فَأَعْرَضُوا۟ فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَيْلَ ٱلْعَرِمِ وَبَدَّلْنَٰهُم بِجَنَّتَيْهِمْ جَنَّتَيْنِ ذَوَاتَىْ أُكُلٍ خَمْطٍ وَأَثْلٍ وَشَىْءٍ مِّن سِدْرٍ قَلِيلٍ · ذَٰلِكَ جَزَيْنَٰهُم بِمَا كَفَرُوا۟ وَهَلْ نُجَٰزِىٓ إِلَّا ٱلْكَفُورَ
Fa-aʿraḍū fa-arsalnā ʿalayhim sayla'l-ʿarim, wa baddalnāhum bi-jannatayhim jannatayni dhawātay ukulin khamṭin wa athlin wa shayʾin min sidrin qalīl · Dhālika jazaynāhum bimā kafarū, wa hal nujāzī illa'l-kafūr
"But they turned away. So We sent upon them the flood of the ʿArim, and We exchanged their two gardens for two gardens bearing bitter fruit, tamarisk, and a little of the lote tree. Thus We recompensed them for their ingratitude. Do We recompense any but the ungrateful?"
ع-ر-ض — the concrete sense of the root: to turn one's breadth towards something, to turn sideways. ʿArḍ — breadth, width. So iʿrāḍ is not exactly to turn the face away — it is to turn side on: to show the other not your face but your flank.
This picture is worth recording, and I give it as an observation about the language: the verb describes not a refusal but an indifference. Not opposing, but turning and not looking.
And two fāʾ particles come one after the other: fa-aʿraḍū fa-arsalnā. In Arabic fāʾ conveys following immediately. That is, no interval is left between the two clauses: they turned away, We sent.
The lexicographers differ over the sense of this construction, and the disagreement must be set out in a table:
| View | What ʿarim is | Sense of the construction |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A dam, a barrage | "The flood of the dam" — the flood that came when the dam gave way |
| 2 | Violent, raging (an adjective) | "The raging flood" |
| 3 | The valley / the water behind the dam | "The flood of the valley" |
| 4 | A rat or mole (the animal that pierced the dam) | A pointer to the cause of the flood |
The fourth view is transmitted in some sources; I issue no ruling on its soundness. The first three are more widespread. I do not impose a preference.
I make no firm claim about the historical background, and I record this plainly. That there was a great dam in southern Arabia and that it collapsed at one period is transmitted; on this matter both the classical sources and later research name different dates and different phases of collapse. The verse gives no date and gives no name of a dam. What the text gives is the event itself and its outcome; beyond that I do not step outside the language of "it is transmitted".
And the verb arsalnā must be recorded: "We sent". The same verb is used in the sūra for sending a prophet as well (28, 34, 44). That is, the verb "to send" occurs in the sūra both for a warner and for a flood. I record this as an observation about the language.
| Before (15) | After (16) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Jannatāni — two gardens | Jannatayni — two gardens |
| Position | ʿAn yamīnin wa shimāl | — |
| Produce | — (not stated) | Ukulin khamṭin wa athlin wa sidrin qalīl |
| Name | Janna | Janna |
The most striking point is that the name does not change. The verse does not say "We turned their gardens into desert". It says "two gardens" again — but puts three things inside them: bitter fruit, tamarisk, and a little lote.
I record this as my own reading, and its support is the repetition of the word jannatayn: the punishment is described not as the taking away of what was owned but as the emptying out of the thing that keeps its name. The garden is still a garden; there is nothing left in it to eat.
أُكُلٍ خَمْطٍ — ukul: fruit, produce. Khamṭ — the sense the lexicographers give: bitter, sour fruit that has lost its taste; some mean by it a particular thorny tree. Both explanations are transmitted.
أَثْل — the tamarisk. It grows in the desert, it gives shade, its wood is used; but its fruit is not eaten.
سِدْر — the lote or jujube tree (sidr). Its fruit is eaten, but there is little of it. And the word is qualified by the adjective qalīl (little).
The order of the three is worth recording, and I give this as an observation: fruit that has become inedible → a tree never eaten from → a tree eaten from a little. The list moves from the useless to the barely useful, and stops there. So the picture is not total ruin — it is insufficiency.
And the word qalīl must be recorded: in the thirteenth verse it was said wa qalīlun min ʿibādiya'sh-shakūr. The same word comes three verses later for the lote trees that remain.
I record this overlap as my own reading; its support is that the same word occurs twice, three verses apart: the fewness of thanks and the smallness of what provision remains are named with the same adjective.
The sentence is an istifhām inkārī (a question that expects no answer and states a negation): "We do not."
The same root, two different forms — and the lexicographers record the difference. Form III (mufāʿala) conveys reciprocity: mujāzāt is to give a return equal to the deed done.
I record this as an observation about the word order: the first clause narrates the event (We recompensed them), the second lays down the rule (an equal return is given only to the ungrateful). The change of word marks the passage from event to rule.
ٱلْكَفُور — an intensive form: utterly ungrateful. The exact opposite of ash-shakūr in the thirteenth verse, on the same pattern. The two words stand facing one another four verses apart.
And a note on how the word is rendered: the root ك-ف-ر here means "ingratitude" as much as "denial". The concrete sense of the root is to cover; ingratitude is covering over a favour. And the context supports this: what is enumerated before the clause is favours.