21. Sūrat al-Anbiyāʾ

112 verses. It is widely reported that it was revealed in the Meccan period. It takes its name from the series of prophets that runs from the forty-eighth verse to the ninety-first: al-Anbiyāʾ — "the prophets". The word does not occur in the sūra itself; the name is given from the content.

The sūra opens with a sentence of report: ٱقْتَرَبَ لِلنَّاسِ حِسَابُهُمْ — "the reckoning of mankind has drawn near". No introduction, no address, no oath. The same verb (iqtarabat) opened a sūra with the same function at al-Qamar on 54/1, and it was recorded there, relying on al-Takāthur: sūras that open with a report outright are few, and the reader is set down in the middle of the scene. al-Anbiyāʾ is another member of that list.

And the spine of the sūra is this: the same verb comes once more, ninety-six verses later. The ninety-seventh verse: wa'qtaraba'l-waʿdu'l-ḥaqq — "the true promise has drawn near". Those who are in ghafla in the first verse say in their own words in the ninety-seventh that they were in ghafla: qad kunnā fī ghaflatin min hādhā. The sūra puts its opening sentence into the mouth of the one addressed at a point near the close. This is a frame that can be verified from the text and will be tabulated at the end.

And the sūra's business is the long series in the middle. Sixteen names are named one after another, and the series has a technique of its own: the stories are not told, they are called up. Noah (Nūḥ), Job (Ayyūb), Jonah (Yūnus), Zechariah (Zakariyyā) — all four enter with the same verb (nādā), and to all four the same answer is given (fa'stajabnā lah). The series records not what the prophets did but what they asked for and what they received.

And when the series ends the sūra sets down its verdict in a single sentence: inna hādhihi ummatukum ummatan wāḥidatan wa anā rabbukum fa'budūn (92). That is, the sixteen names have been ranged as the evidence of a single sentence.

The boundaries of the blocks are drawn by the text's own words, and three of them are countable:

• Block I and block VI are joined by the same verb: iqtaraba (1) — wa'qtaraba (97).
• Block II opens with lāʿibīn (16) and the same word occurs once more in block IV, in the question put to Abraham: am anta mina'l-lāʿibīn (55).
• The root waṣf occurs three times in block II and once in the last verse of block VI: mimmā taṣifūn (18) — ʿammā yaṣifūn (22) — ʿalā mā taṣifūn (112).

And the sūra's densest word is the root ذ-ك-ر: 2, 7, 10, 24, 36, 42, 48, 50, 105 — in nine verses. In this sūra the Qurʾān names itself dhikr in five separate places. This is a countable fact; it will be tabulated at the end.

Iqtaraba li'n-nāsi ḥisābuhum wa hum fī ghaflatin muʿriḍūn

"The reckoning of mankind has drawn near, while they turn away in heedlessness."

The root ق-ر-ب and the Form VIII (iftiʿāl) pattern were analysed in detail at al-Qamar on 54/1. The note there holds here as well, and its summary is this:

"Qaruba conveys being near, iqtaraba conveys the movement of nearing — it is approaching, the distance is closing."*

I do not repeat it. Here I add what is peculiar to al-Anbiyāʾ.

The Qurʾān uses this verb of a thing drawing near in three places, and all three are either treated or to be treated in this commentary:

And the difference must be recorded: in al-Qamar what draws near is the Hour — a time. Here what draws near is the reckoning — a proceeding. Time is the same for everyone; the reckoning has been ascribed to its owner: ḥisābuhum — "their reckoning".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the pronoun: the sentence does not say "the resurrection has drawn near". It names what draws near as the addressee's own file.

And there is a fronting in the word order: iqtaraba li'n-nāsi ḥisābuhum. The phrase li'n-nās has come in between the verb and its subject (ḥisābuhum).

In Arabic, fronting conveys ihtimām (giving prominence). And what is given prominence is the one addressed — not the reckoning.

I record as my own reading: the sentence first says to whom the thing has drawn near, then what has drawn near. The order leaves the weight of the news on the human being.

The wāw here is the wāw of circumstance ("while…"). And two predicates come one upon the other: fī ghaflatin (a prepositional phrase) and muʿriḍūn (an active participle).

The root غ-ف-ل: not to be aware of a thing, for the mind to be empty of it. Ghufl — that which bears no mark upon it, unbranded; ground in the desert that carries no track. So in the picture of the root there is an absence of any sign.

And the difference between the two words is worth recording, because the verse says both at once:

I record this as an observation about the structure: the two states do not normally stand together. One who is unaware cannot turn away; one who turns away is not counted unaware. The verse ascribes both at once.

And the word will occur four times in the sūra: muʿriḍūn (1), muʿriḍūn (24), muʿriḍūn (32), muʿriḍūn (42). All four in the same plural form, and all four following a proof. This is a countable fact and will be tabulated at the end.

Mā yaʾtīhim min dhikrin min rabbihim muḥdathin illa'stamaʿūhu wa hum yalʿabūn · Lāhiyatan qulūbuhum wa asarru'n-najwa'lladhīna ẓalamū hal hādhā illā basharun mithlukum a-fa-taʾtūna's-siḥra wa antum tubṣirūn

"No new remembrance comes to them from their Lord but they listen to it in play · their hearts distracted. Those who do wrong spread the whisper in secret: 'Is this anything but a human being like yourselves? Will you go to sorcery with your eyes open?'"

The word muḥdath was analysed at al-Shuʿarāʾ on 26/5. What was recorded there holds here as well:

"The root ح-د-ث: to come about afterwards, to occur. Ḥadīth — what is new, an event, a saying. مُحْدَث — a passive participle: brought into being afterwards, newly sent down. […] The word is an attribute of dhikr and looks to the moment of revelation: each newly descending portion."

And a boundary was drawn there; I repeat it here because it is necessary: it is known that the word has been connected with a debate in the history of theology. This commentary does not enter into that debate; the context of the verse is the newness of the revelation.

What emerges when the two verses are set side by side is a plain instance of the Qurʾān's interpretation by the Qurʾān:

And the difference must be recorded — these are two distinct responses:

In al-Shuʿarāʾ there is a turning away: the text is not heard. In al-Anbiyāʾ it is listened to — but in play. The second is finer than the first, because the act of listening has taken place.

Istamaʿū — Form VIII. And the burden of the form works here: samiʿa is to hear, istamaʿa is to lend an ear — deliberate listening, listening that costs effort. That is, the verse describes not an inattentive hearing but an attentive listening.

I record as my own reading, and its ground is the form: the person described in the verse is not missing the text. He is listening — and playing while he listens.

The root ل-ع-ب: work without aim, without outcome; play. The word is one of the key words of this sūra and in the sixteenth verse it will be negated of creation itself: wa mā khalaqna's-samāʾa wa'l-arḍa wa mā baynahumā lāʿibīn.

The root ل-ه-و: what keeps a person from his real business, what distracts him. The root was treated at Luqmān on 31/6 (lahwa'l-ḥadīth), at al-Jumuʿa on 62/11 and at al-Ḥadīd on 57/20. I do not repeat it here.

And the division of labour between the two words must be recorded:

I record this as an observation about the structure: the verse states first the conduct and then the heart. And lāhiyatan is in the accusative — it is a circumstantial qualifier: that is, the second clause is not the cause of the first but its state at the same moment.

Asarrū — the root أ-س-ر-ر / س-ر-ر: to conceal. Al-najwā — the root ن-ج-و: to speak head to head, in lowered voices.

And the expression is striking: "they concealed the concealed". Najwā is secret speech already; asarrū is to conceal it once more.

The lexicographers transmit two readings here:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. That certain verbs in Arabic bear two opposite senses (aḍdād) is recorded by the lexicographers; asarra has been counted among them.

وَٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا۟ — the subject comes after the verb. The grammarians' explanation: the sentence gives the act first and names its agent afterwards. And the naming is not a name but an attribute: alladhīna ẓalamū — "those who do wrong". I record this per the method (Method): what is named here is not a community but an attribute.

هَلْ هَٰذَآ إِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُكُمْ — and the content of the whisper is the objection that will be answered in the seventh verse of the sūra.

Qāla rabbī yaʿlamu'l-qawla fi's-samāʾi wa'l-arḍ, wa huwa's-samīʿu'l-ʿalīm

"He said: 'My Lord knows what is spoken in the heaven and the earth. He is the Hearing, the Knowing.'"

In the third verse there was a whisper. The fourth verse answers it with knowledge — not with content.

I record as my own reading, and its ground is the words of the two verses: the objection was spoken in secret (asarrū'n-najwā); the answer takes aim at the secrecy, not at the substance of the objection. Rabbī yaʿlamu'l-qawl — "my Lord knows what is spoken."

And the scope is given in two words: fi's-samāʾi wa'l-arḍ. The whisper was spoken on earth; the verse names the heaven too. That is, the scale is kept larger than the scale of the whisper.

A variant reading is transmitted: qāla (perfect, "he said") and qul (imperative, "say"). The direction of the sense changes — on the first the answer given by the Prophet is transmitted, on the second he is commanded to give the answer. Both readings are transmitted; I name no reciter and impose no preference. The same disagreement will appear once more in the sūra's last verse (112).

ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْعَلِيمُ — two attributes: hearing and knowing. And the order is worth recording: hearing first. The subject of the verse is what is spoken; speech is heard first.

Bal qālū aḍghāthu aḥlāmin bali'ftarāhu bal huwa shāʿir, fa'l-yaʾtinā bi-āyatin kamā ursila'l-awwalūn · Mā āmanat qablahum min qaryatin ahlaknāhā a-fa-hum yuʾminūn

"No — they said: 'A jumble of dreams!' 'No, he has invented it!' 'No, he is a poet!' Then let him bring us a sign, as the ancients were sent with one! · No town We destroyed before them believed; will these, then, believe?"

The verse turns three times with bal. And bal in Arabic is the particle that abandons the preceding statement and puts a new one in its place.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the sequence of the three bals: the three claims do not hold together. One does not say of a man who dreams that "he invented it"; one who invents is not counted a "poet". The text ranges the objections one after another without correcting them — and this arrangement shows that the objections cancel one another.

The same technique was tabulated at al-Furqān on 25/4-8: there four objections were ranged and it was recorded that "not one of them looks at what the text says". I rely on that treatment. What al-Anbiyāʾ adds is that the objections contradict one another.

أَضْغَٰث — root ض-غ-ث: a mixed bundle of stalks gathered into one handful. Ḍighth — a tangled sheaf held in the hand. And the same word occurs at Ṣād on 38/44, in the command given to Job: wa khudh bi-yadika ḍighthan. The same root, in two different offices: one the confusedness of a dream, the other a sheaf held in the hand. I give this as a note about the root.

The demand is the demand that will determine the whole sūra: āya — a visible sign.

And the answer of the sixth verse rests on a datum of history: mā āmanat qablahum min qaryatin ahlaknāhā — "no town We destroyed believed."

The logic of the sentence must be recorded: the sign demanded had been given to those before; and when it was given, they did not believe. So the answer does not reject the demand — it shows from history that the demand does not work.

A-fa-hum yuʾminūn — a question that carries its answer within it (a rhetorical question implying denial).

Wa mā arsalnā qablaka illā rijālan nūḥī ilayhim, fa'sʾalū ahla'dh-dhikri in kuntum lā taʿlamūn

"Before you too We sent none but men to whom We gave revelation. If you do not know, ask the people of the remembrance."

The objection in the third verse was: hal hādhā illā basharun mithlukum — "is this anything but a human being like yourselves?"

This objection and its answer were treated in detail at al-Furqān on 25/7 and 25/20. The note there was this:

"The answer does not reject the objection's description — it confirms it and generalises it. That is, not 'it is not so' but 'it was always so'. What was objected to is set down not as an exception but as the rule."

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it. Here I add the difference of wording between the two sūras:

And what is worth recording is this: al-Anbiyāʾ itself builds al-Furqān's sentence one verse later — lā yaʾkulūna'ṭ-ṭaʿām (8). That is, the two sūras give the same answer; one says it directly, the other inside a negation. This is a verifiable sharing of wording.

Rijāl — the root ر-ج-ل, the plural of rajul. The concrete sense of the root is rijl — the foot; rajul means one who walks, one on foot. At al-Furqān the objection yamshī fi'l-aswāq carried the same picture as this root.

The word conveys two things at once here, and the lexicographers record both:

The context of the verse is the first: the objection had said "he cannot be human", the answer says "it was always a human". I transmit the second aspect because it is recorded in the classical commentaries; the proof the verse builds in this context is the first. I do not impose a preference.

نُّوحِىٓ إِلَيْهِمْ — a relative clause, and it is imperfect. Not awḥaynā (perfect) but nūḥī (imperfect). The imperfect conveys continuity and renewal. That is, the distinction is not "not being human" but "receiving revelation" — and this is given as a continuing state.

There is disagreement over who is meant:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And what is to be recorded in respect of word order is this: the sentence lays down a method — in kuntum lā taʿlamūn. Not knowing is set down as the condition of asking. And the word dhikr is the second link of the root that occurs nine times in this sūra; three verses later the Qurʾān itself will be called dhikrukum.

