within a conditional sentence, and four differences were set out in a table there. I rely on that treatment.

A comparison of the two places:

In two sūras the same balance is set up in two different modes, and the shared element is the same word: ʿadhābī.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the shared word order of the two texts: when the Qurʾān sets the two sides over against one another, it attaches forgiveness to the doer, and punishment not to an act but to an object. That is, "I forgive" and "My punishment is severe" do not stand on the same grammatical level. The same asymmetry is in both sūras; this is the repetition in two places of something that in a single verse could be counted a coincidence.

The ن-ب-أ root: important, new and profitable news. The root was analysed at al-Nabaʾ in connection with the name of that sūra, and the difference between nabaʾ and khabar was recorded there. I do not repeat it here.

And the verb will come once more two verses later in the sūra: wa nabbiʾhum ʿan ḍayfi Ibrāhīm (51). That is, the same command, one for two names and one for a story. I record this as an observation about the word order: immediately after giving the news of forgiveness and of punishment, the sūra begins to recount an event in which the two appear together — glad tidings for Abraham, destruction for the people of Lot.

Wa nabbiʾhum ʿan ḍayfi Ibrāhīm · Idh dakhalū ʿalayhi fa-qālū salāman qāla innā minkum wajilūn · Qālū lā tawjal innā nubashshiruka bi-ghulāmin ʿalīm

"Inform them too of the guests of Abraham. · When they entered upon him and said 'peace', he said: 'We are afraid of you.' · They said: 'Do not be afraid! We bring you glad tidings of a knowing boy.'"

The ض-ي-ف root: guest. And because in Arabic the word comes from a verbal-noun origin, it is used for both singular and plural — this is why ḍayf is singular while the verb that follows (dakhalū) is plural.

The same story was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/24-30. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

I record the differences between al-Dhāriyāt and al-Ḥijr, because this is a comparison that can be verified:

The two sūras show the same event from two different places. I record it per the method (Method): I do not enter into detail the Qurʾān does not give — who the guests were, how many they were, how they appeared, is not in the text.

The root was analysed at al-Ḥajj 22/35, and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment:

The root: shuddering with fear, an inward trembling. The lexicographers describe wajal as "the sudden stirring of the heart". And the distinguishing side of the word: khawf is generally felt at a harm to come; wajal is a momentary, bodily shudder.

What belongs here is this, and it must be recorded: the word used in al-Dhāriyāt was khīfa (from the خ-و-ف root); here it is wajal.

I record this as an observation about the vocabulary: in al-Dhāriyāt the fear was concealed (awjasa — he held it within), in al-Ḥijr it is put into words. The two sūras give two different faces of the same moment.

And the response comes with the same root: lā tawjal — "do not be afraid." That is, the answer negates the very word that was used. This is a weave that can be verified by way of the word order.

The attribute must be recorded: ʿalīm — knowing. The same attribute was used in al-Dhāriyāt too (bi-ghulāmin ʿalīm). At al-Ṣāffāt 37/101, however, bi-ghulāmin ḥalīm (forbearing) occurs.

Whether the two attributes belong to two different children or to the same one is debated in the classical commentaries. I do not enter this debate; under the rule of not entering into detail the Qurʾān does not give, I make no preference as to which verse recounts which child.

Qāla a-bashshartumūnī ʿalā an massaniya'l-kibaru fa-bima tubashshirūn · Qālū bashsharnāka bi'l-ḥaqqi fa-lā takun mina'l-qāniṭīn · Qāla wa man yaqnaṭu min raḥmati Rabbihi illā'l-ḍāllūn

"He said: 'Do you bring me glad tidings when old age has come upon me? Of what, then, do you bring me tidings?' · They said: 'We have brought you glad tidings with the truth; do not be of those who despair.' · He said: 'And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord but those who have gone astray?'"

The question is in two stages: first astonishment (a-bashshartumūnī), then a question (fa-bima tubashshirūn).

The lexicographers differ over the sense of the second question:

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

What must be recorded is what the answer is: bashsharnāka bi'l-ḥaqq — "we have brought you tidings with the truth." That is, whether or not the question was directed at the ground, the answer gives the ground.

And a difference of variant reading is transmitted: differences are conveyed as to whether the nūn at the end of the word tubashshirūn is read doubled or undoubled. It does not change the sense; I give no imam's name.

ʿAlā here conveys "in spite of". The same particle occurred at Ibrāhīm 14/39 in Abraham's praise: wahaba lī ʿalā'l-kibari Ismāʿīla wa Isḥāq.

The two sūras give the same situation in two different modes. This was recorded in the section on Ibrāhīm too, and it is an overlap that can be verified.

The verb is worth recording: massaniya — "it touched me." The م-س-س root: to touch. The word pictures old age not as a state but as something that comes from outside and makes contact.

The root was analysed at al-Zumar 39/53, and it was compared there with its occurrence at Fuṣṣilat 41/49. I rely on those treatments.

The table recorded in the section on al-Zumar:

Now a third usage is added here, and the table widens:

Four occurrences must be recorded, and they draw this sequence: man's tendency is described → it is forbidden → it is recalled to a prophet → and he repeats it in the form of a question.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the comparison of the four verses: Abraham's answer is not a defence. He does not reject the warning; he gives it back, widened. The angels said "do not be of those who despair"; he says, "and who despairs?"

