37. Sūrat al-Ṣāffāt

One hundred and eighty-two verses. Meccan. It takes its name from a word in its first verse: ٱلصَّٰٓفَّٰت — "those drawn up in ranks".

The sūra opens with three oaths, and all three are in the same mould: a definite active participle, feminine plural, followed by a verbal noun from its own root. This mould is the opening of several other sūras of the Qurʾān — al-Dhāriyāt, al-Mursalāt, al-Nāziʿāt — and in all of them the same disagreement has arisen: who or what is sworn by is not said. Those three sūras were treated in this commentary; here a fourth will be set beside them, and the comparison will be given in a table.

But the real structure of al-Ṣāffāt lies not in the oaths but in its middle. From the seventy-fifth verse to the hundred and forty-eighth a sequence of prophets is set up: Noah (Nūḥ), Abraham (Ibrāhīm) — and within his account, Isaac (Isḥāq) — Moses (Mūsā) with Aaron (Hārūn), Elijah (Ilyās), Lot (Lūṭ), Jonah (Yūnus). And what is striking about the sequence is not the accounts recounted but how the accounts are closed. Each ends with the same three- or four-sentence seal:

wa taraknā ʿalayhi fi'l-ākhirīn — salāmun ʿalā … — innā kadhālika najzi'l-muḥsinīn — innahu min ʿibādinā'l-muʾminīn

And this seal is not stamped in full on everyone. With one, a piece of the mould is missing; with another, not one of them is there. This is a fact countable from the text, and it will be given below in a separate section in tabular form.

The end of the sūra ties to the same mould. The hundred and eighty-first verse gives peace to all the messengers at once: wa salāmun ʿala'l-mursalīn. The peace given one by one in the sequence is thus repeated collectively at the end — the sūra closes with its own closing formula.

The subject of the sūra is one from beginning to end and can be gathered into two sentences: God is one (verse 4), and the promise given to the messengers is kept (verses 171-173). Everything in between — the sky, the satans, clay, the scene of the reckoning, zaqqūm, seven prophets, the dispute over daughters and sons — is set between these two sentences.

The sūra consists of seven blocks. The block boundaries are for the most part drawn by the text's own repetitions.

Three of the block boundaries are drawn by the same sentence:

• Block III opens with illā ʿibāda'llāhi'l-mukhlaṣīn (40) and block IV closes with the same sentence (74).
• The same sentence occurs once more in the account of Elijah (128) and once more in block VI (160). Four times in all.
• In the hundred and sixty-ninth verse the same construction occurs in the mouths of the deniers: la-kunnā ʿibāda'llāhi'l-mukhlaṣīn — "we would surely have been God's chosen servants". The sūra, that is, sets its own key sentence at the end inside a falsehood.

The following are facts that can be verified from the text; the claim that they set up an order is interpretation, and I present it as an observation.

In the verse-endings of the sūra there are three separate sound regions, and their boundaries are sharp. This is a countable datum:

The first eleven verses of the sūra are thus recited in two different sounds within themselves; and the hundred and seventy-one verses from the twelfth to the end sit in a single family of sound: a long vowel, then a nasal (nūn or mīm).

A similar observation was recorded in the section on Sūrat al-Qalam (all fifty-two of its fifty-two verses end in nūn or mīm). In al-Ṣāffāt the same order runs over a far longer distance — a stretch of a hundred and seventy-one verses — and it is never broken.

I record this as a fact; I set up no reckoning or claim about numbers — as was written in the section on al-Baqara, no reckoning of letters and numbers is entered into in this commentary. What is recorded is this: after the eleventh verse the sūra passes into a single breath, and that breath does not change to the end.

On the sūra's being Meccan there is something close to unanimity. I do not transmit any report of a particular occasion of revelation; the sūra as a whole sits inside the dispute over God's oneness at Mecca and answers two claims:

1. The claim that the source of the Qurʾān comes from the jinn — verses 6-10 correspond to this claim and were treated in detail in al-Jinn. 2. The claim that the angels are God's daughters — verses 149-166 take up this claim; the same claim was treated at al-Najm 53/21-22 and 53/27-28.

The basmala was treated in earlier sections; the verses are numbered without it.

This section shows the clearest and most easily verifiable structure of the sūra. All the tables below are counts of the text; they are not interpretation.