Wa mā jaʿalnāhum jasadan lā yaʾkulūna'ṭ-ṭaʿāma wa mā kānū khālidīn · Thumma ṣadaqnāhumu'l-waʿda fa-anjaynāhum wa man nashāʾu wa ahlakna'l-musrifīn

"We did not make them bodies that eat no food, nor were they deathless. · Then We made the promise true to them: We delivered them and whom We willed, and destroyed those who went to excess."

The word is singular (jasadan), though the pronoun is plural (jaʿalnāhum). The grammarians explain this as a generic noun: "of the kind of body" — it conveys no number.

Jasad — the root ج-س-د. The lexicographers record a distinction between jasad and jism: jasad is used of a body showing no sign of life — as the Qurʾān has ʿijlan jasadan lahu khuwār of the calf (al-Aʿrāf 7/148; Ṭāhā 20/88). That is, the choice of the word hints that what the objection wanted was a lifeless appearance.

I record this as an observation about the word; I do not claim that the verse builds a ruling upon the hint.

وَمَا كَانُوا۟ خَٰلِدِينَ — and the second negation. This sentence looks at exactly the same matter as the thirty-fourth verse of the sūra: wa mā jaʿalnā li-basharin min qablika'l-khuld. There are twenty-six verses between the two, and both say the same thing. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

Ṣadaqnā — Form I, not Form II, taking two objects: "we made the promise true to them". The root ص-د-ق: a word's conforming to fact.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the sentence does not say "we kept our word". Ṣadaqnāhumu'l-waʿd — "we made the promise true to them". That is, what is made true is the word, and who is made true is the messenger.

وَمَن نَّشَآءُ — a further group is added to those delivered, and it is not named. The verse does not name it; nor do I.

ٱلْمُسْرِفِينَ — root س-ر-ف: to overstep the bound, to go past the measure. And the choice of the word is worth recording: those destroyed are named not as kāfirūn or mushrikūn but as those who overstep the measure. The scene of the balance that will be set up in the forty-seventh verse of the sūra is the other face of the same notion. I record this as my own reading.

Laqad anzalnā ilaykum kitāban fīhi dhikrukum, a-fa-lā taʿqilūn

"Indeed We have sent down to you a Book in which is your remembrance. Will you not use your reason?"

The expression is dhikrukum, and there is disagreement over which way the construct is to be read:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. The two basic aspects of the root ذ-ك-ر — to remember, and to mention or be spoken of — are the source of this disagreement, and the root was treated at Yāsīn on 36/69 (wa mā huwa illā dhikrun wa qurʾānun mubīn) and at Ṣād on 38/1 (dhi'dh-dhikr). I do not repeat it here.

And a note within the sūra: in the seventh verse it was commanded to ask ahla'dh-dhikr; in the tenth it is said that the dhikr is in the addressee's own hands. This completes a movement of three verses: ask (7) → if you do not know (7) → you already have it (10).

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the sequence of the three verses.

أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ — root ع-ق-ل: to bind, to tether a camel. ʿIqāl — the cord tied to a camel's leg. So intelligence is, by its root, a capacity for binding: holding together what would scatter. This question occurs twice in the sūra: 10 and 67 (in Abraham's mouth). This is a countable fact.

Wa kam qaṣamnā min qaryatin kānat ẓālimatan wa anshaʾnā baʿdahā qawman ākharīn · Fa-lammā aḥassū baʾsanā idhā hum minhā yarkuḍūn

"How many a town that had gone to wrong have We broken, and raised up another people after it. · When they felt Our might, at once they were running from it."

Qaṣamnā — the root ق-ص-م. And the word is analysed here for the first time in this commentary.

The sense the lexicographers give: qaṣm is to break a thing and separate it into two parts — especially to break a bone. Qaṣama'ẓ-ẓahr — he broke the back.

And the lexicographers define it by comparing it with a sister word:

So the word conveys a break that cannot be mended. And its object is a town: qaṣamnā min qaryatin. The town has been conceived as a body that can be broken.

The root occurs only here in the Qurʾān. I give this as a note about the word.

كَانَتْ ظَالِمَةً — and the town is named not by its name but by its attribute. I record this per the method (Method): the ground of the destruction is not an identity but a quality.

وَأَنشَأْنَا بَعْدَهَا قَوْمًا ءَاخَرِينَ — the root ن-ش-أ: to bring a thing into being afresh, to raise it up. The sentence leaves no gap: in the place of what was broken a new one is set.

Yarkuḍūn — the root ر-ك-ض. The concrete sense of the root: to strike the ground with the foot. Rakaḍa'd-dābba — he spurred his mount on. From this arises the sense "to run, to take to one's heels".

And the root occurs in two places in the Qurʾān; both are in this commentary:

That verse was treated at Ṣād on 38/41-44. I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation about the root, and I do not claim that the two verses refer to one another: the same verb is attached in one place to deliverance by a command and in the other to flight in panic. The striking of the foot on the ground does two different works in the two places.

Idhā here is the idhā of surprise ("and at once") — it conveys suddenness. And aḥassū — the root ح-س-س: to make out with the senses. That is, the punishment has not yet arrived, it has been felt. The flight is not from what has come but from what has been sensed.

Lā tarkuḍū wa'rjiʿū ilā mā utriftum fīhi wa masākinikum laʿallakum tusʾalūn · Qālū yā waylanā innā kunnā ẓālimīn · Fa-mā zālat tilka daʿwāhum ḥattā jaʿalnāhum ḥaṣīdan khāmidīn

"'Do not run! Return to the luxury you were given and to your dwellings — perhaps you will be questioned.' · They said: 'Woe to us! We were indeed doing wrong.' · That did not cease to be their cry until We made them a harvested field, an extinguished fire."

Utriftum — root ت-ر-ف, Form IV passive. Taraf — to grow soft in abundance, to be indulged. Mutraf — one made insolent by ease.

The root was treated at al-Zukhruf on 43/23 (qāla mutrafūhā) and at Sabaʾ on 34/34-35. I do not repeat it here.

What I add here is the form: the verb is passive — utriftum, "you were given to luxury". That is, the being made insolent is given not as something they did of themselves but as something poured over them. I record this as an observation about the pattern.

The order of the imperatives must be recorded: lā tarkuḍū (do not run) → irjiʿū (return) → laʿallakum tusʾalūn (perhaps you will be questioned).

In the classical commentaries it is widely said that this sentence is by way of tahzīl/istihzāʾ (mockery, rebuke): their return is not really wanted; an impossibility is set out in the imperative. I transmit this as a transmitted explanation.

And in respect of word order I add this — as my own reading: the verb laʿallakum tusʾalūn is from the root س-أ-ل, and this root will build the sūra's densest sentence in the twenty-third verse: lā yusʾalu ʿammā yafʿalu wa hum yusʾalūn. The same verb, the same passive pattern. What is said by way of mockery in this group of verses is set down as a ruling in the twenty-third. This is a sharing of wording that can be verified within the sūra.

This sentence occurs in three places in the sūra, and all three come from the same mouth: the mouth of those destroyed.

Two of the three occurrences have taken place; one (46) is bound to a condition. This is a countable fact and is the sūra's most distinct refrain.

I record this as my own reading: the sūra repeats the same admission in three different spans of time — and in all three the admission comes at a time when it will be of no use.

Two words, taken from two different fields:

Khamada'n-nār — the fire went out; khāmid — that which has gone out. The lexicographers record a difference of degree between khumūd and humūd: khumūd is the ending of the flame, embers may still remain; the complete reduction to ash is called humūd.

And a point of word order is worth recording: ḥaṣīdan is singular, while khāmidīn is the plural used of rational beings (with wāw-nūn). That is, the first word names them like a thing, the second like a people. The two words carry two different treatments in the same sentence.

I record this as an observation about the structure. And the block closes here: the sūra's first block ends with a fire gone out.

Wa mā khalaqna's-samāʾa wa'l-arḍa wa mā baynahumā lāʿibīn · Law aradnā an nattakhidha lahwan la'ttakhadhnāhu min ladunnā in kunnā fāʿilīn · Bal naqdhifu bi'l-ḥaqqi ʿala'l-bāṭili fa-yadmaghuhu fa-idhā huwa zāhiq, wa lakumu'l-waylu mimmā taṣifūn

"We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them in play. · Had We wanted a diversion, We would have taken it from Our own presence — if We were to do such a thing. · No! We hurl the truth against falsehood and it crushes its skull; and at once falsehood is gone. Woe to you for what you ascribe!"

This sentence was treated in detail at al-Dukhān on 44/38, and this verse was expressly named there. The note there:

"The word is in the accusative and is a circumstantial qualifier: 'as players'. […] The sentence does not say 'we did not create'. Mā khalaqnā … lāʿibīn — what is negated is not the act but the state of the act."

And the note about bi'l-ḥaqq was treated at al-Jāthiya on 45/22 and at al-Aḥqāf on 46/3. The two notes tabulated at al-Aḥqāf were: bi'l-ḥaqq — not in vain; ajalin musammā — not without end. I rely on those treatments.

Here I add what is peculiar to al-Anbiyāʾ, and it is seen in a table of the three sūras:

And the most important difference is in the last row — I give this as my own reading: in al-Aḥqāf and al-Dukhān ḥaqq is an attribute of the creating. In al-Anbiyāʾ ḥaqq is used like a weapon: it is hurled, it strikes, it shatters. The same word: in two sūras a quality, here an act.

A difference of wording must also be recorded: al-Dukhān says al-samāwāt (plural), al-Anbiyāʾ al-samāʾ (singular). This is a verifiable difference, and I build no ruling upon it.

The seventeenth verse strengthens the negation of the sixteenth with a conditional sentence.

Law — the particle that conveys a condition unfulfilled. And the sentence is in three parts: the condition (law aradnā) → the answer (la'ttakhadhnāhu min ladunnā) → a second note (in kunnā fāʿilīn).

مِن لَّدُنَّا — "from Our own presence". And the work of this note must be recorded: the sentence does not say "we would not have taken a diversion"; it says "had we taken one, we would not have taken it from here".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the preposition: min ladunnā conveys a source. That is, the verse says that the heaven and the earth are not used as material for a diversion — what has been created is not put in the class of playthings.

In kunnā fāʿilīn — there is disagreement about it:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. On the second reading the sentence, having set up the condition, tears it up by the root.

And this is the harshest sequence of words in the sūra. Three verbs come one after another, and all three describe a physical collision.

نَقْذِفُ — root ق-ذ-ف. The sense the lexicographers give: to throw a thing far and fast, to hurl it. Qadhafa bi'l-ḥajar — he hurled the stone. The word occurs in the Qurʾān in places conveying a throwing, and in Sūrat al-Nūr it is used of slander (whence the term yarmūna/qadhf): a word too counts as a hurling.

And the prepositions must be recorded: naqdhifu bi'l-ḥaqqi ʿala'l-bāṭil. Bi conveys the instrument, ʿalā the target. That is, the truth is framed like a body hurled upon falsehood.

يَدْمَغُ — root د-م-غ. And the word is analysed here for the first time in this commentary.

Al-dimāgh — the brain. Damaghahu — he struck him on the brain, broke the skull and reached the brain. The definition the lexicographers give is extremely narrow: damgh is the blow's passing through the bone and reaching the brain; among the degrees of wounding that passed into Arab legal language, al-dāmigha is the gravest head wound, the one that tears the membrane of the brain.

So the verb does not say "it defeats" or "it silences". Yadmaghuhu — "it shatters its brain".

I do not soften the harshness of the word, because the verse does not soften it. And I record this as my own reading: the three words together build a scene of hunting or of battle. Falsehood here is not an opinion under discussion but a body that has been struck.

زَاهِق — root ز-ه-ق. This root too is analysed here for the first time in this commentary.

Zahaqa — to perish, to go out and away. And the primary use the lexicographers record: zahaqati'n-nafs — the life went out. The Qurʾān contains this use as well: wa tazhaqa anfusuhum wa hum kāfirūn (al-Tawba 9/55, 85).

That is, zāhiq does not mean "false". Zāhiq is that whose life has gone out.

Fa-idhā huwa zāhiq — and here there is the idhā of surprise: "and at once". The outcome comes without the process being told.

And an observation about the structure: two of the three verbs are imperfect (naqdhifu, yadmaghu) — that is, they convey continuity; while the outcome is given with a nominal sentence (huwa zāhiq) — that is, fixity. The throw is repeated; the outcome does not change.

وَلَكُمُ ٱلْوَيْلُ مِمَّا تَصِفُونَ — the root و-ص-ف: to describe a thing, to frame an attribute of it.

And this word is one of the frame-words of the sūra:

Three occurrences, at the beginning, the middle and the end of the sūra. This is a countable fact and will be tabulated at the end.

Wa lahu man fi's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ, wa man ʿindahu lā yastakbirūna ʿan ʿibādatihi wa lā yastaḥsirūn · Yusabbiḥūna'l-layla wa'n-nahāra lā yafturūn

"To Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and the earth. Those who are with Him are not too proud to serve Him, nor do they grow weary. · They glorify Him night and day, never pausing."

The verse removes separately the two obstacles that stand before service, and the two are of different kinds:

Yastaḥsirūn — Form X (istifʿāl), root ح-س-ر. Ḥasara — to uncover, to strip; ḥāsir — bare-headed, without armour. And from this arises the sense "one whose strength is laid bare, spent": ḥasīr — exhausted.