The ض-ل-ل root: to lose the way. The root was treated at al-Fātiḥa and at al-Ḍuḥā 93/7. I rely on that treatment.

The pattern of the sentence must be recorded: a question + an exception. In Arabic this structure (man… illā…) is one of the strongest forms of negation: it says that despairing is equated with having lost one's way.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence does not say "despairing is wrong". It says who the one who despairs is — and the definition attaches a behaviour to a position.

Qāla fa-mā khaṭbukum ayyuhā'l-mursalūn · Qālū innā ursilnā ilā qawmin mujrimīn · Illā āla Lūṭin innā la-munajjūhum ajmaʿīn · Illā'mraʾatahu qaddarnā innahā la-mina'l-ghābirīn

"He said: 'What, then, is your real business, O messengers?' · 'We have been sent to a guilty people · — save the family of Lot; all of them we shall deliver. · Save his wife; we have determined that she is of those who stay behind.'"

The خ-ط-ب root: to speak, to address; and from this, "a matter important enough to be spoken about". Khuṭba, khiṭāb, khāṭib are from the same root.

The picture in the word is worth recording: a khaṭb is not an ordinary matter — it is a matter that requires talking about.

The same question occurs at al-Dhāriyāt 51/31 in exactly the same words: qāla fa-mā khaṭbukum ayyuhā'l-mursalūn. The same sentence in two sūras — a repetition that can be verified.

The word order must be recorded: in three verses two exceptions come one upon the other.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence narrows twice, the second from within the first. That is, deliverance is not given in the name of a family; even after the family is named, an exception remains.

And at al-Taḥrīm 66/10 the same line was treated for Lot's wife — two prophets' wives were given there as an example and it was recorded that the marriage tie does not deliver. I rely on that treatment.

The ق-د-ر root occurred in the twenty-first verse of the sūra (bi-qadarin maʿlūm). Here it returns as a verb.

The same root, one a measure and one a judgement. This is a repetition within the sūra that can be verified.

And a difference of variant reading is transmitted: the readings qaddarnā (doubled) and qadarnā (undoubled) are conveyed; the difference of sense is not marked. I give no imam's name.

ٱلْغَٰبِرِينَ — root غ-ب-ر: to stay behind; and dust (ghabara — it passed away / it stayed behind). The lexicographers record that the root is used in both directions. The sense here is "those who stay behind" — remaining together with those destroyed.

Fa-lammā jāʾa āla Lūṭini'l-mursalūn · Qāla innakum qawmun munkarūn · Qālū bal jiʾnāka bimā kānū fīhi yamtarūn · Wa ataynāka bi'l-ḥaqqi wa innā la-ṣādiqūn

"When the messengers came to the family of Lot, · Lot said: 'You are people unknown.' · They said: 'No, we have brought you the very thing they kept doubting. · We have brought you the truth; we are truthful.'"

The ن-ك-ر root: not to recognise, to find strange. Munkar — unrecognised; and from this, "not welcomed, rejected".

The same expression occurred at al-Dhāriyāt 51/25 out of Abraham's mouth: qāla salāmun qawmun munkarūn. The same sentence in two scenes, in the mouths of two different prophets. This is a repetition that can be verified.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sūra opens two encounters with the same word. In both the first reaction is not to recognise — and in both the guests introduce themselves with a piece of news.

The م-ر-ي root: to doubt, to dispute. Mirya — doubt. The lexicographers record the concrete sense of the root as "to tug at the udder in order to milk it", and explain doubt by the picture of "tugging a matter back and forth".

And the object of the word must be recorded: bimā kānū fīhi yamtarūn — "the thing they kept doubting." That is, what is brought is the very thing that was being disputed.

I record this as an observation: the answer does not give the name of the punishment. It names it by the other side's own doubt. What they were disputing is coming.

Fa-asri bi-ahlika bi-qiṭʿin mina'l-layli wa'ttabiʿ adbārahum wa lā yaltafit minkum aḥadun wa'mḍū ḥaythu tuʾmarūn · Wa qaḍaynā ilayhi dhālika'l-amra anna dābira hāʾulāʾi maqṭūʿun muṣbiḥīn

"Set out with your family in a part of the night; and follow behind them. Let none of you turn to look back. Go on to where you are commanded. · And We made known to him this decree: that by morning the last of these would be cut off."

The verse strings four commands, and their order sets up a scene:

I record this as an observation about the word order: the commands determine time, order, gaze and direction separately. Nothing is left to decision.

The س-ر-ي root: travelling by night. Sarā / asrā — he walked by night. The root was analysed at al-Isrāʾ in connection with the name of that sūra. I do not repeat it here.

ٱتَّبِعْ أَدْبَٰرَهُمْ — "follow behind them." That is, Lot is to walk last. I record this as an observation: the command asks the leader to be not in front but behind — the reason is not stated, but read together with the next command it lends itself to meaning that the company can be seen. I give this as an inference, not as the wording of the verse.

The ل-ف-ت root: to turn a thing, to change its direction. Iltifāt — to turn and look. (The same word is used in the index as a term of rhetoric in the sense of "a shift in the direction of address"; the picture in the root is the same.)