From the seventy-fifth verse to the hundred and forty-eighth there are six sections. Each section names a prophet and each closes with a seal. But the seal is not stamped in the same way on everyone — and the pieces that are missing are as striking as those that are there.

And once more outside the sequence, in the very middle of the scene of the sacrifice:

The najzi'l-muḥsinīn mould thus occurs twice in the Abraham section (105 and 110). With no other prophet is there this repetition. This is a fact that can be verified from the text.

The openings are as ordered as the closings, and there too there is a break:

The last three are in exactly the same mould: wa inna + [name] + la-mina'l-mursalīn. The first three are presented in three different forms.

The fact must first be set apart: in the Lot and Jonah sections all four of the four moulds are absent. This is certain. But why they are absent is not said in the text, and in the classical commentaries there is no single explanation on this.

I give in a table the explanations that are transmitted and can be supported from the text. I do not impose a preference.

As my own reading I record this, and it is not binding: the shared work of the four moulds is to announce a lastingness — taraknā ʿalayhi fi'l-ākhirīn (We left upon him [a remembrance] among those who came after) and then a peace. In the Lot section the lastingness is provided by something else: the ruin itself. "You pass by them in the morning and at night" (137-138). It is not said "We left"; what was left is shown. In the Jonah section the lastingness is in the hundred thousand who were saved. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

The last column is the one exception in the sequence: in five sections the subject of the verb that determines the end is God; in the Jonah section the subject of the last verb is the people themselves — fa-āmanū ("they believed"). This is a difference that can be read off the text.

Every peace in the sequence had been given to a single person: ʿalā Nūḥin, ʿalā Ibrāhīm, ʿalā Mūsā wa Hārūn, ʿalā Il Yāsīn. In the hundred and eighty-first verse the peace is given not to one person but to all the messengers at once:

wa salāmun ʿala'l-mursalīn

And this verse takes in the two prophets who received no peace (Lot and Jonah) as well — because both had been presented as mina'l-mursalīn (133, 139). The sūra, that is, gives collectively at the end the peace it left out in the sequence.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is two textual data: (a) the word mursalīn in the introductory mould of Lot and Jonah, and (b) that the word mursalīn in verse 181 is the very same word. Whether this link is made is not said openly in the verse.

Wa'ṣ-ṣāffāti ṣaffā · Fa'z-zājirāti zajrā · Fa't-tāliyāti dhikrā · Inna ilāhakum la-wāḥid · Rabbu's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi wa mā baynahumā wa rabbu'l-mashāriq

"By those drawn up in ranks · and those who drive on, driving · and those who recite a reminder: your God is one. The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and the Lord of the risings."

The matter of the oath (qasam) was set out in this commentary in the section on al-ʿAṣr, widened into a long series in the section on al-Shams, and applied to this mould in particular in the sections on al-Mursalāt and al-Dhāriyāt. I do not repeat the findings there.

Its summary is this: in the Qurʾān an oath is not made to prove truthfulness — the one addressed is already disputing the truthfulness of the one who swears — but to draw attention to something. What is sworn by is at the same time a proof.

All three of the three oaths have the same structure: a definite active participle (feminine plural) + an accusative verbal noun from its own root.

Two observations must be recorded:

One — the cognate accusative. In the first two oaths the verb is reinforced with a verbal noun from its own root (ṣaffan, zajran). In Arabic this is called the cognate accusative, and it strengthens the verb: "drawing up in ranks upon ranks", "driving on and on". In the third this breaks: beside the word tāliyāt (those who recite) comes not tilāwatan, from its own root, but dhikran, from another root. In the third oath, then, there is not reinforcement but an object: what is recited is stated.

The same break was recorded in the section on al-Nāziʿāt, and there the series was in the form "two different at the outside, three the same within". Here the break is at the end: two the same, one different. This shows that the series is tied in its last verse to a subject — and the subject it is tied to is dhikr, that is, the carrier of the ruling to be stated in the fourth verse of the sūra.

Two — the conjunctions. One wāw, two fāʾ. فَ in Arabic announces succession and the absence of interval (fāʾ al-taʿqīb). As was recorded in the sections on al-ʿĀdiyāt and al-Dhāriyāt, the order wāw + fāʾ makes the verses a single oath: the three attributes are not three separate oaths but three steps of a single movement following one upon another.