The root was treated at al-Mulk on 67/4: yanqalib ilayka'l-baṣaru khāsiʾan wa huwa ḥasīr — "the sight returns to you exhausted." I rely on that treatment.

And the contrast between the two verses is worth recording: in al-Mulk the eye that looks grows weary; in al-Anbiyāʾ those who are with Him do not grow weary. The same root, two opposite rulings. I record this as an observation about the root.

لَا يَفْتُرُونَ — root ف-ت-ر: for the intensity of a work to slacken, to grow slack. Futūr — a pause, a slackening of pace. And the word differs from lā yastaḥsirūn: one is to be finished, the other to slow down.

So the verse makes three negations: no unwillingness, no exhaustion, no slackening.

يُسَبِّحُونَ ٱلَّيْلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ — the root س-ب-ح was analysed in detail at al-Ṣāffāt on 37/143, and it was recorded there that the root's original sense is "to swim or glide, in water or in air, to flow along", while tasbīḥ is to hold apart, to declare transcendent. I rely on that treatment.

And there is a connection that must be recorded: the same root will be used thirteen verses later, in the thirty-third verse, of the heavenly bodies: kullun fī falakin yasbaḥūn. In the same sūra the same root, once in Form II (yusabbiḥūna), once in Form I (yasbaḥūna). This is a repetition of the root that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be taken up separately at the thirty-third verse.

Ami'ttakhadhū ālihatan mina'l-arḍi hum yunshirūn · Law kāna fīhimā ālihatun illa'llāhu la-fasadatā, fa-subḥāna'llāhi rabbi'l-ʿarshi ʿammā yaṣifūn

"Or have they taken gods from the earth who raise the dead? · Were there in the two of them gods other than God, the two would have fallen into ruin. Glory be to God, Lord of the Throne, above what they ascribe."

The proof of the twenty-second verse cannot be read on its own, because the question before it lays its ground.

The twenty-first verse asks about a function: hum yunshirūn? — "do they raise the dead?" Yunshirūn — root ن-ش-ر, Form IV: to bring the dead to life, to spread out, to unfold. And the note mina'l-arḍ is important: the source of the gods taken up is stated — from the earth. That is, the verse asks its question by recalling where the things worshipped came from.

The twenty-second verse then passes from function to order. The division of labour between the two verses is this, and I give it as my own reading:

And now I work out the verse's own word order step by step. I do not enter into the debate built upon this verse in the science of theology; what I shall do is follow the elements of the sentence itself.

The sentence consists of three parts:

1. The condition: law kāna fīhimā ālihatun illa'llāh.

Law in Arabic conveys a condition not fulfilled — "if it had been, but it was not." That is, with its very first word the sentence marks the supposition it sets up as untrue.

Fīhimā — "in the two of them": the pronoun refers to the heaven and the earth. And the heaven and the earth were named openly in the preceding verse (wa lahu man fi's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ, 19). So the referent of the pronoun is in the context.

2. The work of the particle of exception: illa'llāh.

And here there is a subtlety on which the grammarians dwell, because the sense of the sentence depends on it:

Illā here is not an exception but an attribute — it has the sense of ghayr (other than). The evidence is this: ālihatun is indefinite; in Arabic an illā coming after an indefinite mostly functions as an attribute. That is, the sentence does not mean "gods, God excepted", but "gods other than God".

The difference is not trivial and must be recorded:

The grammarians hold the second reading necessary; the first ruins the proof the sentence builds. I transmit this as a datum of language.

3. The answer: la-fasadatā.

Fasadatā — root ف-س-د, in the dual: the heaven and the earth, the two together.

And the sense of the word is decisive. Fasād, by the lexicographers' definition: a thing's departing from the state that is proper to it, the breaking down of its order. Its opposite is ṣalāḥ. The word does not say "to cease to exist" — it says to break down.

This determines what the proof is built upon, and I record it as my own reading: the verse does not say "had there been two gods the universe would not exist". It says "it would have broken down". That is, the ground of the proof is not existence but working.

And now the most striking side of the verse: the sentence does not complete its inference.

What is set up is this: if A were so, B would follow. What is not said is this: B is not so. And the conclusion that would follow from the unsaid: neither is A.

The verse does not give the second premise. After saying la-fasadatā it passes straight to glorification.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the incompleteness of the sentence: the second premise has been left to the eye of the one addressed. It is not the verse that says the heaven and the earth have not broken down, but the one who looks. The proof is, for exactly this reason, not a sentence of debate but a call to look — and the sūra will do this openly three verses later: awalam yara'lladhīna kafarū (30).

And a second observation: the verse does not say why it would break down either. No chain of causes is set up. The only thing the sentence gives is that plurality and order cannot stand together.

And the attribute chosen at the close corresponds exactly to the subject of the proof — I record this as my own reading.

Rabbu'l-ʿarsh — and the Throne is the word that appears in the Qurʾān where rule and governance are named. The verse names God not as al-Khāliq (the Creator) or al-Qādir (the Powerful) but as the Lord of the Throne.

The proof is a proof from order; and the closing attribute conveys governance. That is, the sentence seals its own subject with its own attribute.

عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ — and the word of the eighteenth verse returns. The second link.

One further note: in the classical works of theology there is a construction of proof developed from this verse and known by a technical name. This commentary does not enter into that construction — because the inference the verse itself builds is the three steps worked out above, and those steps require no apparatus of theology.

Lā yusʾalu ʿammā yafʿalu wa hum yusʾalūn

"He is not questioned about what He does; they are questioned."

And this verse must be read by its word order alone. First I record the form of the verbs, because most of the debate begins and ends here.

Both verbs are from the root س-أ-ل and both are passive:

This is the most easily missed side of the verse and must be recorded: the sentence does not say "He questions them". On neither side is the questioning party put into words. What is said is only who is the one questioned.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being that both verbs come in the passive: the verse does not set up a scene of interrogation. It separates two positions from one another.

And the verse does not stand alone. The preceding sentence had ended with rabbu'l-ʿarsh.

I record as my own reading, and its ground is this: the twenty-second verse had established that there is a single centre of governance. The twenty-third says that above that centre there is no further authority. That is, the sentence is not a declaration of privilege but a note about a chain: the chain of reckoning stops somewhere, and where it stops is not the place of those questioned but of the one not questioned.

And there is disagreement about to whom the pronoun hum refers:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. I enter only a note about word order: those named with a plural pronoun in the preceding verse were the ones who say yaṣifūn; that is the nearest referent.

I draw a boundary here per the method (Method), because this verse has often been used torn from its context.

The verse does not say that no reason is given. The evidence for this is the sūra itself, and it is read wholly from the text:

The same sūra gives a ground in four separate places. That is, the twenty-third verse does not say "there is no ground"; it says that there is no authority from which a ground may be extracted on demand.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is those four verses themselves.

And the verse has one further link within the sūra: in the thirteenth verse those destroyed were told, by way of mockery, laʿallakum tusʾalūn. The same root, the same passive pattern. The sūra uses the verb "to be questioned" first in a scene and then in a ruling.

Ami'ttakhadhū min dūnihi āliha, qul hātū burhānakum, hādhā dhikru man maʿiya wa dhikru man qablī, bal aktharuhum lā yaʿlamūna'l-ḥaqqa fa-hum muʿriḍūn · Wa mā arsalnā min qablika min rasūlin illā nūḥī ilayhi annahu lā ilāha illā ana fa'budūn

"Or have they taken gods besides Him? Say: 'Bring your proof! This is the remembrance of those with me and the remembrance of those before me.' No — most of them do not know the truth, and so they turn away. · We sent no messenger before you but that We revealed to him: there is no god but I, so serve Me."

Hātū — a verbal noun used as a verb, in the sense of "bring". Burhān — a decisive, indisputable proof. The lexicographers relate the word to bariha (to shine, to be evident); a burhān is a proof that does not leave one in the dark.

And what must be recorded is that the demand is turned back on the other side. In the fifth verse the addressees had said fa'l-yaʾtinā bi-āya — "let him bring us a sign". Here the same structure is reversed: hātū burhānakum.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the shared pattern of the two verses: one asks for a thing to be shown, the other for a thing to be argued. The two demands are not of the same kind.

هَٰذَا ذِكْرُ مَن مَّعِىَ وَذِكْرُ مَن قَبْلِى — and what is offered as proof is a text. The fourth link of the root dhikr in the sūra is here.

There is disagreement over how the expression is to be understood:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ٱلْحَقَّ فَهُم مُّعْرِضُونَ — and muʿriḍūn for the second time in the sūra. In the first verse it was tied to ghafla; here it is tied to not knowing: lā yaʿlamūna'l-ḥaqqa fa-hum muʿriḍūn. The fāʾ conveys cause.

And the twenty-fifth verse gives in advance the verdict of the series of prophets that will begin in the forty-eighth verse of the sūra.

Wa mā arsalnā min qablika min rasūlin illā nūḥī ilayhi… — it is exactly the pattern of the seventh verse: wa mā arsalnā qablaka illā rijālan nūḥī ilayhim.

The same pattern fills two different gaps. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And a point of word order: the sentence ends with fa'budūn — a plural imperative. Yet the one revealed to is a single messenger (ilayhi). That is, the address passes over to the one addressed inside the reported speech. The same shift will be made once more in the ninety-second verse: wa anā rabbukum fa'budūn. The two verses end with the same word, and the whole series of prophets stands between them.

Wa qālu'ttakhadha'r-Raḥmānu waladan subḥānahu bal ʿibādun mukramūn · Lā yasbiqūnahu bi'l-qawli wa hum bi-amrihi yaʿmalūn · Yaʿlamu mā bayna aydīhim wa mā khalfahum wa lā yashfaʿūna illā li-mani'rtaḍā wa hum min khashyatihi mushfiqūn · Wa man yaqul minhum innī ilāhun min dūnihi fa-dhālika najzīhi jahannam, kadhālika najzi'ẓ-ẓālimīn

"They said: 'The Merciful has taken a child!' Glory be to Him. No — they are honoured servants. · They do not go before Him in speech; they act by His command. · He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for one with whom He is pleased, and they tremble in awe of Him. · Whoever of them says 'I am a god besides Him' — him We recompense with Hell. Thus do We recompense the wrongdoers."

And the technique of the answer must be recorded: the claim says walad (child); the answer says ʿibād (servants).

The two words are not two names for the same relation — they are of different kinds:

And the attribute mukramūn is added: "honoured". That is, the answer does not lower the value — it changes the source of the value. Honour is bestowed; descent is shared.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the kind of the two words.

This debate was treated in detail at al-Ṣāffāt on 37/149-160 (the question of daughters and sons, and ʿibādu'llāhi'l-mukhlaṣīn). I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

ٱلرَّحْمَٰن — and the choice of the name is worth recording. The same technique was recorded at al-Shuʿarāʾ on 26/5: al-Raḥmān is set over against the turning away. So it is here too: the claim is directed at the widest name of mercy.

And the name occurs four times in the sūra: 26, 36, 42, 112. The last verse of the sūra also ends with this name: wa rabbuna'r-Raḥmānu'l-mustaʿān. This is a countable fact.

Yasbiqūnahu bi'l-qawl — "they do not go before Him in speech". The root س-ب-ق: to get ahead in a race.

And a point of word order: the boundary is set not by way of obedience but by way of speech. First not speaking, then acting by command. That is, the description puts the mouth on record before conduct.

I record this as an observation about the structure.

Intercession is bound to a condition of leave. The same note was treated at al-Najm on 53/26: wa kam min malakin fi's-samāwāti lā tughnī shafāʿatuhum shayʾan illā min baʿdi an yaʾdhana'llāhu li-man yashāʾu wa yarḍā. I rely on that treatment.

The element the two verses share is in the root ر-ض-و: in al-Najm yarḍā, here irtaḍā (Form VIII). That is, the condition is sought not in the intercessor but in the one interceded for. This is a note about word order.

وَهُم مِّنْ خَشْيَتِهِۦ مُشْفِقُونَ — and two words for fear stand together:

Shafaq, as the lexicographers record, is the thin and transitional; ishfāq takes from this the sense "to fear that a thing will thin out and snap". That is, the second word, unlike the first, carries a picture of thinness.

And the word occurs twice in the sūra: 28 (of the angels) and 49 (wa hum mina's-sāʿati mushfiqūn — of those who guard themselves). The same attribute, two different companies. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The verse is a conditional sentence: wa man yaqul minhum… — "whoever of them says". The particle of condition is man and the verb is in the jussive.

And what is to be recorded is this: a conditional sentence does not report that the event has occurred. That is, the verse does not say that any of the angels said this; it says that the rule covers everyone.

I record this as an observation about the structure. And the scope of the ruling is widened by the last sentence: kadhālika najzi'ẓ-ẓālimīn — the punishment is attached not to a name but to an attribute.

Awalam yara'lladhīna kafarū anna's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa kānatā ratqan fa-fataqnāhumā, wa jaʿalnā mina'l-māʾi kulla shayʾin ḥayy, a-fa-lā yuʾminūn

"Have those who deny not seen that the heavens and the earth were sewn together, and We tore them apart? And We made every living thing from water. Will they still not believe?"

