قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّا تَطَيَّرْنَا بِكُمْ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهُوا۟ لَنَرْجُمَنَّكُمْ وَلَيَمَسَّنَّكُم مِّنَّا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ · قَالُوا۟ طَٰٓئِرُكُم مَّعَكُمْ أَئِن ذُكِّرْتُم بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ
Qālū innā taṭayyarnā bikum, la-in lam tantahū la-narjumannakum wa la-yamassannakum minnā ʿadhābun alīm · Qālū ṭāʾirukum maʿakum, a-in dhukkirtum, bal antum qawmun musrifūn
"They said: 'We have met with ill omen through you. If you do not stop, we will surely stone you, and a painful punishment from us will surely touch you.' The messengers said: 'Your omen is with you. Is it because you have been reminded? No — you are a people who go beyond all bounds.'"
The concrete sense of the root is to fly. Ṭāʾir — a bird; ṭayr — birds. The root has occurred in al-Mulk and al-Wāqiʿa (the flight of birds, the use lāgha'ṭ-ṭayru); I do not repeat the basic analysis of the root.
What belongs here is the word in Form V: taṭayyara — to take as an ill omen. And behind this lies a documented Arab custom.
The custom is this, and the historians and the lexicographers record it: before setting about a task or setting out on a journey, a bird would be startled up and the direction of its flight watched.
| Term | The bird's direction | How it was read |
|---|---|---|
| سَانِح (sāniḥ) | To the right | Counted as a good omen |
| بَارِح (bāriḥ) | To the left | Counted as an ill omen |
This was called zajr al-ṭayr (the startling of the bird). And this business, born of putting a bird to flight, turned in the end into a word used with no bird left in it for taking anything whatever for a bad sign. This is what the English "ill omen" answers to.
The pattern must be recorded: Form V (tafaʿʿul). In Arabic this form most often conveys a person's taking something upon himself, appropriating it to himself. Taṭayyur, that is, is not ill fortune coming to a person but a person's counting something ill-omened. The subject of the verb is the one who does the reading.
The answer takes the word of the objection and changes its place. They said taṭayyarnā bikum — "we met with ill omen through you", that is, the cause is outside. The messengers say ṭāʾirukum maʿakum — "your bird is with you", that is, the cause is inside.
A point of word order: in both sentences the same root, but the particle changes: bāʾ (which announces cause) → maʿa (which announces accompaniment). With the change of one particle the responsibility changes place. This can be verified from the text.
And the choice of word must be recorded: the messengers do not use an abstract word, they use the other side's own word. The argument is carried on inside the other side's vocabulary.
The saying to messengers "you have brought ill fortune" is recorded in three separate stories in the Qurʾān:
| Place | Who says it | Expression |
|---|---|---|
| al-Aʿrāf 7/131 | Pharaoh's people — about Moses (Mūsā) | Yaṭṭayyarū bi-Mūsā wa man maʿah |
| al-Naml 27/47 | Thamūd — about Ṣāliḥ | Iṭṭayyarnā bika wa bi-man maʿak |
| Yāsīn 36/18 | The people of the town — about the messengers | Innā taṭayyarnā bikum |
All three are verifiable textual data. My own reading: the same move is repeated in three separate stories, and its structure is always the same: there is a hardship, and the newcomer is pointed to as the cause of the hardship. This is a move that produces no proof but ends the argument — because once the person named as the cause has been removed, the claim never gets tested.
The concrete sense: to throw stones, to stone. Rajm — stoning. And the second branch of the root: to revile, to drive off, to banish. Al-Shayṭānu'r-rajīm — the banished Satan.
In which sense in the verse? The lexicographers record both possibilities: actual stoning or stoning with words (grave insult). I do not impose a preference. But an observation: in the continuation of the sentence a ʿadhābun alīm (painful punishment) is named separately. Since the two are counted separately, rajm and ʿadhāb must be two different things — this appears to support the first sense. It is an observation, not a preference.
Word order: la-in lam tantahū — the protasis; la-narjumannakum — the apodosis, strengthened with the heavy nūn of emphasis (nūn al-tawkīd al-thaqīla). And the second clause with the same nūn: la-yamassannakum. Both threats are in the heaviest pattern of emphasis.
نَتَهُوا۟ / تَنتَهُوا۟ — root ن-ه-ي: to reach the last limit of a thing; from here nahy (prohibition) and, in Form VIII, intihāʾ — to desist, to bring to an end. "If you do not stop" — that is, what is asked for is the breaking off of the speech.
The structure: hamza (interrogative) + in (conditional) + dhukkirtum (the verb of the condition). The apodosis of the condition is not stated.
| Supplied element | The completed form | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A-in dhukkirtum taṭayyartum? | "Is it because you have been reminded that you took it for an ill omen?" |
| 2 | A-in dhukkirtum tawaʿʿadtum? | "Is it because you have been reminded that you threaten?" |
| 3 | The apodosis is understood from what precedes | "Is it because you have been reminded that [all this]?" |
All three supplied readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The common point can be verified: in all three the condition is the same — dhukkirtum, "you have been reminded."
The choice of word is worth recording: the messengers name their own work "reminding". The root is ذ-ك-ر. What comes, that is, is described not as new information but as the setting in front of what has been forgotten. And this is the same root as ittabaʿa'dh-dhikra in the eleventh verse.
Different readings of this word are transmitted in the sources on the variant readings (dhukkirtum / idhdhakkartum and the like). Since I am not certain of the details I give no names and no particulars; the difference in meaning is not fundamental.
The concrete sense: to pass the limit in something, to overstep the measure. In English extravagance is used only of spending; in Arabic the root announces overstepping the bound in every domain.
And the diagnosis must be recorded: the messengers do not call the other side "liars" or "ignorant". They say musrif — one who goes beyond the bound.
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the sense of the word: the diagnosis is not about the other side's state of knowledge but about its state of measure. The problem is not not knowing but not stopping where one should stop. And this agrees with the content of the eighteenth verse: to a word a threat of stoning has been given in return — the disproportion is plain.
Word order: bal — the particle of iḍrāb. This particle was treated in Qāf at 50/2: leaving what precedes and passing to the real matter. So here: the question is broken off midway and the diagnosis is laid down.