The د-ب-ر root: the back, the end of a thing. Dābir — the last remaining of a company, its root, its remnant.

The construction must be recorded: dābira hāʾulāʾi maqṭūʿun — "the back or root of these is cut." That is, the expression recounts that no one is left behind.

And ittabiʿ adbārahum (65) and dābira hāʾulāʾi (66) are from the same root. Two verses apart, one the back of those delivered and one the back of those destroyed. I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified.

مُّصْبِحِين — root ص-ب-ح: to enter upon the morning. The word will come once more in the eighty-third verse for the people of al-Ḥijr: fa-akhadhathumu'l-ṣayḥatu muṣbiḥīn. The same word, at the hour of destruction of two peoples.

Wa jāʾa ahlu'l-madīnati yastabshirūn · Qāla inna hāʾulāʾi ḍayfī fa-lā tafḍaḥūn · Wa'ttaqullāha wa lā tukhzūn · Qālū a-wa-lam nanhaka ʿani'l-ʿālamīn · Qāla hāʾulāʾi banātī in kuntum fāʿilīn

"The people of the city came rejoicing. · Lot said: 'These are my guests; do not disgrace me. · Guard yourselves against God and do not shame me.' · They said: 'Did we not forbid you the whole world?' · He said: 'Here are my daughters, if you are going to act.'"

The ب-ش-ر root and istibshār: to receive glad news, to rejoice. The root was treated at al-Najm and at al-Qiyāma; its link with bashar (skin) — the news showing in the face — was recorded there. I do not repeat it here.

Its use here must be recorded, and this is a point of word order: the same root was used thirteen verses earlier for the tidings the angels gave Abraham (nubashshiruka, bashsharnāka, tubashshirūn — 53, 54, 55).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the two occurrences of the root: the sūra uses the same root thirteen verses apart in two opposite scenes. One the glad tidings of a birth, the other a rejoicing that will become the cause of a destruction.

Two verbs, two separate roots:

• ف-ض-ح — faḍīḥa: the coming to light of a hidden fault, to be disgraced.
• خ-ز-ي — khizy: humiliation, shame.

A point of word order must be recorded: both of Lot's sentences are about himself — "do not disgrace me", "do not shame me." He speaks of the guests but frames his demand by way of himself.

I record this as an observation: the sentence rests on a social order in which a guest is counted as belonging to his host. And the sentence in the middle attaches this to a measure: wa'ttaqullāh — "guard yourselves against God." It is placed between the two sentences of shame.

The framing of the answer must be recorded: a question, and inside it a past prohibition.

The lexicographers differ over what the expression ʿani'l-ʿālamīn — "from the worlds" — corresponds to:

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

What must be recorded is by whom the sentence is framed: the party that laid down the prohibition is recalling the prohibition it laid down itself. I record this as an observation: when a community makes its own order into a norm, it names the one who does not conform to it "a breaker of the prohibition".

Different explanations of how the sentence is to be understood are transmitted in the classical commentaries:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference, and I derive no legal ruling from here.

I record it further per the method (Method): I do not enter into detail the Qurʾān does not give. The text gives no information about the number of the daughters, who they were, or how the offer was met.

What the wording of the verse says is this, and I keep within it: Lot proposed an alternative and qualified it with a conditional clause: in kuntum fāʿilīn — "if you are going to act."

La-ʿamruka innahum la-fī sakratihim yaʿmahūn · Fa-akhadhathumu'l-ṣayḥatu mushriqīn · Fa-jaʿalnā ʿāliyahā sāfilahā wa amṭarnā ʿalayhim ḥijāratan min sijjīl

"By your life, they were floundering in their drunkenness. · The blast seized them at sunrise. · We turned the place upside down and rained upon them stones of baked clay."

The ع-م-ر root: lifetime, life; and to make a place flourish (ʿimāra, maʿmūr are from the same root). The root was treated at al-Ṭūr 52/4 (al-bayti'l-maʿmūr). I rely on that treatment.

The grammatical structure of the sentence: la-ʿamruka is the subject and its predicate is elided (qasamī — "is my oath"). In Arabic this ellipsis in oaths is frequently spoken of.

What must be recorded is the object of the oath. The lexicographers differ over who is addressed by this expression:

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

And a note per the method (Method): various assessments are made in the classical commentaries about a human being's life being sworn by in the Qurʾān. I do not enter these assessments and record the wording of the verse as it stands.

سَكْرَة — root س-ك-ر: drunkenness. And the word is from the same root as the fifteenth verse of the sūra: innamā sukkirat abṣārunā.

I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified: the same root, one as an excuse and one as a diagnosis.

The ع-م-ه root: to wander about in bewilderment, to be unable to find one's direction. The lexicographers record a difference between ʿamiha and ʿamiya (to be blind): the first is the loss of insight, the second of the eye.

The ص-ي-ح root: a loud sound, a cry. The word was treated at Yāsīn 36/29 and 36/49, and at al-Qamar 54/31. I rely on those treatments.

مُشْرِقِين — root ش-ر-ق: the rising of the sun. Mushriq (here) — being at sunrise.