The root was analysed in al-Ṣaff. The definition there: to set several things side by side on a straight line, in the same alignment. Its derivatives were given there too (maṣfūf — set in rows; al-Ghāshiya 88/15).

What is to be added here is this: the word comes here as a feminine plural active participle — ṣāffāt. Not "those that have been set in ranks", then, but "those who form ranks / who stand in ranks". The verb is active.

And the root will return at the end of the sūra: in the hundred and sixty-fifth verse, wa innā la-naḥnu'ṣ-ṣāffūn — "we, we indeed are those who stand in ranks". The party speaking there appears to be the very party left unnamed in the first verse. I will treat this link separately in a later section.

The root was analysed in al-Nāziʿāt (79/13 — zajratun wāḥida) and in al-Qamar (54/4 — muzdajar; 54/9 — uzdujira). I do not repeat it.

The definition there: to drive with the voice, to drive off by shouting, to direct by rebuke. The concrete use comes from the keeping of animals — the herdsman does not touch the beast, he shouts; the beast rises and moves. In the section on al-Nāziʿāt this verse (37/2) was already cited.

What is to be added here: at the centre of the word there is sound, and there is that sound's moving something from its place. Zajr does two pieces of work: it drives on and it drives away. Which of the two comes forward changes according to who is sworn by — this will be seen in the table below.

And the root occurs once more within the sūra: in the nineteenth verse, fa-innamā hiya zajratun wāḥida — "it is but a single cry". The sūra, that is, names the resurrection by the very act it swore by in its first verses. This is a countable datum.

The root was treated in al-Baqara and in al-Jumuʿa (yatlū ʿalayhim āyātihi). The basic note there holds here too and deserves repeating, because the whole of the verse rests on it:

The original sense of the root is not "to recite" but "to follow after". Talā — he came after, he followed. Tālī — the next, the one who comes behind. Wa'l-qamari idhā talāhā (al-Shams 91/2) — "by the moon when it follows it". There is no reciting there; there is following.

The sense of reciting arises from this picture: one who recites a text sets the letters one after another. Tilāwa, that is, is to set words in order and say them in succession.

And this shows how the three oaths are joined to one another — I record it as my own reading:

The common denominator of the three is "being set in line": one in place (side by side), one in movement (front to back), one in speech (word by word). And the last word of the series (dhikran) says what it is that is set in line: a reminder.

The text gives no name. Through three verses only attributes are set out. This is a recurring situation in the Qurʾān's series of oaths, and it has met us in three other sūras in this commentary.

What the four series have in common: all are definite feminine plural active participles; in none of them is the name of what is sworn by given; and in all four the same disagreement has arisen.

Their differences must also be recorded:

The last row is peculiar to al-Ṣāffāt and bears directly on the dispute over preference: the root of the attribute sworn by is used at the end of the sūra by a speaking party of itself.

Now the views:

No preference is imposed in this commentary. I write out the grounds:

One. There is no name in the text. The principle recorded in the sections on al-Mursalāt and al-Nāziʿāt holds here too: when the text swears by something it does not name, this is not a vagueness but a gain. An oath not locked to a single object can show more than one scene at once.

Two. In al-Ṣāffāt the language does not narrow as it does in al-Dhāriyāt. In the section on al-Dhāriyāt the first two verses were locked to the wind by the Qurʾān's own usage (al-Kahf 18/45; al-Aʿrāf 7/57), and for that reason it was recorded there that "the head of the series is locked". Here the situation is the reverse: the Qurʾān uses the word ṣāffāt plainly of birds (al-Nūr 24/41; al-Mulk 67/19) — the intra-Qurʾānic indication, that is, supports not the angel reading but the bird reading. But the third verse cannot be set up with birds. The indication pulls one way at the head of the series and another way at its end.

Three. The indication within the sūra is strong but not decisive. In the hundred and sixty-fourth and hundred and sixty-fifth verses a company says "each of us has a known station" and "we are those who stand in ranks". That the speakers are angels is the widespread view. This is the one datum within the sūra sharing a root with the first verse. But there is no explicit connecting sentence between the two places; it is the reader who makes the link.

If I must state my own inclination — and I record it not as a preference but as an inclination: the common denominator of the three attributes (order, movement, sequence) describes not so much a particular kind of being as an operation: a thing's being set in line, driven on, and delivered in sequence. In the section on al-Mursalāt this link was recorded as "the logic of being sent", in al-Dhāriyāt as "carrying and distributing". In al-Ṣāffāt its counterpart is this: an orderly chain of carriage. And the answer to the oath requires it as well: your God is one. The claim of oneness is supported in the language not of scattering but of order.

