al-Nūr 24:35

Allāhu nūru'l-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ, mathalu nūrihī ka-mishkātin fīhā miṣbāḥ, al-miṣbāḥu fī zujāja, al-zujājatu ka-annahā kawkabun durriyyun yūqadu min shajaratin mubārakatin zaytūnatin lā sharqiyyatin wa lā gharbiyyatin yakādu zaytuhā yuḍīʾu wa law lam tamsashu nār, nūrun ʿalā nūr, yahdi'llāhu li-nūrihī man yashāʾ, wa yaḍribu'llāhu'l-amthāla li'l-nās, wa'llāhu bi-kulli shayʾin ʿalīm

"God is the light of the heavens and the earth. The likeness of His light is as a niche in which there is a lamp; the lamp within a glass; the glass as it were a star shining like a pearl, kindled from a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost give light though no fire had touched it. Light upon light. God guides to His light whom He wills. God coins likenesses for people. God knows everything."

This verse is the centre of the sūra, and it is the most detailed part of this section.

The verse is one of those most written about in the history of Islamic thought: it has been taken up separately in the literatures of commentary, of theology, of philosophy and of Sufism, and independent treatises have been written on it.

What will be done in this section is this: the elements of the parable will be worked out one by one, what each of them does will be shown in a table, and the classical explanations of the first sentence will be transmitted together with their disagreements. No preference will be imposed and no binding ruling will be issued.

The verse's first sentence must be handled with care, and a note needs entering at the very start.

This expression cannot be understood in the sense of a bodily light.

The reason is established by the Qurʾān's own language, and it agrees with the series of tanzīh recorded at al-Baqara, 2/255 (the Verse of the Throne). There a series of ten clauses of tanzīh stood, and each clause removed a bodily or corporeal attribute. The verse is read together with the principle "there is nothing like Him" (al-Shūrā 42/11).

Light, in the physical sense, is a created thing. Indeed the Qurʾān states that light is created: wa jaʿala'l-ẓulumāti wa'l-nūr (al-Anʿām 6/1) — "and He made the darknesses and the light". What has been created cannot be the essence of the Creator.

This note is entered openly in the classical tradition of commentary as well. And the exegetes have taken different roads in explaining the expression.

The main directions in the classical literature of commentary are these. None of them is preferred and none is binding:

And all four are represented in the classical sources.

An observation about the word order may be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: the verse itself enters a qualification immediately after the first sentence: mathalu nūrihī — "the likeness of His light".

Directly after the first sentence, that is, the verse passes into the language of a mathal. And a mathal is, by definition, not the thing spoken of but a comparison framed in order to speak of it.

This means that the verse carries a note of tanzīh within itself: the text itself says that what it will describe is a likeness. And the last clause of the verse repeats it: wa yaḍribu'llāhu'l-amthāla li'l-nās.

Moreover the genitive in the expression nūrihī — "His light" — is worth noting: in the second clause the light is named as something ascribed to God. This provides a ground for the first and second explanations of how the first sentence is to be understood.

I record this as an observation about the word order; not as a preference.

The parable is made of six elements, and each is either inside the one before it or feeds it.

The sense the lexicographers record: a hollow opened in a wall which does not go through to the other side; the niche in which a lamp is set.

And the qualification "which does not go through to the other side" in the definition is decisive: a mishkāt is not a window. A window lets light through; a niche holds the light and throws it back.

A note about the word's origin: some of the lexicographers record that the word came into Arabic from another language. I transmit this view as a note that is transmitted; I say nothing definite.

Its work in the parable: to gather the light and to prevent its scattering. A lamp may burn in the open air too; but the lamp in a niche does not scatter its light — it gives it in one direction and concentrates it.

Root: ص-ب-ح. Its concrete sense is morning (ṣubḥ). The root was analysed at al-Ḥujurāt, 49/6 (fa-tuṣbiḥū); the note there: "a thing done at night being seen in the morning."