The note of time must be recorded: in the sixty-sixth verse muṣbiḥīn (as they entered upon the morning) had been said; here mushriqīn (as the sun rose). The two words point to two different points of the same stretch of time and both recount the same event. I record this as an observation about the word order: the hour announced and the hour that came to pass agree with one another.

The expression word for word: "we made its high its low."

A point of word order must be recorded: two words, two opposite attributes, active participles on the same pattern. The sentence gives not a description but an exchange of place.

سِجِّيل — the lexicographers differ over the sense and root of the word, and this was recorded in the index: at al-Muṭaffifīn it was stated that there are those who set up a kinship between sijjīn and sijjīl, but that this is counted weak and that the two words come from different roots; al-Anbiyāʾ relied on that record. I rely on those treatments.

At al-Dhāriyāt 51/33-34 it was recorded that ḥijāratan min ṭīn (stones of clay) is used for the same event, and that sijjīl is widely said to mean "baked clay, brick". I rely on that treatment and do not speak with certainty.

Inna fī dhālika la-āyātin li'l-mutawassimīn · Wa innahā la-bi-sabīlin muqīm · Inna fī dhālika la-āyatan li'l-muʾminīn

"In this there are signs for those who know how to read traces. · That city still stands on a road in use. · In this there is a sign for those who believe."

The root was analysed at al-Qalam 68/16, and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment:

وَسَمَ — the concrete sense of the root is to brand, to mark: wasama'l-baʿīra — he branded the camel with a hot iron. Its derivatives: sima (a brand), sīmā (a mark on the face — the word Turkish has borrowed as "sima"), mawsim (a time known by particular marks — the word Turkish has borrowed as "mevsim", season).

That the lexicographers differ over the root of the word sīmā (و-س-م / س-و-م) was recorded at al-Raḥmān and at al-Fatḥ 48/29; I rely on that treatment and do not speak with certainty.

Now what belongs here: the mutawassim pattern.

An active participle of the tafaʿʿul form, and this form in Arabic conveys effort, repetition and gradual acquisition. That is, a mutawassim is not "one who sees the brand" — but one who tries to read from the brand, who looks at the mark and draws out what lies behind it.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the pattern itself: the verse says that the lesson is not visible to everyone. But it attaches the distinction not to a privilege but to a work — the work of reading traces. The trace is in plain view; the reading of it requires an effort.

And as was recorded at al-Najm, the Qurʾān repeats the same phenomenon by attaching it to different qualities. Here this happens two verses apart:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference of number: to the one who reads traces, many signs; to the one who believes, one sign. The two do not conflict; the two do different work — one draws much out of the event, the other takes the event as a whole.

Muqīm — "standing, still upright." That is, the road is still in use.

I record this as an observation: the verse says that the ruins are not in a far and unreachable place. The lesson is not somewhere reached by turning aside — it is on a road that is travelled over.

The same line was treated at al-Ṣāffāt 37/137-138 (wa innakum la-tamurrūna ʿalayhim muṣbiḥīn). I rely on that treatment.

Wa in kāna aṣḥābu'l-Aykati la-ẓālimīn · Fa'ntaqamnā minhum wa innahumā la-bi-imāmin mubīn

"The people of al-Ayka too were wrongdoers. · So We took retribution from them. Both are on a plain road."

Ayka: root أ-ي-ك: a place thick with trees, a grove, a thicket.

The word occurred at Qāf 50/13-14 within a list of destructions and was treated there. I rely on that treatment.

Whether this community is the same as the people of Midian is debated in the classical commentaries. I do not enter this debate and fix no geographical location; the verse gives no place name, it gives an attribute: la-ẓālimīn.

The pronoun is dual: innahumā — "the two of them." That is, the homeland of the people of Lot and al-Ayka.

إِمَام — root أ-م-م: to go in front, the direction intended. Imām — the one in front, the one followed; and an open, travelled road.

The word was treated at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/5 and 28/41, and also at al-Furqān 25/74, where it was set out in a table that the same word is used in two opposite directions. I rely on those treatments.

Its use here must be recorded: the word is used not for a person but for a road.

And two verses apart two synonymous expressions come:

The same idea, with two different words. I record this as an observation about the word order: the sūra emphasises the visibility of the remains twice, with two different words.

Wa laqad kadhdhaba aṣḥābu'l-Ḥijri'l-mursalīn · Wa ātaynāhum āyātinā fa-kānū ʿanhā muʿriḍīn · Wa kānū yanḥitūna mina'l-jibāli buyūtan āminīn · Fa-akhadhathumu'l-ṣayḥatu muṣbiḥīn · Fa-mā aghnā ʿanhum mā kānū yaksibūn

"The people of al-Ḥijr too called the messengers liars. · We gave them Our signs; they turned away from them. · They used to carve secure houses out of the mountains. · The blast seized them as they entered upon the morning. · What they had earned availed them nothing."

The ح-ج-ر root was analysed in detail at al-Ḥujurāt (relying there on al-Fajr), and what was recorded there is decisive here; I rely on that treatment:

The root's basic idea is not stone but to hinder, to hold back, to enclose, to draw a boundary. Ḥajar (stone) is a member of this family because a stone is what sets a boundary and blocks passage. Ḥijr — what is forbidden, made inviolable. Ḥajr — the restriction of a person's power of disposal. Ḥijr — the lap: the area the arms enclose. Ḥujra — a room: a place separated and enclosed by a wall.

