al-Naml 27:83-85

wa yawma naḥshuru min kulli ummatin fawjan mimman yukadhdhibu bi-āyātinā fa-hum yūzaʿūn · ḥattā idhā jāʾū qāla a-kadhdhabtum bi-āyātī wa lam tuḥīṭū bihā ʿilman ammādhā kuntum taʿmalūn · wa waqaʿa'l-qawlu ʿalayhim bimā ẓalamū fa-hum lā yanṭiqūn

"On the day We gather from every community a troop of those who deny Our signs, and they are held in order. Until, when they have come, He will say: 'Did you deny My signs when you had not encompassed them in knowledge? Or what was it you were doing?' And the word falls upon them for the wrong they did, and they cannot speak."

This clause is word for word the same as verse 17, and the sūra's و-ز-ع spine closes here. It was set out in a table above; I do not repeat it.

And the two scenes can be set side by side:

فَوْج — root ف-و-ج: a company that passes swiftly through a place, a troop. The word was mentioned in the discussion of al-Naṣr (yadkhulūna fī dīni'llāhi afwājā) and this verse was already recorded there.

And the construction min kulli ummatin fawjan must be recorded: a troop from every community — not all of them.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse restricts those gathered by an attribute — mimman yukadhdhibu bi-āyātinā. The group is thus determined not by belonging but by conduct.

And the framing of the question gathers the sūra's whole line of knowledge into a single sentence.

The root ح-و-ط — the same root as the aḥaṭtu bimā lam tuḥiṭ bih of verse 22.

The same root, at the two ends of the sūra, for two opposite attitudes.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the two verses themselves, and it is the sūra's most decisive contrast:

At verse 22 a bird says to its king, "I have encompassed what you could not encompass" — and the king makes an inquiry before he gives a verdict (27). At verse 84 human beings are asked: "did you deny when you had not encompassed?"

At the beginning of the sūra, then, a bird ties judgement to knowledge; at its end, human beings are asked why they judged without knowledge.

And the distinction recorded in al-Baqara at 2/255 works exactly here, and I rely on that treatment: what is denied is not knowing but encompassing. The verse sets encompassing as the condition of denial — that is, it does not say "had you known you would have believed"; it says "you rejected without encompassing".

أَمَّاذَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ — "or what was it you were doing?"

The sentence offers a second alternative, and the classical commentaries explain it thus: either you rejected the signs having encompassed them — which did not happen — or you took no interest at all. The second alternative is not an excuse but another charge.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the question opens two doors, and both turn out to be shut.

And the sūra's line of ن-ط-ق closes here — it had opened at verse 16.

It was set out in the table at verse 16 above.

And in Fuṣṣilat at 41/21 the same root ran the other way: anṭaqanā'llāhu'lladhī anṭaqa kulla shayʾ — there the limbs were made to speak.

Three verses can be set side by side:

This is a weave that can be verified from the text.