This is not binding and it eliminates none of the views above.

And the answer is one of the shortest answers to an oath in the Qurʾān: four words.

The word order must be recorded. The sentence carries two reinforcements: إِنَّ at the head and لَـ on the predicate (lām al-ibtidāʾ). In Arabic, when these two come together the sentence rises to the highest degree of emphasis. The expression is therefore not "your God is one" but "your God is certainly, beyond any doubt, one".

And there is a further point: the sentence does not say inna'llāha wāḥid ("God is one"). It says إِلَٰهَكُمْ — "your God". The addressee's own admission is taken and a ruling built upon it: whatever it is you serve, it is one. This is exactly the technique recorded in the section on al-Najm (53/21-22): to catch the other side not by a measure from outside but by proceeding from his own admission.

Wāḥid — root و-ح-د. Its difference from aḥad was treated in detail in al-Ikhlāṣ; I do not repeat it. The summary there was this: aḥad brings forward indivisibility in number, wāḥid the absence of anything of its kind. That wāḥid has been chosen here answers directly the other side's claim of "more than one god": a matter of number.

And in the fifth verse there is a notable absence.

The verse names three domains of lordship: the heavens, the earth, what is between them. Then it adds a fourth construct: wa rabbu'l-mashāriq — "the Lord of the risings".

The settings are not named.

Yet in other places the Qurʾān names the two together:

• rabbu'l-mashriqayni wa rabbu'l-maghribayn — "the Lord of the two risings and the Lord of the two settings" (al-Raḥmān 55/17). Treated in al-Raḥmān.
• bi-rabbi'l-mashāriqi wa'l-maghārib — "by the Lord of the risings and the settings" (al-Maʿārij 70/40). Treated in al-Maʿārij.
• al-mashriqi wa'l-maghribi — the singular pair (al-Baqara 2/115, 142; al-Muzzammil 73/9).

The Qurʾān thus sets up this construct in four different forms: the singular pair, the dual pair, the plural pair, and here — the plural rising alone.

This is a countable datum. Why it is so is disputed:

The first of these explanations (the verse-ending) rests on a verifiable fact; the others are plausible but cannot be proved. I do not impose a preference.

And a note of limitation — per the method (Method): no astronomical information is derived from this verse. That the word mashāriq is plural is not a statement of astronomy; describing the changing points of rising over the year in a given place is an everyday use of language in Arabic and rests on the observation of those addressed.

The five verses are built in a single movement: three oaths (order, movement, sequence) → one ruling (oneness) → the extent of the ruling (the heavens, the earth, what is between, the risings).

I record this as my own reading: the answer to the oath rests on number (wāḥid), and the oath itself rests on sequence and order. The sūra, that is, sets down oneness not as an abstract proposition but as the outcome of an operation. A thing set in line has a single ordering.

The shared picture of the three oaths — to be set in line, to be driven on, to be delivered in sequence — describes a discipline of operation. The end of the sūra ties this to the human being as well: "Each of us has a known station" (164).

I record it thus: what is praised at the opening of the sūra is neither power nor greatness; it is knowing one's place and waiting one's turn. This is something measurable in everyday life — a task runs when it is clear who stands where, and jams when it is not.

Innā zayyanna's-samāʾa'd-dunyā bi-zīnatini'l-kawākib · Wa ḥifẓan min kulli shayṭānin mārid · Lā yassammaʿūna ila'l-malaʾi'l-aʿlā wa yuqdhafūna min kulli jānib · Duḥūrā, wa lahum ʿadhābun wāṣib · Illā man khaṭifa'l-khaṭfata fa-atbaʿahu shihābun thāqib

"We have adorned the nearest sky with an adornment, the stars; and guarded it against every rebellious satan. They cannot give ear to the highest assembly; they are pelted from every side, driven off, and theirs is a lasting punishment. Except one who snatches a fragment — a piercing flame pursues him."

This subject was treated in detail in the section on al-Jinn 72/8-9, and these verses (37/6-10) were already cited there. I do not repeat the findings; here I write only what is peculiar to al-Ṣāffāt.