And it was further recorded in the section on al-Ḥujurāt: ح-ج-ر and ه-ج-ر are separate roots; muhājir is from the second. I preserve this note here too.

Now what belongs here:

One. Al-Ḥijr occurs in the Qurʾān only in this verse and is the name of the homeland of Thamūd.

Two. And there is a fittingness between the sense of the root and the sūra as a whole. I record this as my own reading, its ground being the core of the root analysed in al-Ḥujurāt: the root means to enclose, to draw a boundary, to take into protection. And the sūra is from beginning to end about boundary and protection: the sky was guarded (17), the reminder was guarded (9), a limit was set to Iblīs's power (42), a measure was set to the sending down of everything (21), an end was set to Iblīs's term (38), a share was allotted to the gates of hell (44).

Three. And the people who carry the name of the sūra are named precisely with a claim of "protection": yanḥitūna mina'l-jibāli buyūtan āminīn. They are making themselves a shelter out of stone.

It is hard to count this link a coincidence; but it must also not be forgotten that the name of the sūra was given later, from the word in the eightieth verse. That is, the name is not a claim of the text but a choice of the tradition. I can say that the choice was apt; I record this as my own reading. The same note was entered at al-Ḥujurāt as well.

The ن-ح-ت root: to carve, to shape a hard body by cutting.

The same verb was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/149: wa tanḥitūna mina'l-jibāli buyūtan fārihīn. I rely on that treatment.

The difference between the two sūras lies in a single word, and this is a comparison that can be verified:

And the mode of the verb differs too: in al-Shuʿarāʾ tanḥitūna (second person plural — Ṣāliḥ is speaking to them), in al-Ḥijr kānū yanḥitūna (kāna + imperfect — a habit continuing in the past).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two words: al-Shuʿarāʾ recounts their state while doing the work; al-Ḥijr recounts the result they expected from the work. And the next verse cancels that result.

The word occurs for the second time in the sūra, and its opposite is in the forty-sixth verse. It was set out in a table above; here it closes:

Two securities, two results. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the two occurrences of the same word together with the sentences that follow each: the sūra compares by two examples where security comes from. And it says that what was made of stone was brought down by a sound.

The غ-ن-ي root: needlessness; and from this, "to avail, to be of use". The root was treated at Ibrāhīm 14/8 (la-ghaniyyun ḥamīd) and at al-Masad 111/2 (mā aghnā ʿanhu māluhu). I rely on those treatments.

And the object of the verb must be recorded: mā kānū yaksibūn — "what they were earning."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not say "their houses", it says "what they earned". The scope is widened — not only houses of stone but everything acquired. And this joins with the third verse of the sūra: dharhum yaʾkulū wa yatamattaʿū — leave them, let them take their enjoyment. What the sūra left at the start it weighs here.

Wa mā khalaqnā'l-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa wa mā baynahumā illā bi'l-ḥaqq · Wa inna'l-sāʿata la-ātiyatun fa'ṣfaḥi'l-ṣafḥa'l-jamīl · Inna Rabbaka huwa'l-Khallāqu'l-ʿAlīm

"We created the heavens and the earth and what is between them only with the truth. The hour is surely coming. So forgive with a beautiful forgiveness. · Your Lord is the great creator, the knowing."

The word order must be recorded: the verse is built of three sentences and the third is joined to what precedes with fāʾ.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the command is given not as a piece of advice about managing anger but as the consequence of two announcements. If a reckoning is to be held, there is no need to hold the reckoning now.

The same structure was treated at Qāf 50/39-40: there too, after the chain of proof was complete, the command was patience and glorification. I rely on that treatment.

The root was first analysed at al-Zukhruf 43/5, and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment:

The concrete sense of the root is the name of a surface: ṣafḥa — the side of a thing, its flat face. Ṣafḥa — the cheek, the flat of a sword. Ṣafaḥa ʿanhu — he turned his face from him; and from this, he forgave, he passed over. Muṣāfaḥa — a handshake: the touching of two palms, that is, of two flat surfaces, to one another. The picture beneath the root: the turning of the flat face of a thing.

And the most important thing recorded in al-Zukhruf was that the same root is used in that sūra in two opposite rulings:

In the section on al-Zukhruf this was set out in a table as "the clearest and most verifiable link of the sūra". I rely on that treatment.

Now what belongs here: the usage in al-Ḥijr is in the same direction as the second ruling of al-Zukhruf — but it has taken an attribute.

ٱلْجَمِيل — root ج-م-ل: beauty; and gathering, bringing together (jumla, ijmāl are from the same root). The lexicographers explain jamāl by "the parts being in harmony with one another".

And in the Qurʾān this attribute is used of a bearing in three places: ṣabran jamīlā (a beautiful patience), hajran jamīlā (a beautiful parting), and here ṣafḥan jamīlā.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the idea of "harmony" in the root of the attribute: the note jamīl attaches the act not to a degree but to a form. That is, what is commanded is not "forgive much" — but "make your forgiving without reproach mixed into it, consistent in itself."