This verse is among the Qurʾānic verses most forced in the modern period. So I draw the boundary first and then pass to the words.

The same boundary was drawn at Fuṣṣilat on 41/9-12, and I rely on that treatment. The note there:

"I do not dress the verses in modern cosmology; I neither derive a model of the universe from the word 'smoke' nor equate the days with geological ages. Such an equation would be making the text say what it does not say."

I do the same here: from this verse I derive no model of the universe, no cosmogony and no biology. I give my reasons below under a separate heading; first the text.

And the two words are exact opposites of one another. The lexicographers define them as a pair: al-ratqu ḍiddu'l-fatq.

The field shared by the two words is stitching. Ratq is to join two pieces and leave no opening between them; fatq is to unpick and part what has been joined. The Turkish word fıtık ("hernia") comes from this root (fatq) as well: the opening of the abdominal wall.

And both words occur only in this verse in the Qurʾān. I give this as a note about the words.

A point of grammar must be recorded: the subject is dual (al-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa … kānatā) but the predicate is singular: ratqan, not ratqayni.

The grammarians' explanation: ratq here is a verbal noun, and a verbal noun used as an attribute is not made dual or plural. A construction like "the two of them were a being-joined".

And the verb that follows is dual: fa-fataqnāhumā — "We tore the two apart". That is, the sentence counts one while they are joined and two after they are parted. This is an observation about the structure.

When the root shaqq was treated at al-Qamar on 54/1, a threefold distinction was set up, and it was recorded there:

"Falq opens what is closed; faṭr splits from nothing and establishes; shaqq divides what has been established."

I rely on that treatment and add this verse's word to that list. All four are roots that occur in the Qurʾān:

And this is what sets the fourth apart: only fatq has an opposite, and that opposite occurs in the same verse. That is, the verse names both states: the former state and the latter.

One further note: in the fifty-sixth verse of this same sūra faṭarahunna will occur in Abraham's mouth. Two roots in the same sūra on the same subject — one conveying the establishing, the other the parting. This is a fact that can be verified within the sūra.

The classical commentaries differ on what the verse tells, and the disagreement is real. I give the principal explanations in a table.

All three explanations are transmitted in the classical exegetical tradition. I do not impose a preference.

I enter only a note belonging to the context — and it is not a preference: the second half of the verse speaks of water and the verb is awalam yara (have they not seen). The first explanation connects directly with these two elements. I give this as a note about the context; I do not use it to eliminate the other two explanations.

In the modern period this verse has been matched with physical models of the beginning of the universe. I do not make that match in this commentary, and I write my reasons openly, because an unreasoned rejection is itself an imposition.

1. The verb asks the addressee for a seeing. Awalam yara — "have they not seen?" The addressee is the person listening to this verse in the seventh century. What is asked of him can only be something open to him. A model of the universe is not open to that addressee; rain splitting the soil is.

2. The words are words of stitching, not words of physics. Ratq and fatq speak in Arabic with the language of cloth and hide. The concrete picture of a word shows what it is used for.

3. The match makes the verse's truth depend on a model. Models in physics change. If you tie the verse to a model, the verse is shaken when the model changes. This is no kindness to the verse.

4. The verse's own aim is not a piece of knowledge but a stance. The sentence does not end with a-fa-lā yaʿlamūn (do they not know) — it ends with a-fa-lā yuʾminūn (do they not believe). What is asked is not the assent to a fact but a trust.

These are my reasons, and I record them as my own reading. I issue no ruling about what modern science says; the ruling I issue is that the verse does not speak in that field.

There are two readings of the particle min in the sentence:

And disagreement is transmitted about the scope of the term kulla shayʾin ḥayy as well: whether the expression covers all living things or a particular class has been disputed. I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And here too I repeat the boundary: from this sentence I derive no biology, no cell chemistry and no definition of life. What the verse gives is a relation: the dependence of the living upon water. For an addressee living in the desert this is the plainest observation there is, and that observation is what the verse asks for.

أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ — and the block continues with a call to faith.

Wa jaʿalnā fi'l-arḍi rawāsiya an tamīda bihim wa jaʿalnā fīhā fijājan subulan laʿallahum yahtadūn · Wa jaʿalna's-samāʾa saqfan maḥfūẓā, wa hum ʿan āyātihā muʿriḍūn

"And We set firm mountains in the earth, lest it sway with them, and made in it broad passes for roads, that they might find their way. · And We made the sky a guarded roof. Yet they turn away from its signs."

The root was analysed in detail at Qāf on 50/7, and the same expression (rawāsiya an tamīda bikum) was treated at Luqmān on 31/10. I rely on those treatments and do not repeat them.

A summary of what was recorded at Qāf:

"The word is a plural active participle: rawāsī — 'those that have cast anchor', 'those that stand fast'. That is, the mountain is named not by its name but by its state. […] This is an image; it is not a geological claim."

That note holds here too and must be repeated: I do not match the verse with modern explanations of the role of mountains in the earth's crust.

Here I add two differences peculiar to al-Anbiyāʾ, and both are data of wording:

Two differences must be recorded. The first: Luqmān says bikum (with you), al-Anbiyāʾ bihim (with them) — a shift from direct address to the third person. In al-Anbiyāʾ the addressees had been named a verse earlier in the third person as alladhīna kafarū; the pronoun follows that.

The second, and more important: in Qāf and Luqmān plants and living creatures are named after the mountains; in al-Anbiyāʾ a road is named. Fijājan subulā.

Fijāj — the root ف-ج-ج: a broad pass between two mountains. Fajj — a cleft, a pass; its plural fijāj. And subul (roads) is its attribute or its appositive.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the arrangement of the three sūras: in al-Anbiyāʾ the mountain is named first as what makes firm and then as what gives passage. That is, the same thing provides both the standing and the walking. And the clause of purpose confirms it: laʿallahum yahtadūn — that they might find their way.

Saqf — a roof, a ceiling. And the choice of the word is worth recording: the sky is named as an element of a building. In the preceding verse the earth was named as ground walked upon; here the sky becomes a roof. The two verses together build the picture of a dwelling.

Maḥfūẓ — root ح-ف-ظ, a passive participle: guarded. From what it is guarded is not said, and several explanations are transmitted in the classical commentaries (guarded from falling / closed to entry from outside / guarded from decay). The verse does not specify; nor do I.

وَهُمْ عَنْ ءَايَٰتِهَا مُعْرِضُونَ — and muʿriḍūn for the third time in the sūra. And there is a fine point of word order here: what is turned away from is not the sky itself but āyātihā — "its signs". That is, the sky is seen; it is not read as a sign.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the pronoun.

Wa huwa'lladhī khalaqa'l-layla wa'n-nahāra wa'sh-shamsa wa'l-qamar, kullun fī falakin yasbaḥūn

"It is He who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. Each swims in an orbit."

This verse too has been matched in the modern period with celestial mechanics. The boundary I drew at the thirtieth verse holds here as well, and I repeat it: I derive from the verse no shape of orbit, no axis of rotation and no law of motion. What I shall do is give the lexical sense of two words and keep within the classical explanations.

Falak — root ف-ل-ك. The core sense the lexicographers give: roundness, turning.

And the kindred words of the root confirm this picture:

And the last row is worth recording: fulk (ship) is made of the same letters as falak. The lexicographers have drawn a connection between the two: both are things that run along in their own channel. I give this as a note about the root, not as a claim about meaning.

Disagreement is transmitted in the classical commentaries about what a falak is:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. And I do not equate the verse with the astronomical conceptions of the classical period, just as I do not equate it with modern models.

The root was analysed in detail at al-Ṣāffāt on 37/143, and precisely this verse was cited there as evidence. The note there:

"The root's original sense: to swim or glide, in water or in air, to flow along. […] Its connection with the sense of swimming: what swims moves off from where it is."

I rely on that treatment. And here the root's original sense is at work: sabḥ — to swim.

The description the lexicographers give is this: sabḥ is to move forward in water or in air, by one's own power, without meeting resistance. That is, the word conveys two things: motion and freedom.

I give this as a note about the word and build no claim of physics upon it.

And the most striking grammatical point of the verse is here.

The verb is yasbaḥūna — with wāw-nūn, that is, the plural used of rational beings (those possessed of intellect). Yet the subjects are the sun, the moon, the night and the day.

The grammarians' explanation: when things without intellect are told as though doing something belonging to those with intellect, they receive the treatment of rational beings. There are several instances of this in the Qurʾān.

And this builds a line with the nineteenth and twentieth verses of the sūra — I record this as my own reading:

The same root, thirteen verses apart, in two different forms and for two different subjects. And in both the plural of rational beings is used. This is a fact that can be verified within the sūra.

كُلٌّ — it carries nunation, and the grammarians count this as having its second term of annexation elided: kulluhum — "each of them". And there is disagreement over whom each covers:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. And the block closes here.

Wa mā jaʿalnā li-basharin min qablika'l-khuld, a-fa-in mitta fa-humu'l-khālidūn · Kullu nafsin dhāʾiqatu'l-mawt, wa nablūkum bi'sh-sharri wa'l-khayri fitnatan wa ilaynā turjaʿūn

"We gave no human being before you deathlessness. If you die, then, will they live on? · Every soul will taste death. We try you with evil and with good, as a testing. And to Us you will be returned."

The thirty-fourth verse sets up an analogy, and the analogy turns the addressee's own expectation back upon him.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the structure of the question: the addressees were waiting for the Prophet's death. The verse does not reject that expectation — it asks about its consequence: a-fa-in mitta fa-humu'l-khālidūn? "If you die, will they live on?"

That is, the sentence puts the holder of the expectation under the same ruling. Even if the thing expected were true, it gains the one who expects it nothing.

ٱلْخُلْد — root خ-ل-د: to remain long, to be lasting. And the word occurred in the eighth verse of the sūra: wa mā kānū khālidīn. The two verses repeat the same ruling, one of the past messengers and one of all human beings. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

This sentence was treated at al-ʿAnkabūt on 29/57, and its connection with the following verse was recorded there. I rely on that treatment.

The note at al-ʿAnkabūt was this:

"Read together, the two verses enter, immediately after the call to migrate, the note that one will die in any case. That is, changing one's place is not fleeing death — it is choosing in what state one dies."

And the difference between the two sūras is in what is set beside the sentence:

What al-Anbiyāʾ adds is the middle sentence, and it is treated here for the first time in this commentary.

ذَآئِقَة — an active participle, feminine. Root ذ-و-ق: to taste. And the choice of the verb is worth recording: death is given not as something met but as something tasted. Dhawq is the nearest and most personal of the senses. That is, the sentence names death not as an event coming from outside but as an experience passed through from within.

And this is the real thing al-Anbiyāʾ adds.

The root ب-ل-و: to test a thing by wearing it down; balā — to wear out, to fray. Testing is, by its root, a bringing out by abrasion.

The root ف-ت-ن was treated in detail at al-ʿAnkabūt on 29/2-10 (melting gold in fire to test it), and at al-Furqān on 25/20 it was recorded that the word comes by the hand of people. I rely on those treatments.

Fitnatan is in the accusative, and the grammarians count it either an object of purpose (mafʿūl lah) or an emphatic verbal noun: "as a testing" or "by way of testing".

And there is a point of word order in the sequence: bi'sh-sharri wa'l-khayr — evil first, then good.

In Arabic the expected order is generally that the good is put first. Here it is reversed. I record this as an observation about the structure and build no ruling upon it; I add only this: what precedes the sentence is death — that is, the side of evil is already under discussion; the order fits the context.

Now I come to the pair itself. And this is the place in the verse that most needs to be dwelt on.

The sentence counts two things at once as a testing:

I record this as my own reading, its ground being that the same verb (nablū) is shared by both prepositional phrases: the verse sets up no difference of degree between the two states. Both are the object of the same verb.

And what this requires must be written out: if evil alone were a testing, good would be a reward and would convey a ruling about the one who has it. The verse blocks this. What has been given is as open-ended as what has not.

The sūra itself applies this in two places, and both are in the series of prophets:

And in the series both are named in the same way: both end in deliverance. I record this as my own reading, its ground being the standing of the two stories side by side in the sūra.

And one further link within the sūra: the same word will occur once more in the hundred and eleventh verse — wa in adrī laʿallahu fitnatun lakum wa matāʿun ilā ḥīn. The sūra names the notion of testing both in its middle and at its end.

Wa idhā raʾāka'lladhīna kafarū in yattakhidhūnaka illā huzuwā, a-hādha'lladhī yadhkuru ālihatakum, wa hum bi-dhikri'r-Raḥmāni hum kāfirūn · Khuliqa'l-insānu min ʿajal, sa-urīkum āyātī fa-lā tastaʿjilūn

"When those who deny see you, they take you only in mockery: 'Is this the one who talks about your gods?' — while it is they who deny the remembrance of the Merciful. · The human being was created of haste. I shall show you My signs, so do not ask Me to hasten."

And the word order of the verse shows how a single word is used on the two sides:

I record this as my own reading, its ground being that the root occurs twice in the verse: the verse meets those who complain with their own complaint. They are troubled that someone mentions their gods; they themselves reject the mentioning of the Merciful. The same verb, in two directions.