And miṣbāḥ: the thing that brings the morning — a lamp.

The origin of the word is worth noting, and I give it as an observation about the root: in Arabic the lamp has been named "the instrument of morning". A small light, that is, has been seen as a piece of morning within the night.

And the distinction recorded at Nūḥ, 71/16, works here: nūr is the light itself; sirāj and miṣbāḥ are the body that produces the light.

Its work in the parable: the source of the light. The element that stands at the centre of the parable.

Glass. The sense the lexicographers record: a transparent substance that lets light through.

Its work in the parable runs two ways, and both are worth noting:

Glass, that is, is both a barrier and a thing that lets through. It does not hold the light back, but it does protect the flame.

And this is the finest element in the parable, which I record as my own reading: to protect a thing and to shut it in are not the same. Glass is a boundary that protects without covering.

And this agrees with the sūra as a whole: Sūrat al-Nūr speaks from beginning to end of boundaries — the boundary of the house, of the glance, of speech. And in the thirty-fifth verse an element that is a boundary enters the parable as something that increases the light rather than lessening it.

كَوْكَب — a star.

دُرِّىّ — and there is disagreement over the origin of the word:

The different readings of the word are recorded in the classical sources on the variant readings. Since I cannot state with certainty which reader read which, I write no names.

The two pictures the two readings give are worth noting:

• The pearl reading: a fixed, pure body shining of itself.
• The shooting-star reading: a moving, sudden brightness that catches the eye.

The root د-ر-أ occurred in the sūra's eighth verse (yadraʾu — it averts). That the two words may come from the same root is the ground of the second reading.

Its work in the parable: to give the quality of the glass. The glass is no ordinary glass; it appears to be a source of light itself.

The source of the fuel is named here, and the plant chosen is worth noting.

زَيْتُون — the olive. The Qurʾān names this tree in several places: wa'l-zaytūni wa ṭūri sīnīn (al-Tīn 95/1) — treated in al-Tīn; wa shajaratan takhruju min ṭūri saynāʾa tanbutu bi'l-duhn (al-Muʾminūn 23/20).

مُبَارَكَة — root ب-ر-ك: its concrete sense is a camel's kneeling down, its settling and staying in a place (burūk). Birka — a pool, the place where water gathers and stays. And baraka: a thing's staying in a place and increasing, its continuance.

The concrete sense of the root explains the work of the attribute here, and I record this as my own reading: baraka is not a sudden abundance — it is a lasting and continuing increase. And the olive tree is the concrete example of that description: it grows slowly, it lives long, and it bears fruit for generations.

Concrete reasons for the choice of the olive can be enumerated, and these are historically verifiable pieces of information:

These properties were known to everyone living in that country. The force of the parable comes from its being familiar.

This is the most disputed element in the parable, and several explanations are transmitted in the classical commentaries:

I impose no preference, and it is not binding.

But the first explanation's agreement with the parable as a whole may be recorded, and I give this as my own reading: all the elements of the parable are things that increase the quality of the light — the niche gathers, the glass guards and concentrates, the olive burns clean. And the qualification "neither of the east nor of the west" conveys, on the same line, the purity of the oil.

And the second explanation is worth noting too, because it looks at another side of the verse: nūr is not the property of a region, of a lineage, of a party. This agrees with the general language of the sūra and of the Qurʾān — as was recorded at al-Ḥujurāt, 49/13: the measure is not lineage but ʿinda'llāh.

This is the most striking clause of the parable.

يَكَادُ — "almost". In Arabic the verb kāda conveys that a thing has come very close to happening but has not happened.

And what the clause builds is this: the oil comes close to giving light without fire's touching it — but it does not give it.

Two notes are needed:

One. Fire is nonetheless required. The verb kāda says exactly this: almost, but not. The oil does not give light by itself.