And the note wa qul salām of al-Zukhruf 43/89 is not here; the command of al-Ḥijr is completed with an attribute, the command of al-Zukhruf with a word. The two sūras give the same command with two different additions.

ٱلْخَلَّٰق — the faʿʿāl pattern, intensive. It conveys that creating is not a one-time but a continuing work. The word occurs at Yāsīn 36/81 as well (wa huwa'l-Khallāqu'l-ʿAlīm) — the same two names side by side in two sūras.

Wa laqad ātaynāka sabʿan mina'l-mathānī wa'l-Qurʾāna'l-ʿaẓīm

"We have given you seven of the paired ones and the mighty Qurʾān."

The root was analysed at al-Zumar 39/23, and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment:

ث-ن-ي: to fold, to double, to repeat. And in al-Zumar three readings were set out in a table for what the word mathānī corresponds to:

In al-Zumar no preference was made among these three readings; I make none here either.

The difference between al-Zumar and al-Ḥijr must be recorded, and it is important:

That is, in al-Zumar the word is an attribute of the whole, in al-Ḥijr the source of a part. The particle must be recorded: min here conveys partitiveness (tabʿīḍ).

In the classical commentaries the following views are chiefly transmitted about this construction:

All four views are transmitted in the sources. I do not impose a preference.

There are two linguistic data that can be recorded, and I give them as observations:

One. Sabʿan is indefinite and without a specifier — the question "seven what?" is not answered in the sentence. The verse gives the number and not the thing numbered. This is the source of the disagreement.

Two. There is a conjunction in the sentence: wa'l-Qurʾāna'l-ʿaẓīm. Disagreement arises over the function of the conjunction as well:

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

Sūrat al-Fātiḥa was treated in the index at al-Fātiḥa; the number of its verses and the question of counting the basmala were taken up there. I rely on that treatment.

I record an observation about the word order: the verse prepares the command of the eighty-eighth verse. First what has been given is named, then it is said "do not look at what is in another's hand". Had the sequence been reversed, the command would have stood bare.

Lā tamuddanna ʿaynayka ilā mā mattaʿnā bihi azwājan minhum wa lā taḥzan ʿalayhim wa'khfiḍ janāḥaka li'l-muʾminīn · Wa qul innī ana'l-nadhīru'l-mubīn

"Do not stretch your eyes towards what We have given some sections of them to enjoy; do not grieve over them, and lower your wing to the believers. · And say: 'I am a clear warner.'"

The م-د-د root: to stretch, to extend. The same root was used for the earth in the nineteenth verse of the sūra: wa'l-arḍa madadnāhā.

I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified.

And the picture in the verb must be recorded: the verse does not say "do not look". It says "do not stretch your eyes" — a movement like the gaze breaking loose from its owner and going.

And the verb is an emphatic prohibition: lā tamuddanna — with the doubled nūn.

The same expression occurs once more in the Qurʾān, almost word for word, at Ṭāhā 20/131: wa lā tamuddanna ʿaynayka ilā mā mattaʿnā bihi azwājan minhum zahrata'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā li-naftinahum fīh.

In the index Ṭāhā currently covers the range 20/1-44; that verse has not yet been analysed. A comparison of the two verses is work that can be done when its turn comes. Here I record only the difference: in Ṭāhā the sentence has two additions — zahrata'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā (the bloom of the life of this world) and li-naftinahum fīh (to test them by it). In al-Ḥijr these two additions are absent.

And at al-Kahf 18/27-31 the same matter was treated with another verb: wa lā taʿdu ʿaynāka ʿanhum turīdu zīnata'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā. I rely on that treatment.

The difference between al-Kahf and al-Ḥijr is a difference of direction and must be recorded:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particles in the two verses (ʿan / ilā): the two prohibitions are the two ends of the same gaze. One forbids whom the eye may leave, the other to whom it may reach out. And in al-Ḥijr the third command names precisely the first group: wa'khfiḍ janāḥaka li'l-muʾminīn.

أَزْوَٰجًا مِّنْهُمْ — azwāj: pairs, kinds, classes. Its sense here is "some sections or groups of them", and the lexicographers attach this to the word's sense of "mate, like": sets that resemble one another.

I record a point of word order: the verse does not say "what We have given them"; it says "what We have given some sets of them to enjoy". That is, what is given is named as belonging not to the whole community but to a part of it.

The خ-ف-ض root: to lower, to bring down. The idiom of the janāḥ (wing) was treated at al-Isrāʾ 17/24 and was set out in a table there with its occurrence at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/32. I rely on those treatments.

What was recorded in the section on al-Isrāʾ:

When the word is used of a human being it means "arm, side"; the lexicographers explain the idiom by a person's gathering himself in, and rest it on the picture of a bird spreading its wings when startled and folding them when it grows calm.

And a table was given there:

Now a third usage is added here and the one addressed changes:

At al-Isrāʾ it was recorded that this comparison "will be taken up when its turn comes". In the index al-Shuʿarāʾ currently covers the range 26/1-159; 26/215 has not yet been analysed. For this reason I give the al-Shuʿarāʾ row only as a record of vocabulary, not as a reference to a place already analysed.

