al-Ḥijr 15:26-27

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.