al-Muʾminūn 23:68-70

a-fa-lam yaddabbarū'l-qawla am jāʾahum mā lam yaʾti ābāʾahumu'l-awwalīn · am lam yaʿrifū rasūlahum fa-hum lahū munkirūn · am yaqūlūna bihī jinnatun bal jāʾahum bi'l-ḥaqqi wa aktharuhum li'l-ḥaqqi kārihūn

"Have they not pondered the word? Or has something come to them that did not come to their forefathers of old? Or did they not recognise their messenger, so that they reject him? Or do they say 'there is madness in him'? No — he brought them the truth, but most of them are averse to the truth."

The word order must be recorded, and this is the most striking place in the three verses: one question (a-fa-lam), and after it three am questions. In Arabic am brings an alternative to the first question.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the order of the four questions: four possible grounds are counted off one by one and not one of them is confirmed. Then comes bal — the particle that cancels what went before and sets down the real cause (treated at al-Furqān 25/11).

And the real cause set down is not a lack of knowledge: wa aktharuhum li'l-ḥaqqi kārihūn — "most of them are averse to the truth."

This is the same line treated at al-Baqara 2/213 and al-Shūrā 42/14: the cause of the division is not knowledge but disposition. I rely on that treatment.

The concrete sense of the root: the back, the end of a thing. Dubur — the back; adbara — he turned his back; tadabbur — to look at the back, at the end, of a thing.

The word occurs in exactly this setting in several places in the Qurʾān: al-Nisāʾ 4/82 (a-fa-lā yatadabbarūna'l-qurʾān), Muḥammad 47/24 (treated in Muḥammad), Ṣād 38/29 (li-yaddabbarū āyātih; treated in Ṣād).

And the object of the verb here must be recorded: al-qawl — "the word". Not the Qurʾān, not the signs. The question, that is, looks not at the name of the text but at the thing said itself.

I record this as an observation: the choice of word does not ask the one addressed to accept the source — only to think what is said through to the end.

The pattern must be recorded: yaddabbarū, its original being yatadabbarū; the tāʾ has been assimilated to the dāl. Among the variant readings yatadabbarū is also transmitted. It does not change the meaning.

This construction occurred in the twenty-fourth verse in the mouth of Noah's people: mā samiʿnā bi-hādhā fī ābāʾinā'l-awwalīn. And it was tabulated there.

What belongs here is this, and I give it as my own reading: in the twenty-fourth verse it was the ground of the refusal — "we did not hear of it among our forefathers". In the sixty-eighth the same expression is turned into a question — "or has something come that did not come to their forefathers?"

The question, that is, tests the assumption the ground rests on. And the sūra has already refuted that assumption from the twenty-third verse onwards: the same call has been repeated since Noah.

The root ع-ر-ف: to recognise. The lexicographers record a distinction between maʿrifa and ʿilm: maʿrifa is the recognising again of something already known; ʿilm is general.

And rasūlahum — "their own messenger". The possessive pronoun must be recorded: the messenger belongs to them, he did not come from outside. The same qualification was set in the thirty-second verse: rasūlan minhum.

I record this as an observation: the question tests not the messenger's identity but whether they recognise him. And it cannot be said that they do not, because the messenger is one of them. The question is therefore put in order to remain unanswered.

This construction was used for Noah in the twenty-fifth verse — in exactly the same two words: bihī jinna. And it was tabulated there.

What belongs here is this: the fourth question is taken from the narrative the sūra itself has told. The sentence used in putting the question, that is, was given thirty-five verses earlier in the mouth of Noah's people.

The word order must be recorded: the word al-ḥaqq occurs twice — once as what is brought, once as what is disliked. And the second has been brought forward: wa aktharuhum li'l-ḥaqqi kārihūn.

The root ك-ر-ه: to dislike, not to want; and compulsion (ikrāh). The lexicographers record under this root both an unwillingness that comes from within and a compulsion that comes from without.

And the qualification aktharuhum must be recorded: "most of them". Not all.

This is an instance, verifiable from the text, of the principle recorded in Method that no blanket ruling is issued. A table was built for the same point at the end of al-Ṣāffāt (the entries on aktharu'l-awwalīn). I rely on that treatment.