I record the difference between al-Ḥijr and al-Isrāʾ as my own reading, its ground being the difference of those addressed: in al-Isrāʾ the command is given to a relation of kinship, in al-Ḥijr to a fellowship of belief. And in al-Isrāʾ there was a qualification — mina'l-raḥma (out of mercy); in al-Ḥijr this qualification is absent, and in its place the one addressed is specified.

And the place of the command must be recorded: the verse is built of three commands — do not look, do not grieve, lower your wing. The first two are against one group, the third towards another group. I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence says in a single breath where attention is to be drawn from and where it is to be given.

Kamā anzalnā ʿalā'l-muqtasimīn · Alladhīna jaʿalū'l-Qurʾāna ʿiḍīn · Fa-wa Rabbika la-nasʾalannahum ajmaʿīn · ʿAmmā kānū yaʿmalūn

"Just as We sent down upon those who divided it among themselves · — those who made the Qurʾān into pieces. · By your Lord, We shall surely question them all · — about what they were doing."

The lexicographers differ over what the sentence attaches to, and this is the most disputed aspect of the verse:

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

The ق-س-م root: to divide, to apportion. Form VIII (iqtisām) conveys reciprocity and effort: "they divided it among themselves."

Different explanations of who is meant are transmitted in the classical commentaries — a past community, or a group in Mecca who shared out the roads among themselves in order to meet those who came. I ascribe it to no particular event or name, because I do not write a report of which I am not certain.

The word's echo within the sūra must be recorded: in the forty-fourth verse juzʾun maqsūm had occurred — the share allotted to the gates of hell. The same root, one the people's own dividing and one the share allotted to them. I record this as a weave within the sūra, and it can be verified.

The lexicographers differ over the root of the word, and this determines the sense:

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

There is a datum of word order that can be recorded, and I give it as an observation: the word is in the same sentence as muqtasimīn (those who divided). Read according to the first root, the two words repeat the same idea: the dividers divided. I give this as a supporting indication, not as a preference.

An oath and an emphatic verb together: fa-wa Rabbika + la-nasʾalanna.

And what is asked about is given in the next verse: ʿammā kānū yaʿmalūn — "what they were doing."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse puts the question in one sentence and its answer in a separate verse. And what is asked about is not speech but act. Yet what is recounted in these verses was a speech — what they said about the Qurʾān. That is, the verse asks by counting saying as a deed too.

Fa'ṣdaʿ bimā tuʾmaru wa aʿriḍ ʿani'l-mushrikīn · Innā kafaynāka'l-mustahziʾīn · Alladhīna yajʿalūna maʿallāhi ilāhan ākhar · Fa-sawfa yaʿlamūn

"Bring out openly what you are commanded, and turn away from the mushrikūn. · We suffice you against those who mock. · Those who set another god alongside God. Soon they will know."

The word was named at al-Ṭāriq and this verse was pointed to there; I rely on that treatment.

The concrete sense of the root: to split a thing, to crack it. Ṣadʿ — a crack, a fissure. And the splitting of the earth for the plant is recounted in the Qurʾān with this root (al-Ṭāriq 86/12 — wa'l-arḍi dhāti'l-ṣadʿ).

What was recorded in the section on al-Ṭāriq:

Iṣdaʿ means "split through and come out, appear openly, say it openly" — to split the silence.

I record this as an observation about the vocabulary: the command is not "say" (qul) or "convey" (balligh). The word chosen pictures the splitting of a covering.

And this command meets the third verse of the sūra. This is a link within the sūra that can be verified:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the opposition of the two commands: the sūra opens with a command to "leave" and closes with a command to "declare". The two do not conflict, because their objects differ: in the first what is left is their way of living, in the second what is declared is what has been commanded.

And the second command carries the same line: wa aʿriḍ ʿani'l-mushrikīn — "turn away from them." That is, the word will be said openly, but the dispute will not be kept up. The same balance was treated at al-Aḥqāf 46/35 with the note of balāgh. I rely on that treatment.

The ك-ف-ي root: to suffice, to take a matter upon oneself and leave no need of another.

The mode of the verb must be recorded: kafaynā — perfect (past). That is, not "we shall suffice you" but "we have sufficed you."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the work is announced as finished before it is yet visible. And at Fāṭir 35/4 the same line was treated: consolation is given not by the removal of the event but by its being set in order. Here consolation is given by the announcing of the outcome in advance.

ٱلْمُسْتَهْزِءِين — and the word joins with the eleventh verse of the sūra: illā kānū bihi yastahziʾūn. The same root, one for past peoples and one for the present addressees. The sūra set up mockery as a fact of history, and at the end gives an undertaking against it.

Wa laqad naʿlamu annaka yaḍīqu ṣadruka bimā yaqūlūn · Fa-sabbiḥ bi-ḥamdi Rabbika wa kun mina'l-sājidīn

"We know that your breast is straitened by what they say. · So glorify your Lord with praise and be of those who prostrate."

The mode of the verb must be recorded: naʿlamu — imperfect (continuing). That is, not "we knew" but "we know."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence makes a finding before it offers a solution. And the finding does not treat the state of the one addressed as invalid — it names it.