Two. But the degree of readiness is stressed. The oil is so pure that it stands as close to kindling as can be.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verb itself: kāda conveys not the happening but the nearness. To read the clause as "the oil burns of itself" runs against the sense of the verb.

تَمْسَسْهُ — root م-س-س: to touch. The same verb occurred in the fourteenth verse: la-massakum … ʿadhābun ʿaẓīm. In both places the lightest contact.

And the two occurrences build a contrast:

The same verb, the one in a negative and the other in a positive context. I record this as an observation about the word order.

And the root of the word nār is the same as the sūra's name: ن-و-ر. Fire and light, from one root. And what the clause does is to separate the two: light is (almost) possible without fire.

This is the seal of the parable, and it consists of two words.

In Arabic the expression conveys a layering: one light above another light. And in the classical commentaries several explanations of what this is are transmitted:

I impose no preference.

And the contrast the expression will build with the fortieth verse will be taken up in that discussion: there it will say ẓulumātun baʿḍuhā fawqa baʿḍ — "darknesses, one above another". The same structure, with the opposite object.

And it may be recorded that the word nūr occurs five times in this verse: nūru'l-samāwāt, nūrihī, nūrun, ʿalā nūrin, li-nūrihī. The sūra's name, five times in the sūra's central verse.

I record this as an observation of count.

What each element does in the parable:

And what the table shows is this, which I record as my own reading:

Seven of the eight elements in the parable are not the light itself — they are the apparatus around the light. The niche, the glass, the tree, the oil, the direction, the readiness: all of them are elements that make the light possible, that guard it, feed it and increase it.

The parable, that is, tells not how a light comes to be but how a light is kept.

And this agrees with the sūra as a whole. The whole subject of Sūrat al-Nūr is protection and boundary: the guarding of standing (4-5, 11-26), the guarding of the house (27-29, 58-59), the guarding of the glance and of chastity (30-31). And the parable in the central verse tells how a flame is kept.

I record this connection as my own reading; the functions of the elements in the parable are read from the wording of the verse.

Different readings of the verb يُوقَدُ are recorded in the classical sources on the variant readings — in the passive (yūqadu) and in active forms, and also with a feminine pronoun (tūqadu). It is recorded that they convey no great change in meaning. Since I cannot state with certainty which reader read which, I write no names.

There is a grammatical debate about the subject of the verb as well: is it the miṣbāḥ that burns, or the zujāja? This is a question of case arising from the reference of the pronouns in the sentence, and it is debated in the classical sources. I make no preference.

The clause that comes after the parable says whose the parable is.

And the particle is worth noting: yahdī li-nūrihī — "He guides to His light". Not ilā but the lām. The classical lexicographers record a fine difference between the use of these two particles with the verb of guiding; since I cannot give a definite rule, I draw no conclusion.

And the verb of the clause is worth noting: yahdī — to guide, to show the way.

The distinction recorded at al-Baqara, 2/257, works here:

ٱلظُّلُمَٰت is plural, ٱلنُّور singular. And this is a consistent usage in the Qurʾān. … "darkness is the absence of light, and absence has many shapes; light is one. The way is lost in more than one manner, but the place arrived at is one."

And Sūrat al-Nūr repeats this distinction within itself:

The pattern recorded in al-Baqara is confirmed twice in Sūrat al-Nūr, five verses apart. I record this as an observation about the word order.

Having built the parable, the verse gives it a name: amthāl — likenesses.

And this is the most important note within the verse itself, and the text here repeats the note of tanzīh entered at the head of this section: what is described is a likeness.

The idiom ḍaraba mathal — "to strike a likeness" — conveys in Arabic the framing of a comparison. The root ض-ر-ب occurred twice in the thirty-first verse of this sūra (yaḍribna bi-khumurihinna, lā yaḍribna bi-arjulihinna). The same verb, in three distinct tasks.

And the qualification li'l-nās is worth noting: the likeness is given not to a particular group but to people. This is one of the few places in the sūra where the word nās occurs.