وَهُم بِذِكْرِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ هُمْ كَٰفِرُونَ — and the pronoun hum comes twice. The grammarians count the second pronoun either emphasis or a pronoun of separation; on either account it conveys restriction (they alone).

There is disagreement about the sentence, and the disagreement is real:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. And I give as a note that the context supports the first reading: the rest of the verse says fa-lā tastaʿjilūn — "do not ask to hasten". The same root, in the same verse, as an imperative.

And this sentence is on the same pattern as the sentence treated at al-Maʿārij on 70/19: inna'l-insāna khuliqa halūʿā — "the human being was created fretful". I rely on that treatment.

Two verses describe a quality of the human being with the same pattern; one opens it out, the other sets a limit to it. I give this as a comparison of wording.

سَأُو۟رِيكُمْ ءَايَٰتِى — س (sīn) conveys the near future. This note was set down at al-Shuʿarāʾ on 26/6 (sīn the near, sawfa the distant future). I rely on that treatment.

And the verse's answer connects with the fifth verse: there it had said fa'l-yaʾtinā bi-āya. Here the answer is given: the signs will come — but the one who asks does not set the time.

Wa yaqūlūna matā hādha'l-waʿdu in kuntum ṣādiqīn · Law yaʿlamu'lladhīna kafarū ḥīna lā yakuffūna ʿan wujūhihimu'n-nāra wa lā ʿan ẓuhūrihim wa lā hum yunṣarūn · Bal taʾtīhim baghtatan fa-tabhatuhum fa-lā yastaṭīʿūna raddahā wa lā hum yunẓarūn · Wa laqadi'stuhziʾa bi-rusulin min qablika fa-ḥāqa bi'lladhīna sakhirū minhum mā kānū bihi yastahziʾūn

"They say: 'When is this promise, if you are truthful?' · If only those who deny knew the hour when they will not keep the fire from their faces or from their backs, and will not be helped! · Rather, it will come upon them suddenly and stun them; they will not be able to turn it back, nor will they be given respite. · Messengers before you were mocked as well; and what they made light of closed in upon those who scoffed at them."

The thirty-ninth verse is a law sentence, and it has no apodosis.

The grammarians call this the elision of the jawāb of law: "if only they knew…" — and the rest is not said. The elision conveys that the threat cannot be described.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the sentence is not completed, and its not being completed is a choice of narration. The same technique was treated at al-Takāthur on 102/5 (kallā law taʿlamūna ʿilma'l-yaqīn). I rely on that treatment.

عَن وُجُوهِهِمْ … وَلَا عَن ظُهُورِهِمْ — two directions: the front and the back. And the choice is worth recording: a person can protect his face; he cannot protect his back. By naming both, the verse leaves no direction to be protected.

فَتَبْهَتُهُمْ — root ب-ه-ت: to leave someone without an argument, to stun. Buhtān — slander; mabhūt — struck dumb. And in another place in the Qurʾān the same root is used of Abraham's opponent: fa-buhita'lladhī kafar (al-Baqara 2/258).

I give this as a note about the root and add this: the same root is the verbal counterpart of the scene described in the sixty-fifth verse of this sūra — Abraham's opponents falling silent and hanging their heads. The word does not occur in the sūra; the resemblance belongs to the fact.

فَحَاقَ بِٱلَّذِينَ سَخِرُوا۟ — ḥāqa — root ح-ي-ق: for a thing to come back upon its owner and close in on him. And a point of word order: what closes in is not the punishment but the very thing they mocked — mā kānū bihi yastahziʾūn.

This sentence was named at al-Shuʿarāʾ on 26/6 and it was recorded there: "when the thing mocked comes to pass, it comes no longer as news but as an event." I rely on that treatment.

Qul man yaklaʾukum bi'l-layli wa'n-nahāri mina'r-Raḥmān, bal hum ʿan dhikri rabbihim muʿriḍūn · Am lahum ālihatun tamnaʿuhum min dūninā, lā yastaṭīʿūna naṣra anfusihim wa lā hum minnā yuṣḥabūn · Bal mattaʿnā hāʾulāʾi wa ābāʾahum ḥattā ṭāla ʿalayhimu'l-ʿumur, a-fa-lā yarawna annā naʾti'l-arḍa nanquṣuhā min aṭrāfihā, a-fa-humu'l-ghālibūn

"Say: 'Who could keep watch over you by night and by day against the Merciful?' No — they turn away from the remembrance of their Lord. · Or have they gods to protect them against Us? They cannot help themselves, nor are they befriended by Us. · We let these and their fathers enjoy life so long that their lifetimes grew long. Do they not see that We come to the land and reduce it at its edges? Are they, then, the victors?"

Yaklaʾu — root ك-ل-أ. This root is analysed here for the first time in this commentary, and it occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

The sense the lexicographers give: kalaʾa is to watch over a thing and guard it — to guard it by keeping watch through the night. Kāliʾ — a watchman; kilāʾa — protection. And in the picture of the word there is sleeplessness: waiting without taking one's eyes away.

And the note bi'l-layli wa'n-nahār completes this picture: night and day.

I record this as my own reading: the question is not a question about a contest of power but a question about keeping watch. "Who could stand watch over you?"

مِنَ ٱلرَّحْمَٰن — and the choice of the name must again be recorded. The one to be protected against is named not al-Jabbār or al-Muntaqim but al-Raḥmān. This technique was recorded at al-Shuʿarāʾ on 26/5; it is applied here for the third time in the sūra (26, 36, 42).

وَلَا هُم مِّنَّا يُصْحَبُونَ — yuṣḥabūn — root ص-ح-ب, passive: "they are not taken as companions / they are not given protection". There is disagreement about its sense:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

There is disagreement in the classical commentaries about what the sentence tells, and I give it in a table:

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

And I enter a note about word order: the sentence continues a-fa-humu'l-ghālibūn — "are they, then, the victors?" That is, the sentence stands inside a discussion of victory. This affords some support to the fourth explanation; it is not eliminative.

حَتَّىٰ طَالَ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْعُمُرُ — "the lifetime grew long upon them". And a point of word order: the subject is al-ʿumur, not the people. What grows long is the lifetime; they are in the passive position. I record this as an observation about the structure: a long life is told not as a gain but as something heaped upon them.

Qul innamā undhirukum bi'l-waḥy, wa lā yasmaʿu'ṣ-ṣummu'd-duʿāʾa idhā mā yundharūn · Wa la-in massathum nafḥatun min ʿadhābi rabbika la-yaqūlunna yā waylanā innā kunnā ẓālimīn

"Say: 'I warn you only by revelation.' But the deaf do not hear the call when they are warned. · And if a breath of your Lord's punishment were to touch them, they would surely say: 'Woe to us! We were indeed doing wrong.'"

Innamā is the particle of restriction: "only, nothing but". And what is restricted is the instrument of the warning: bi'l-waḥy.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the fifth verse: there the addressees had asked for an āya — a visible sign. Here the answer is given: the only thing in my hands is revelation. That is, the verse also says what the instrument in the messenger's hand is not.

At al-Furqān on 25/56 and at Sabaʾ on 34/28 the scope of the messengership was given with two different words; this verse gives its instrument. The three will be tabulated at the hundred and seventh verse.

وَلَا يَسْمَعُ ٱلصُّمُّ ٱلدُّعَآءَ — the counterpart of this sentence was treated at al-Rūm on 30/52: fa-innaka lā tusmiʿu'l-mawtā wa lā tusmiʿu'ṣ-ṣumma'd-duʿāʾ. I rely on that treatment.

And the grammatical difference between the two verses must be recorded:

The same fact, from two different sides. I record this as an observation about the pattern.

And the forty-sixth verse is one of the finest pieces of word order in the sūra. Three separate diminishings come one upon another in the sentence:

Nafḥa — root ن-ف-ح: to blow lightly, for a scent to spread. Nafaḥa'ṭ-ṭīb — the perfume spread. And the word carries a tāʾ (nafḥa, not nafḥ): in Arabic the tāʾ of unity conveys a single instance — "one single breath".

So the sentence says this: were a single breath of a part of the punishment to graze them.

And what they will say in return is given: yā waylanā innā kunnā ẓālimīn — the very sentence spoken by the town destroyed in the fourteenth verse.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being that the two sentences are word for word the same: the forty-sixth verse repeats hypothetically and on the smallest scale what in the fourteenth verse actually happened. That is, the sūra shows this: the lightest touch produces the same sentence as the gravest destruction.

The lightness of the root م-س-س was recorded at Ṣād on 38/41: "what distinguishes the word is its lightness: mass is to touch a thing — not to strike, not to hit." I rely on that treatment. And the same verb will be used of Job in the eighty-third verse of this sūra: massaniya'ḍ-ḍurr.

Wa naḍaʿu'l-mawāzīna'l-qisṭa li-yawmi'l-qiyāmati fa-lā tuẓlamu nafsun shayʾā, wa in kāna mithqāla ḥabbatin min khardalin ataynā bihā, wa kafā binā ḥāsibīn

"We shall set up the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, and no soul will be wronged in anything. Even were it the weight of a mustard seed, We shall bring it forth. And We suffice as reckoners."

The root و-ز-ن and the word mīzān were treated at al-Ḥadīd on 57/25. There the three things sent down together were tabulated: the Book, the balance, and iron — and mīzān was recorded as the instrument of measure. I rely on that treatment.

Mīzān is on the mifʿāl pattern, and in Arabic this pattern forms nouns of instrument (miftāḥ — a key, miṣbāḥ — a lamp). That is, the word is the tool that does the measuring.

And there is disagreement about the plural here:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And the division of labour between the two sūras must be recorded — this is a verifiable comparison:

And the shared word is qisṭ: the same root in both. I record this as my own reading, its ground being the two verses' shared word and their opposite times: the same measure is once given to the human being and once set up over him.

ٱلْقِسْطَ — it is in the accusative and is an attribute of mawāzīn. And a point of grammar: qisṭ is a verbal noun; qualifying with a verbal noun conveys intensification in Arabic. Not "just scales" but "scales that are justice itself".

لِيَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ — two readings of the particle lām are transmitted:

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

This measure was treated at Luqmān on 31/16, and it was recorded there:

"The mustard seed is one of the smallest grains known in the kitchen of that day. That is, the measure is taken from something the listener could handle."

I rely on that treatment and now set the two verses side by side, because they are the two occurrences in the Qurʾān:

And two differences must be recorded.

The first is the person of the verb: Luqmān speaks in the third person (yaʾti bihā'llāh), because the speaker is a human being. al-Anbiyāʾ uses the first person plural (ataynā bihā), because the speaker is the text itself. The same verb (أ-ت-ي, Form IV), in two different mouths.

The second, and more important, is the closing attribute — I give this as my own reading:

Luqmān ends with laṭīf and khabīr: the one who reaches the finest place, and the one who is informed. The subject of the verse there was finding.

al-Anbiyāʾ ends with ḥāsibīn: the one who reckons. The subject of the verse here is weighing.

That is, the same unit of measure is used for two different operations: in Luqmān it shows the reach of knowledge, in al-Anbiyāʾ the sensitivity of the balance.

وَكَفَىٰ بِنَا حَٰسِبِينَ — and ḥāsibīn is from the same root as ḥisābuhum in the sūra's first verse: ح-س-ب.

This is one of the most closed frames of the sūra and is wholly a datum of the text:

The sūra names here the owner of the thing it said forty-seven verses earlier had drawn near. And the third block closes with this sentence; immediately afterwards the series of prophets begins.

The section running from the forty-eighth verse to the ninety-first is the sūra's longest block and has a technique of its own. I record that technique before entering the series, because I shall not repeat it at the individual verses.

A series of prophets was treated at al-Ṣāffāt (37/75-148: Noah, Abraham, Moses and Aaron, Elias, Lot, Jonah) and the technique of that series was recorded there:

"What is striking about the series is not the stories told but the way the stories are closed. Each ends with the same three or four sentences as a seal."

I rely on that treatment. And al-Anbiyāʾ's series works differently from al-Ṣāffāt's. I give the difference in a table, because both are countable from the text:

And the real technique peculiar to al-Anbiyāʾ is this — it can be verified from the text:

Four prophets are named with the same verb: nādā (he called).

Four calls, four times the same answer: fa'stajabnā lah. This is a countable fact within the sūra and is the spine of the series.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the table above: the series records not the prophets' achievements but their voices. And in all four the answer is given with the same word. That is, the sūra shows by its very arrangement that the response does not vary with the person.

And a second pattern: two of the three prayers close with an attribute introduced by anta.

Two of them end with an elative (arḥam, khayr): "most merciful", "best". The prayers close not with a request but with an attribute of the one addressed. This is an observation about the structure.

Wa laqad ātaynā Mūsā wa Hārūna'l-furqāna wa ḍiyāʾan wa dhikran li'l-muttaqīn · Alladhīna yakhshawna rabbahum bi'l-ghaybi wa hum mina's-sāʿati mushfiqūn · Wa hādhā dhikrun mubārakun anzalnāh, a-fa-antum lahu munkirūn

"Indeed We gave Moses and Aaron the Criterion, and a light and a remembrance for those who guard themselves · who fear their Lord unseen and tremble at the Hour. · And this too is a blessed remembrance that We have sent down. Will you then deny it?"