The ض-ي-ق root: narrowness. Ḍayq — to be narrow. And the construction yaḍīqu ṣadruka — "your breast is straitened."

The picture in the word is worth recording: in Arabic inward distress is recounted by way of the width or narrowness of the breast. Its opposite was analysed at al-Inshirāḥ in connection with the name of that sūra: a-lam nashraḥ laka ṣadrak — the splitting open and widening of the breast. I rely on that treatment.

The same organ, two opposite states. This is a verifiable overlap between sūras.

And the cause of the narrowing is stated: bimā yaqūlūn — "by what they say." Not what they do, but what they say. This joins with the sixth verse of the sūra: innaka la-majnūn.

The response given must be recorded: two commands, and both are acts of worship.

The same structure was treated at Qāf 50/39-40, and it was recorded there: "After the chain of proof is complete, the command given to the Prophet is not to keep up the dispute; it is to be patient and to glorify." I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this, and I record it as a weave within the sūra: the expression kun mina'l-sājidīn uses the same word as the twenty-ninth and thirty-first verses of the sūra.

Three occurrences, the same word. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the word shared by the three verses: after recounting one who refused to be with those who prostrate, the sūra says to its own addressee, with the same word, "be of those who prostrate." And the difference between the two is the whole subject of the sūra.

Wa'ʿbud Rabbaka ḥattā yaʾtiyaka'l-yaqīn

"And serve your Lord until the certainty comes to you."

The root was analysed in detail at al-Takāthur 102/5, and what was recorded there holds here too; I rely on that treatment:

The complete removal of doubt; knowledge settling, becoming fixed. Some of the lexicographers record that under the root there is a sense of settling, sedimenting, coming to rest — like turbid water clearing and sinking to the bottom. Yaqīn is opinion settling into knowledge.

And in the section on al-Takāthur this very verse was named:

"Serve your Lord until the certainty comes to you" (al-Ḥijr 15/99). According to the majority of the exegetes the certainty here is death — because death is the moment about which no doubt remains.

In the classical commentaries the following views are chiefly transmitted about what the word corresponds to here:

All four views are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

The ground given for the first view is a datum that can be verified in the index, and I record it: at al-Muddaththir 74/43-47 the same construction (ḥattā atānā'l-yaqīn) occurs at the end of a speech, and what is recounted there is the ending of a group's state in this world. This is a textual indication supporting the first reading; but I do not count it by itself a ground for a preference.

And I record this as well: the second and fourth readings require the command of the verse to be for a term — they can be pulled to mean that after a certain point service would end. It is widely said that the classical commentaries reject this possibility and emphasise that the particle ḥattā here means "throughout life". I transmit this as the widespread tendency of the tradition; I ascribe it to no particular source.

And the last thing that must be recorded is the order of the last three verses of the sūra:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the arrangement of the three verses: the sūra does not close by ending the dispute outside. It closes with a command that turns back into the one addressed — and it sets a term to that command. Four times throughout the sūra a "determined" boundary was spoken of (4, 21, 38, 44); the last verse sets a boundary to the addressee's own work as well.

• At 15/16-18 no astronomical interpretation was made of the guarding of the sky and of shihāb; the boundary set at al-Jinn and al-Ṣāffāt was preserved.
• At 15/19 no conclusion about the shape of the earth was drawn from the verb madadnāhā.
• At 15/22 no meteorological or botanical information was derived from the word lawāqiḥ; the ground was rested on the principle of "the language of the one addressed" treated at Ibrāhīm 14/4.
• At 15/44 no calculation was built upon the number seven.
• At 15/51-77 details of the story not found in the Qurʾān were not entered into: the identity of the guests, the number of the daughters, the location of the city.
• At 15/80-84 no wholesale judgement was set up about any people or lineage; the attributes the verse gives (kadhdhaba, muʿriḍīn, ẓālimīn) were taken as the basis.

The naming at 15/3 of the thing that diverts as hope; the inẓār link between 15/8 and 15/37; the absence of the word li'l-nāẓirīn at 15/16 from the other two parallel passages; the positive and negative use of the khazāʾin root two verses apart at 15/21-22; the preparing of Iblīs's objection at 15/26-27 by al-Ḥijr's pulling the jinn forward in respect of time; the framing of the objection at 15/33 as one-sided, unlike the one in Ṣād; the not leaving of the knowledge to the other party at 15/38 by the binding of the term to a known time; the table of voice and person for the verb tazyīn at 15/39 and the verb's ascription to Iblīs being not an announcement but a confession; the mukhlaṣ pattern at 15/40 attaching the work to the outside; the comparison of the two securities between 15/46 and 15/82; the shared asymmetry between 15/49-50 and Ibrāhīm 14/7; Abraham's giving the warning back widened at 15/55-56; the singular/plural āya difference between 15/75 and 15/77; the fittingness between the sense of the root and the sūra as a whole at 15/80; the difference of the last word between al-Shuʿarāʾ and al-Ḥijr at 15/82; the two prohibitions in al-Kahf and al-Ḥijr at 15/88 being the two ends of the same gaze; the meeting of the two commands between 15/94 and 15/3; the three occurrences of the word sājidīn at 15/98.

The textual data they rest on (roots, patterns, particles, variant readings, orders of verses) were shown separately in each case.