The word was analysed in detail at al-Furqān on 25/1. The note there:

"The root ف-ر-ق: to separate, to open a space between two things. […] The pattern furqān (fuʿlān) is counted by the lexicographers a noun conveying an action: 'the act of separating' or 'that which distinguishes'. […] This name given to the Book conveys not its content but its function."

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it. Here I add what is peculiar to al-Anbiyāʾ, because it is striking:

In Sūrat al-Furqān this name was given to the Qurʾān. Here the same name is given to what was given to Moses and Aaron.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the two verses' shared word: Furqān is not the proper name of a book but the name of a function. Two books that do the same work can be named by the same name. This was recorded in Sūrat al-Furqān — al-Anbiyāʾ shows it in practice.

And three words come side by side: furqān, ḍiyāʾ, dhikr.

Three, and three different works. And in Sūrat Yūnus ḍiyāʾ is used of the sun and nūr of the moon (Yūnus 10/5). On the basis of this distinction the lexicographers separate ḍiyāʾ as "light that is a thing's own" from nūr as "reflected light". I transmit this as a transmitted distinction.

And the fiftieth verse is the densest use of the root dhikr in the sūra: the same word is used two verses apart for two different books (48: what was given to Moses; 50: this one).

Mubārak — root ب-ر-ك, treated at al-Mulk on 67/1 and at al-Furqān on 25/1. The core sense: a camel's kneeling down, settling in a place and staying fixed — whence blessing: a good that lasts and increases. I do not repeat it here.

And a note about word order: Sūrat al-Furqān had opened with tabāraka (a verb); al-Anbiyāʾ uses mubārak (a passive participle). The same root, one qualifying the source, the other what is given.

Wa laqad ātaynā Ibrāhīma rushdahu min qablu wa kunnā bihi ʿālimīn · Idh qāla li-abīhi wa qawmihi mā hādhihi't-tamāthīlu'llatī antum lahā ʿākifūn · Qālū wajadnā ābāʾanā lahā ʿābidīn · Qāla laqad kuntum antum wa ābāʾukum fī ḍalālin mubīn

"Indeed We gave Abraham his right judgement before, and We knew him well. · When he said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to which you keep yourselves attached?' · They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' · He said: 'Indeed you and your fathers alike have been in plain error.'"

Rushd — root ر-ش-د: finding the right way, hitting the mark. Its opposite is ghayy.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the word is annexed to a pronoun — rushdahu, "his right judgement". Not rushdan (indefinite).

The grammarians' explanation: the annexation here gives the sense that which befits him, that which is proper to him. That is, what is given is not a general capacity but his own share.

I record this as an observation about the structure.

مِن قَبْلُ — "before". There is disagreement about before what:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And now I come to the most striking fact of this section. It is wholly a datum of the text and is countable.

The same objects are called by five different names across the scene — and the naming changes with the speaker:

And what is seen in the table is this — I record it as my own reading, its ground being the count above:

Abraham does not once call those objects gods. And the people do not once say image or idol.

That is, the dispute in the scene begins, in its very first sentence, over the naming. Abraham's question is not a question for information: mā hādhihi't-tamāthīl — "what are these?" In asking the question he has already given the answer in the name.

Tamāthīl — root م-ث-ل, the plural of timthāl: the likeness of a thing, its image, its representation. The word names the object as the copy of something — not as a thing in itself.

عَٰكِفُونَ — root ع-ك-ف: to stand over a thing without leaving it, to stay there. Iʿtikāf is from the same root. And the picture of the verb is worth recording: the verse tells not of worship but of not leaving its side. That is, what is criticised is first described as a habit.

وَجَدْنَآ ءَابَآءَنَا لَهَا عَٰبِدِينَ — and the answer is not a proof but a finding: wajadnā (we found).

I record this as an observation about the structure: the people do not defend the worship — they say they inherited it. And Abraham's answer aims at precisely this point: laqad kuntum antum wa ābāʾukum — "you and your fathers alike". That is, the inherited end of the chain is taken into the ruling as well.

Qālū a-jiʾtanā bi'l-ḥaqqi am anta mina'l-lāʿibīn · Qāla bal rabbukum rabbu's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi'lladhī faṭarahunna wa anā ʿalā dhālikum mina'sh-shāhidīn · Wa ta'llāhi la-akīdanna aṣnāmakum baʿda an tuwallū mudbirīn · Fa-jaʿalahum judhādhan illā kabīran lahum laʿallahum ilayhi yarjiʿūn

"They said: 'Have you brought us the truth, or are you one of those at play?' · He said: 'No! Your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, who split them into being. And I am one of those who bear witness to that.' · 'By God, I shall scheme against your idols after you have turned your backs and gone.' · So he broke them into pieces — all but the greatest of them, that they might turn back to it."

And this is one of the most striking internal connections in the sūra. It is wholly a datum of the text.

In the sixteenth verse the text had said: wa mā khalaqna's-samāʾa wa'l-arḍa wa mā baynahumā lāʿibīn — "we did not create the heaven and the earth in play."

In the fifty-fifth verse the same word occurs in a question put to a prophet: am anta mina'l-lāʿibīn?

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the two verses' shared word: having set down the ruling "creating is not play", the sūra reports that the man who carries that ruling is asked "are you at play?" The accusation is built with the very word the sūra had earlier rejected.

And Abraham's answer begins with bal — that is, it rejects the question and puts another in its place.

فَطَرَهُنَّ — faṭr, root ف-ط-ر. In the distinction set up at al-Qamar on 54/1 it was recorded: faṭr is to split from nothing and establish. I rely on that treatment.

And I record its connection with the thirtieth verse: there we had fatq — to part what has been established. Here we have faṭr — to split from nothing and establish. The same sūra uses two roots of splitting for two different works.

Faṭarahunna — the pronoun is feminine plural (hunna), referring to the heavens.

The particle of oath is tāʾ: wa-ta'llāh. And the lexicographers record the peculiarity of this particle:

So the particle marks the oath as not an ordinary one. And this particle occurs in a few places in the Qurʾān.

The root was treated at al-Ṭūr, al-Qalam and al-Ṣāffāt. And at al-Ṣāffāt precisely the counterpart of this story occurred: fa-arādū bihi kaydan fa-jaʿalnāhumu'l-asfalīn (37/98).

The comparison of the two sūras can be verified from the text and is striking:

In al-Anbiyāʾ the root occurs twice and is used by both sides: first Abraham (57), then the people (70). In al-Ṣāffāt it is used only by the people.

I record this as an observation about wording. And I add this: in this sūra the word is not the monopoly of one side. The same verb works in two directions, and what separates the outcomes is not the name of the act but its end.

بَعْدَ أَن تُوَلُّوا۟ مُدْبِرِينَ — and this expression occurs word for word at al-Ṣāffāt on 37/90: fa-tawallaw ʿanhu mudbirīn.

The same two words, in two sūras, in two different tenses. al-Ṣāffāt tells the event; al-Anbiyāʾ shows that Abraham knew of it beforehand. This is a verifiable sharing of wording, and I add as my own reading: in al-Anbiyāʾ the intention is declared before the event.

Judhādh — root ج-ذ-ذ. This root is analysed here for the first time in this commentary.

The sense the lexicographers give: jadhdha is to break a thing by cutting it, to crumble it. Judhādh — broken pieces, fragments. And the same root occurs once more in the Qurʾān: ʿaṭāʾan ghayra majdhūdh (Hūd 11/108) — "a gift not cut off".

So the root has two faces: to cut and what is not cut.

And a point of word order: judhādhan is singular while the objects are plural. The grammarians count it a verbal-noun attribute: "in a state of fragments". That is, the verse does not say into how many pieces — it names the outcome.

إِلَّا كَبِيرًا لَّهُمْ — "except the greatest of them".

And the pronoun lahum must be recorded — I give this as my own reading: the verse does not say "the great one", it says the one great to them. That is, the greatness is ascribed not to the object itself but to the people's measure. The text reports the people's estimate; it does not endorse it.

لَعَلَّهُمْ إِلَيْهِ يَرْجِعُونَ — and a ground is given. There is disagreement about to whom or what the pronoun (ilayhi) refers:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And the counterpart of this sentence will come in the sixty-fourth verse — it is the sūra's strongest internal link, and I shall treat it there.

Qālū man faʿala hādhā bi-ālihatinā innahu la-mina'ẓ-ẓālimīn · Qālū samiʿnā fatan yadhkuruhum yuqālu lahu Ibrāhīm · Qālū fa'tū bihi ʿalā aʿyuni'n-nāsi laʿallahum yashhadūn · Qālū a-anta faʿalta hādhā bi-ālihatinā yā Ibrāhīm · Qāla bal faʿalahu kabīruhum hādhā fa'sʾalūhum in kānū yanṭiqūn

"They said: 'Who did this to our gods? He is surely a wrongdoer.' · They said: 'We heard a youth talking about them; he is called Abraham.' · They said: 'Then bring him before the people's eyes, that they may witness.' · They said: 'Was it you who did this to our gods, Abraham?' · He said: 'No — this, the greatest of them, did it. Ask them, if they can speak.'"

Five verses in succession begin with qālū/qāla. This is a technique of scene-building in the Qurʾān: the narrator does not intervene, only the speeches are ranged.

And the order of the speeches gives an investigative process step by step:

I record this as an observation about the structure: the verdict (59) has been given before the interrogation (62). And what is asked for in the sixty-first verse is not evidence but witnessing — laʿallahum yashhadūn.

فَتًى — root ف-ت-ي: a youth, a young man. And the choice of the word is worth recording: Abraham is named not by his name but by his age — and the name is then given as hearsay: yuqālu lahu Ibrāhīm — "one who is called Abraham".

I record this as my own reading: the two expressions together show that the speakers did not know him closely.

يَذْكُرُهُمْ — and again the root ذ-ك-ر. The same verb was used of the Prophet in the thirty-sixth verse: a-hādha'lladhī yadhkuru ālihatakum — "is this the one who talks about your gods?"

The sharing of wording between the two verses is exact and can be verified within the sūra:

The same verb, the same accusation, two different ages. I record this as my own reading, its ground being the two verses' shared word: the sūra shows with the same verb that the complaint its own addressee brings against the Prophet was brought long before as well.

And the sixty-third verse is one of the most debated sentences in the classical commentaries. I give the disagreement in a table and impose no preference.

All three explanations are transmitted in the classical commentaries. I do not impose a preference.

And I enter a note that can be read from the text itself — this is not a preference but an observation about the structure:

In the fifty-eighth verse the ground of Abraham's act had already been given: laʿallahum ilayhi yarjiʿūn. That is, the breaking was done in order to produce a question. And the answer in the sixty-third verse produces exactly a question: fa'sʾalūhum — "ask them."

The work of the sentence is not to convey information but to bring the addressee to a place. And the next verse shows that they arrived there.

Fa-rajaʿū ilā anfusihim fa-qālū innakum antumu'ẓ-ẓālimūn · Thumma nukisū ʿalā ruʾūsihim laqad ʿalimta mā hāʾulāʾi yanṭiqūn · Qāla a-fa-taʿbudūna min dūni'llāhi mā lā yanfaʿukum shayʾan wa lā yaḍurrukum · Uffin lakum wa limā taʿbudūna min dūni'llāh, a-fa-lā taʿqilūn

"At this they returned to themselves and said: 'It is you who are the wrongdoers!' · Then they were turned back onto their heads: 'You know well that these do not speak!' · He said: 'Do you then worship, besides God, what can neither benefit you at all nor harm you? · Fie on you and on what you worship besides God! Will you not use your reason?'"

And this sentence is the most striking place in this section — perhaps in the whole sūra. The fact belongs entirely to the text.

In the fifty-eighth verse the ground of Abraham's act had been given:

fa-jaʿalahum judhādhan illā kabīran lahum laʿallahum ilayhi yarjiʿūn — "that perhaps they might turn back to it."

In the sixty-fourth verse the turning takes place — but not to the place named:

fa-rajaʿū ilā anfusihim — "they returned to themselves."

The same root (ر-ج-ع), six verses apart, with two different destinations.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the two verses' shared verb: the device set up expected a return to an object; the return that took place was to the subject. And the text does not comment on this separately — it only attaches the same verb to two different places.

In Arabic the idiom rajaʿa ilā nafsihi is used in the sense of "to come to oneself, to begin to think". So the sentence carries both a physical turning and a mental awakening.

إِنَّكُمْ أَنتُمُ ٱلظَّٰلِمُونَ — and the verdict they pass is the same verdict that came from their own mouths in the fifty-ninth verse.

The same word, five verses apart, turned in the opposite direction. I record this as an observation about wording.

Nukisū — root ن-ك-س, passive. And the concrete sense of the root: to turn a thing over, to set it upside down. Nakasa'sh-shayʾ — he put its top under. Mankūs — turned upside down. From the same root naks: the relapse of an illness, its coming back.

And the verb is passive: nukisū — "they were turned back". They did not turn back of themselves.

I record this as an observation about the structure: in the sixty-fourth verse they themselves turned (rajaʿū, active). In the sixty-fifth they were turned (nukisū, passive). The voices of the two verbs are opposite.

The particle thumma is worth recording too: it conveys an interval. Not fāʾ but thumma. That is, there is a span between the waking and the going back.

عَلَىٰ رُءُوسِهِمْ — "upon their heads". The idiom pictures a complete inversion: feet up, head down.

لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا هَٰٓؤُلَآءِ يَنطِقُونَ — and what they say is the very thing Abraham had shown them: "these do not speak."

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the last word of the sixty-third verse: Abraham had said in kānū yanṭiqūn. The other side answers mā hāʾulāʾi yanṭiqūn. The same verb. That is, the sentence spoken as an objection repeats the conclusion of the proof.

Uff — a noun standing for a verb. The lexicographers define the word as a sound conveying weariness and disgust; for its original sense such explanations are transmitted as "the dirt under a fingernail" or "dust blown away". The meaning of the word is in its sound.

And in the Qurʾān the same word occurs at al-Aḥqāf on 46/17 and was treated there: wa'lladhī qāla li-wālidayhi uffin lakumā.

The comparison of the two occurrences is verifiable and striking:

The same word, in two places, with two opposite judgements. I record this as my own reading, its ground being the two contexts themselves: what makes the word blameworthy is not the word itself but to whom it is said. In al-Aḥqāf it is said to those who have a claim; in al-Anbiyāʾ to those who have none.

And the addressee of uffin is twofold: lakum (to you) and limā taʿbudūn (to what you worship). That is, the expression covers both the worshipper and the worshipped.

أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ — and this question for the second time in the sūra. In the tenth verse the text itself asked it; here Abraham asks it. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

Qālū ḥarriqūhu wa'nṣurū ālihatakum in kuntum fāʿilīn · Qulnā yā nāru kūnī bardan wa salāman ʿalā Ibrāhīm · Wa arādū bihi kaydan fa-jaʿalnāhumu'l-akhsarīn

"They said: 'Burn him and help your gods — if you are going to do anything!' · We said: 'Fire! Be coolness and safety for Abraham.' · They meant to scheme against him, so We made them the greatest losers."

And there is a fine point of word order in the sixty-eighth verse.

The people want their gods to be helped: wa'nṣurū ālihatakum.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the forty-third verse: twenty-five verses earlier the sūra had said — lā yastaṭīʿūna naṣra anfusihim — "they cannot help themselves." The same root (ن-ص-ر).

That is, the people's sentence, without their noticing, confirms the ruling the sūra had already set down: a thing granted to be in need of help is counted a god.

In kuntum fāʿilīn — "if you are going to do it". And the same pattern occurred in the seventeenth verse: in kunnā fāʿilīn. The same two words, once in the mouth of the text and once in the mouth of the people. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And this is the most striking address in the sūra: the speech is directed at a fire.

The same technique was treated at Fuṣṣilat on 41/11: fa-qāla lahā wa li'l-arḍi'tiyā ṭawʿan aw karhā. Two explanations were tabulated there — a figurative telling (tamthīl), or a real address whose modality is unknown — and no preference was imposed. I rely on that treatment; the same two explanations are transmitted for this place as well.

And a point of word order must be recorded — I give this as my own reading:

The command is not "go out". Kūnī — "be". That is, the fire is not removed; an attribute is given to the fire.

The sentence does not tell how the event came about; it says what was commanded. I do not go into the detail, because the verse does not.

بَرْدًا وَسَلَٰمًا — two words. And in the classical commentaries a widespread explanation is transmitted of why the second word was added: had it said only bard (coolness), extreme cold would also have harmed; the note salām removes the harm altogether. I transmit this as a transmitted explanation.

The root س-ل-م: completeness, soundness, freedom from harm. And this is exactly the work of the word here: salām is not "peace" but harmlessness.

عَلَىٰٓ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ — and a note: ʿalā Ibrāhīm — "for Abraham". That is, the coolness and safety are defined not as a general state of the fire but with respect to a particular person.

I record this as an observation about the structure; the verse says no more than this.

And this sentence is almost word for word the same as al-Ṣāffāt 37/98. The difference is in a single word.

Two sūras close the same event with the same sentence and change the last word. This is a verifiable comparison of wording.

And I add this as my own reading, its ground being the subjects of the two sūras: al-Ṣāffāt is a sūra of ranks — its opening is al-ṣāffāt, its close naḥnu'ṣ-ṣāffūn. A word of position fits there. al-Anbiyāʾ is a sūra of reckoning — its opening is ḥisābuhum, its forty-seventh verse al-mawāzīn, ḥāsibīn. A word of loss fits here.

I give this as a reading; I do not claim that the two sūras' choice of word was deliberate — I record only the fit.

Wa najjaynāhu wa Lūṭan ila'l-arḍi'llatī bāraknā fīhā li'l-ʿālamīn · Wa wahabnā lahu Isḥāqa wa Yaʿqūba nāfilatan wa kullan jaʿalnā ṣāliḥīn · Wa jaʿalnāhum aʾimmatan yahdūna bi-amrinā wa awḥaynā ilayhim fiʿla'l-khayrāti wa iqāma'ṣ-ṣalāti wa ītāʾa'z-zakāh, wa kānū lanā ʿābidīn

"We delivered him and Lot to the land We had blessed for all beings. · We granted him Isaac, and Jacob over and above; and each of them We made righteous. · We made them leaders guiding by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good works, the establishing of prayer and the giving of alms. And they were servants to Us."

This expression occurs in two places in the sūra, and both are in the series of prophets:

There are ten verses between the two occurrences, and the expression is word for word the same. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And a difference must be recorded: 71 has the note li'l-ʿālamīn, 81 does not. The name of the place is not given; the verse does not give it, and neither do I.

ٱلْعَٰلَمِين — and this word is one of the frame-words of the sūra:

Three times, for three different things: a place, a sign, a messengership. It is a countable fact and will be tabulated at the end.

Nāfila — root ن-ف-ل: an increase added on top of what is basic. Nafal — spoils (added to the basic share); and in prayer a nāfila is what is added on top of the obligatory.

There is disagreement about what the word qualifies:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And a note: the verse does not name Ishmael here; it will name him in the eighty-fifth verse, in a separate group. I do not go into an order of succession or a detail of lineage that the Qurʾān has not given.

The word imām was treated at al-Qaṣaṣ, where it was tabulated that the same word is used in two opposite directions (the weak being made leaders / leaders calling to the fire). This note was relied upon at al-Furqān on 25/74 as well. I rely on those treatments.

What I add here is that the same expression occurs at al-Sajda on 32/24:

The expression is word for word the same, the notes are different. This is a verifiable sharing of wording.

And the difference is worth recording as my own reading: al-Sajda binds the leadership to patience, al-Anbiyāʾ to servitude. Both bind it to a condition; the kind of condition differs.

وَأَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْهِمْ فِعْلَ ٱلْخَيْرَٰتِ — and the content of the revelation is given in three verbal nouns: doing, establishing, giving.

And a point of grammar: in the construct iqāma'ṣ-ṣalāh the tāʾ at the end of the verbal noun has been dropped (iqām, not iqāma). The grammarians explain this as the elision of the tāʾ on account of the annexation.

I record this as an observation about the structure: revelation is given here not as a piece of knowledge but as three acts.

Wa Lūṭan ātaynāhu ḥukman wa ʿilman wa najjaynāhu mina'l-qaryati'llatī kānat taʿmalu'l-khabāʾith, innahum kānū qawma sawʾin fāsiqīn · Wa adkhalnāhu fī raḥmatinā innahu mina'ṣ-ṣāliḥīn

"And to Lot We gave judgement and knowledge, and We delivered him from the town that did foul deeds. They were indeed a bad people, given to transgression. · And We admitted him into Our mercy. He was among the righteous."

This pair occurs in two places in the sūra:

The same two words, five verses apart. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and I shall treat it at the seventy-ninth verse, because there it does a decisive work.

Ḥukm — the root ح-ك-م: to separate, to decide; the concrete sense of the root is to rein in (ḥakama — the bit of a horse). ʿIlm — to know. Their being given together conveys that judgement and knowledge are two distinct things.

ٱلْخَبَٰٓئِث — root خ-ب-ث: what is bad, foul, loathsome. Its opposite is ṭayyib. And the word is plural and definite: al-khabāʾith. The verse does not say what the act was — the condition of this people is set out in detail elsewhere in the Qurʾān. This sūra does not give it; nor do I.

And a point of word order: the town is qualified by a verbal clause: kānat taʿmalu'l-khabāʾith. That is, the town is named not by its name but by what it did — the same pattern as qaryatin kānat ẓālima in the sūra's eleventh verse. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

قَوْمَ سَوْءٍ — and this expression occurs twice in the sūra: 74 (Lot's people) and 77 (Noah's people). The same two words, for two different peoples. It is a countable fact.

وَأَدْخَلْنَٰهُ فِى رَحْمَتِنَا — and this sentence too occurs twice in the sūra: 75 (Lot) and 86 (Ishmael, Idrīs and Dhū'l-Kifl). In exactly the same wording.

And the preposition fī is worth recording: adkhalnāhu fī raḥmatinā — "We admitted him into Our mercy". Mercy is conceived as a place: something one enters.

Wa Nūḥan idh nādā min qablu fa'stajabnā lahu fa-najjaynāhu wa ahlahu mina'l-karbi'l-ʿaẓīm · Wa naṣarnāhu mina'l-qawmi'lladhīna kadhdhabū bi-āyātinā innahum kānū qawma sawʾin fa-aghraqnāhum ajmaʿīn

"And Noah, when he called out before: We answered him and delivered him and his household from the great distress. · And We helped him against the people who denied Our signs. They were indeed a bad people, and We drowned them all."

And the first of the series' four calls is here. The content of the call is not given — only the verb and its answer are recorded: nādā → fa'stajabnā lah.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the series' first call is without content. The pattern is set up first and will be filled in the three that follow.

ٱلْكَرْبِ ٱلْعَظِيمِ — karb — root ك-ر-ب. The sense the lexicographers give: a grief that narrows the chest and stops the breath. Kurba — distress; makrūb — overwhelmed with distress. And another derivative of the root is karaba'sh-shams — the sun's drawing near to setting: a thing's drawing near and pressing in.

So the word conveys not a danger at a distance but a distress that has come upon one.

And a point of grammar must be recorded.

The verb naṣara in Arabic normally comes with ʿalā: naṣarahu ʿalā ʿaduwwih — "he supported him against his enemy."

Here min comes: naṣarnāhu mina'l-qawm.

The grammarians' explanation: by way of taḍmīn the verb has taken on the sense of another verb — manaʿa (he protected) or najjā (he delivered). That is, the sentence carries the sense not of "we helped him against them" but of "we delivered him from that people".

I record this as a datum of language. And the context confirms it: the verb najjaynāhu (we delivered) had already occurred in the preceding verse.

Wa Dāwūda wa Sulaymāna idh yaḥkumāni fi'l-ḥarthi idh nafashat fīhi ghanamu'l-qawm, wa kunnā li-ḥukmihim shāhidīn · Fa-fahhamnāhā Sulaymān, wa kullan ātaynā ḥukman wa ʿilmā, wa sakhkharnā maʿa Dāwūda'l-jibāla yusabbiḥna wa'ṭ-ṭayr, wa kunnā fāʿilīn

"And David and Solomon, when they were giving judgement about the tilled field into which a people's sheep had strayed by night; and We were witnesses to their judging. · We made Solomon understand it. To each We gave judgement and knowledge. And with David We made subservient the mountains, glorifying, and the birds. It was We who did this."

Nafashat — root ن-ف-ش. This root is analysed here for the first time in this commentary, and it occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

The sense most of the lexicographers record: nafsh is the grazing of livestock at night without a herdsman, the flock's scattering and spreading out. And the lexicographers distinguish it from a sister word: grazing loose by day is called haml. That is, the word conveys by itself that the event happened at night.

Another derivative of the same root completes the picture of the word: manfūsh — wool that has been teased out and fluffed up. It is used of the mountains at al-Qāriʿa on 101/5: ka'l-ʿihni'l-manfūsh. The root carries the picture of "scattering and swelling out".

I give this as a note about the word: the verse does not say that the sheep were let loose on purpose. The word conveys a time when control had slackened.

ٱلْحَرْث — root ح-ر-ث: to cleave the soil and sow it; ḥarth — a crop, a tilled field.

And a point of grammar must be recorded: those judging are two (yaḥkumāni, dual), but the pronoun is plural: li-ḥukmihim.

The grammarians' explanations:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And now I come to the sentence in this section that must be read most carefully.

Fahhamnā — Form II (tafʿīl), root ف-ه-م. The burden of the form: to make a thing understood, to bring about its being grasped. Fahima is to understand; fahhama is to make understand.

The pronoun -hā is feminine and refers back to ḥukm or to qaḍiyya (the case).

What the sentence says is this: in a particular matter the understanding was given to Solomon.

And immediately afterwards the verse sets down a note — and this note carries the whole weight of the sentence:

Wa kullan ātaynā ḥukman wa ʿilmā — "To each We gave judgement and knowledge."

Kullan is in the accusative and has been brought forward as the object. In Arabic fronting conveys prominence.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the fronting: immediately after telling of an understanding given to one man in a single matter, the verse says with a fronted word that both had judgement and knowledge.

That is, the sentence does not set up a ranking of superiority. Getting a single matter right is not counted a ruling about the whole of a person.

And this connects with the sūra's seventy-fourth verse: the same two words (ḥukman wa ʿilmā) were used there of Lot. That is, in this sūra the expression is an attribute of a prophet; it is not a privilege peculiar to the David-and-Solomon scene.

The verse does not say what the two judgements were. Neither David's judgement nor the solution Solomon grasped appears in the text.

In the classical commentaries there are reports that fill this gap. The verse does not give it; nor do I.

And what can be read from the text is this — I give it as my own reading: what concerns the verse is not the content of the decision but its source. Fa-fahhamnāhā — the understanding was given. Wa kunnā li-ḥukmihim shāhidīn — the process was seen. The whole weight of the telling is in these two sentences.

This detail was treated at Ṣād on 38/18-19. I rely on that treatment and set the two sūras side by side:

Ṣād is detailed, al-Anbiyāʾ a summary. And the only thing al-Anbiyāʾ adds is the last sentence: wa kunnā fāʿilīn — "it was We who did this."

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the difference between the two sūras: al-Anbiyāʾ shortens the description of the event and stresses its doer. And this fits the whole of the sūra's series: the series does not tell stories, it records the source.

Yusabbiḥna — the feminine plural in nūn (of the mountains). The root س-ب-ح was treated at the twentieth and thirty-third verses; it occurs here for the third time. In the sūra the root is in three places: 20 (those who are with Him), 33 (the heavenly bodies), 79 (the mountains). It is a countable fact.

Wa ʿallamnāhu ṣanʿata labūsin lakum li-tuḥṣinakum min baʾsikum, fa-hal antum shākirūn · Wa li-Sulaymāna'r-rīḥa ʿāṣifatan tajrī bi-amrihi ila'l-arḍi'llatī bāraknā fīhā, wa kunnā bi-kulli shayʾin ʿālimīn · Wa mina'sh-shayāṭīni man yaghūṣūna lahu wa yaʿmalūna ʿamalan dūna dhālik, wa kunnā lahum ḥāfiẓīn

"We taught him the craft of making garments of mail for you, to protect you from your own violence. Are you, then, grateful? · And to Solomon the raging wind, running by his command to the land We had blessed. And We know all things. · And of the satans there were those who dived for him and did other work besides. And it was We who kept watch over them."

Labūs — root ل-ب-س, on the faʿūl pattern: a thing that is worn. The pattern gives the sense "the thing with which something is done" (rakūb — a beast that is ridden, ḥalūb — a beast that is milked). In the classical commentaries it is widely recorded that the word here means coats of mail.

A variant reading is transmitted: li-tuḥṣinakum (its subject labūs or the craft), li-yuḥṣinakum (its subject David or God), li-nuḥṣinakum ("that We may protect you"). I name no reciter. The direction of the sense changes, but those protected are the same: the addressees.

And now I come to the most striking place in the verse, and I record this as my own reading, its ground being the pronoun:

Min baʾsikum — "from your violence".

The mail is defined not against a danger coming from outside but against the addressees' own violence. The verse does not say "from your enemy's force".

Both pronouns refer to the same people. That is, the verse names an implement of war not as a defence but as a precaution against the danger the human being produces himself.

Baʾs — root ب-أ-س: violence, hardship, might in war. The word is used in the Qurʾān both of the force of war and of distress — and it occurred in the twelfth verse of this sūra of the punishment: fa-lammā aḥassū baʾsanā. The same word, once ascribed to God and once to the human being. It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

فَهَلْ أَنتُمْ شَٰكِرُونَ — and the question is framed as a nominal sentence: hal antum shākirūn — "are you grateful ones?" Not a verbal sentence (hal tashkurūn). The grammarians record this difference: a nominal sentence conveys fixity. That is, what is asked about is not a conduct but a state.

ʿĀṣifa — root ع-ص-ف: to blow violently. ʿĀṣif — a gale, a storm.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the wind is qualified as ʿāṣifa (raging) but its verb is tajrī (runs) — a gentle verb. And its direction is fixed: ila'l-arḍi'llatī bāraknā fīhā.

I record this as my own reading: the verse says that what is violent has been directed. The attribute conveys violence, the verb order.

And I record its connection with the thirty-fifth verse: there the sūra had spoken of testing with evil and with good. What was given to Solomon represents the good side of the series, and Job, who comes three verses later, the evil side. I give this as my own reading, its ground being the standing of the two stories side by side in the sūra.

وَكُنَّا لَهُمْ حَٰفِظِينَ — and there is disagreement about to whom the pronoun lahum refers:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

Yaghūṣūna — root غ-و-ص: to dive into water. Ghawwāṣ — a diver. The verse does not say what was brought up; nor do I.

Wa Ayyūba idh nādā rabbahu annī massaniya'ḍ-ḍurru wa anta arḥamu'r-rāḥimīn · Fa'stajabnā lahu fa-kashafnā mā bihi min ḍurrin wa ātaynāhu ahlahu wa mithlahum maʿahum raḥmatan min ʿindinā wa dhikrā li'l-ʿābidīn

"And Job, when he called to his Lord: 'Affliction has touched me, and You are the most merciful of the merciful.' · We answered him and lifted the affliction that was on him, and gave him his household and the like of them with them — a mercy from Us and a reminder for those who serve."

Job was treated in detail at Ṣād on 38/41-44. A summary of what was recorded there:

"Job ascribes the affliction to Satan: massaniya'sh-shayṭān. But the one he calls to is his Lord: nādā rabbah. […] That is, there is no reproach in the sentence."

I rely on that treatment. And now I set the two sūras side by side; the comparison is wholly a datum of wording:

Three differences must be recorded in particular.

The first: in Ṣād the affliction is ascribed to Satan; in al-Anbiyāʾ it is ascribed to no one. Massaniya'ḍ-ḍurr — "affliction has touched me". The agent is not named.

The second: in al-Anbiyāʾ the prayer ends with an attribute: wa anta arḥamu'r-rāḥimīn. This is the pattern of the series and will be seen once more in the eighty-ninth verse.

The third and most striking: the same reminder is directed in the two sūras to two different companies — uli'l-albāb and al-ʿābidīn. One looks to the intellect, the other to service. I record this as my own reading, its ground being the wording of the two sūras; and it fits the general weave of the sūras as well: al-Anbiyāʾ uses the word ʿābidīn twice more in the series (73: wa kānū lanā ʿābidīn; 106: li-qawmin ʿābidīn).

And this is the most striking side of the eighty-third verse.

There is no request in the sentence. There are only two pieces of information:

No imperative, no optative, no "give" or "lift".

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the elements of the sentence: the prayer contents itself with setting two states side by side. And the eighty-fourth verse says the answer came: fa'stajabnā lahu.

And this structure will be seen once more in the eighty-seventh verse (Jonah) — there too there is no petition. Both prayers are without a request, and both are answered with the same sentence. It is a fact that can be verified within the sūra.

ٱلضُّرّ — root ض-ر-ر: harm, distress, an evil that strikes the body or the condition. And the word is definite: al-ḍurr. The grammarians explain the definiteness as "the known affliction" or as generic; the detail is not given.

Kashafnā — root ك-ش-ف: to uncover, to lift a covering. And the picture of the verb is worth recording: the affliction is not annihilated; its covering is opened and lifted away. The affliction is conceived as something laid over him.

Wa Ismāʿīla wa Idrīsa wa Dha'l-Kifl, kullun mina'ṣ-ṣābirīn · Wa adkhalnāhum fī raḥmatinā innahum mina'ṣ-ṣāliḥīn

"And Ishmael, Idrīs and Dhū'l-Kifl: each of them was among the steadfast. · We admitted them into Our mercy. They were among the righteous."

And this is the most striking place in the series: three names are named and no event is told about any of them.

The only thing given is an attribute: kullun mina'ṣ-ṣābirīn.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the section itself: the series comes down here to its barest form. No call, no scene, no account of deliverance — only a sentence of belonging.

And the pattern kullun mina'ṣ-ṣābirīn is a pattern seen elsewhere in the sūra as well: innahu mina'ṣ-ṣāliḥīn (75), innahum mina'ṣ-ṣāliḥīn (86). The series names its people by joining them to groups.

The Qurʾān speaks of this name in two places: here and at Ṣād on 38/48 (wa'dhkur Ismāʿīla wa'l-Yasaʿa wa Dha'l-Kifl). In both it occurs inside a list and no event is told.

Kifl — root ك-ف-ل. Two directions are transmitted for the sense of the word:

And in the classical commentaries it has even been disputed whether this person was a prophet.

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. And I enter into no detail the Qurʾān has not given — no name, no place, no event. The same boundary holds in this commentary for Idrīs as well: the Qurʾān tells no event about him in this sūra.

وَأَدْخَلْنَٰهُمْ فِى رَحْمَتِنَا — and the sentence of the seventy-fifth verse is repeated word for word. There singular (adkhalnāhu), here plural (adkhalnāhum). It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

Wa Dha'n-Nūni idh dhahaba mughāḍiban fa-ẓanna an lan naqdira ʿalayhi fa-nādā fi'ẓ-ẓulumāti an lā ilāha illā anta subḥānaka innī kuntu mina'ẓ-ẓālimīn · Fa'stajabnā lahu wa najjaynāhu mina'l-ghamm, wa kadhālika nunji'l-muʾminīn

"And Dhū'l-Nūn, when he went off angry and thought We would not straiten him. Then he called out in the darknesses: 'There is no god but You. Glory be to You. I have indeed been among the wrongdoers.' · We answered him and delivered him from the grief. Thus do We deliver the believers."

And this name is the third designation the Qurʾān uses for the same person. All three are in this commentary, and the comparison is wholly a datum of wording.

The first two columns were tabulated in detail at al-Ṣāffāt on 37/139-148. I rely on that treatment.

And what al-Anbiyāʾ adds must be recorded: al-Qalam says ḥūt, al-Anbiyāʾ nūn — both mean fish. That is, two different sūras name the same person by the same means (the fish) but with two different words.

And a fact within the sūra: two people in this series are not named by name.

There are sixteen names in the series; two of them are unnamed. This is a fact countable from the text, and I shall take it up separately at the ninety-first verse.

At al-Ṣāffāt on 37/140 the verb was abaqa, and it was analysed in detail there:

"Ibāq is a slave's running away from his master without leave. […] The word is not used in Arabic of any other kind of flight."

In al-Anbiyāʾ the verb is dhahaba — "he went". And the difference must be recorded:

Two sūras tell the same departure with two different verbs. I record this as an observation about wording.

Mughāḍiban — root غ-ض-ب, a Form III active participle, in the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier. Form III (mufāʿala) conveys reciprocity in Arabic. And there is disagreement about who was angry with whom:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference. And I enter into no detail the Qurʾān has not given.

And this sentence is one of the places handled most carefully in the classical commentaries. The source of the disagreement is the two distinct senses of the root ق-د-ر.

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And I enter a note about the language, and it is not a preference: the core sense of the root ق-د-ر was treated at al-Qadr, at al-Qamar on 54/49 and at al-Zumar on 39/67, and it was recorded there: the core of the root is measure. From the sense "to measure" arise both "to have power" and "to narrow" — to set a measure to a thing is to limit it. That is, both readings are two extensions of the same root.

Ẓulumāt — plural: darknesses. In the classical commentaries several explanations are transmitted of whose darknesses they are (of the sea, of the night, of the fish's belly). The verse does not enumerate them; nor do I. What is to be recorded is that the word comes in the plural: not a single darkness.

And now the prayer itself. It consists of three parts, and in none of them is there a request:

And the order must be recorded: first He, then I. Two thirds of the prayer are about the one addressed.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the elements of the sentence: like Job's prayer in the eighty-third verse, this prayer too is without a petition. Both prayers state a condition, and both are answered with the same sentence: fa'stajabnā lah.

At al-Ṣāffāt on 37/143 the deliverance was tied to this sentence:

fa-lawlā annahu kāna mina'l-musabbiḥīn — "had he not been one of those who glorify…"

And it was recorded there:

"The verse does not say 'because he glorified', it says 'because he was one of those who glorify'. That is, what saves is not an act at that moment but a belonging."

Now I look at al-Anbiyāʾ and find a verifiable overlap between the two sūras:

That is, al-Ṣāffāt says he was among those who glorify; al-Anbiyāʾ transmits the wording of that glorification.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the root shared by the two verses: the two sūras do not conflict, they complete one another. One gives the quality, the other the text. I do not claim that the two sūras refer to one another; what I record is the sharing of the root.

And the difference in telling between the two sūras can be gathered in a table:

The last row must be recorded: al-Ṣāffāt ends the story as an event; al-Anbiyāʾ binds it to a rule.

وَكَذَٰلِكَ نُۨجِى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ — "thus do We deliver the believers."

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the sentence itself: the verse makes a prophet's deliverance an example. And this is the only sentence of generalisation in the sūra's series.

A note on the variant readings: differences are transmitted in the spelling and the pronunciation of the verb (nunjī / nunajjī). The sense does not markedly change; I name no reciter.