But the note of limitation set out there must be repeated here in bold as well, because these verses are among the most strained passages of the modern period:

The verse describes no heavenly body. It recounts no physical event. It gives no astronomical information.

That road is not taken in this commentary. No matching will be made with notions such as meteorites, meteors or cosmic radiation. As was written in the section on al-Jinn: this group of verses is part not of a lesson in cosmology but of a dispute about a source. One of the accusations levelled at the Prophet in Mecca was that what he said came from a jinn; these passages are the answer to that accusation.

Sūrat al-Jinn recounted the same scene from the mouths of the jinn — "we sought the sky and found it filled". Al-Ṣāffāt recounts the same scene from outside and puts it in an order:

And the first two steps in the order are worth noting: the adornment first, the guarding after. Two different pieces of work are laid upon the same thing.

Root ز-ي-ن: to adorn, to make appear beautiful. The root was treated at al-Mulk 67/5 (wa laqad zayyanna's-samāʾa'd-dunyā bi-maṣābīḥ) and at Qāf 50/6. I do not repeat it.

al-samāʾa'd-dunyā — "the nearest sky". The root د-ن-و and the sense of the word dunyā as "what is near" were analysed in detail at al-Mulk 67/5. I rely on that treatment. The note there holds here too: the word is not the name of something bad but the name of what is near.

كَوَاكِب — the plural of kawkab: a star, a heavenly body. In al-Mulk, in the same place, maṣābīḥ (lamps) was said; here, kawākib. The same sky is named with two different words — one looking to the function (what gives light), one to the body.

A variant reading: the readings bi-zīnatini'l-kawākib (with nunation, then an appositive) and bi-zīnati'l-kawākib (in a genitive construct) are transmitted. The difference of sense is not marked: in the first, "with an adornment — that is, the stars"; in the second, "with the adornment of the stars". I give no reciter's name.

Root ح-ف-ظ: to guard, to preserve. The root was treated in Qāf (kitābun ḥafīẓ, awwābin ḥafīẓ).

A point of word order: ḥifẓan is in the accusative, and the grammarians count it either as an object of cause (mafʿūl li-ajlih) or as a cognate accusative attached to an elided verb: "…and We guarded, with a guarding".

But the real point is that the word has been set beside zīna. Two accusatives are attached to the same sentence: an adornment and a guarding.

I record this as my own reading: the same thing is seen as two different things from two sides. To one who looks from below, an adornment; to one who tries to climb, an obstacle. The text sets up this distinction itself — by attaching two accusatives to a single sentence.

مَارِد — root م-ر-د. The lexicographers give its concrete sense thus: a thing's having no down, leaf or bark left upon it; becoming bare. Amrad — a youth whose beard has not come; shajaratun mardāʾ — a tree without leaves; ṣarḥun mumarrad — a smooth, plastered tower (in the Qurʾān: al-Naml 27/44 — ṣarḥun mumarradun min qawārīr).

From this a second sense arises: one on whom no trace of good is left, stripped bare in rebellion. Marada — he overstepped the bound, he went far in disobedience.

The Qurʾān uses the same root of the hypocrites as well: wa min ahli'l-madīnati maradū ʿala'n-nifāq (al-Tawba 9/101) — "they have gone far in hypocrisy".

A mārid, then, does not mean "bad"; it means "one on whom there is no longer any hold". This is the picture of the word.

Root س-م-ع. The verb here is the assimilated form of the تَسَمَّعَ (Form V) pattern: yatasammaʿūn → yassammaʿūn. Form V announces "to listen with one's own effort, straining the ear" — not ordinary hearing, that is, but listening in which effort is spent.

A variant reading and the sense:

There is a difference of sense, and it is worth noting: the first negates the attempt itself, the second the outcome. Both are transmitted; I give no reciter's name and impose no preference.

ila'l-malaʾi'l-aʿlā — "to the highest assembly". The root مَلَأ is م-ل-أ (to fill): the company of leading men who fill an assembly. The Qurʾān uses the word of Pharaoh's circle too (malaʾi firʿawn). This construct occurs in only a few places in the Qurʾān, and what it means is not plainly described. The widespread explanation is that it is the assembly of angels above. I issue no firm ruling; the verse does not describe it.

And note the preposition: ilā. Not "they do not listen to it" but "they cannot give ear toward it". Ilā announces a direction. What is blocked, then, is not hearing but turning toward.

قَذَفَ — root ق-ذ-ف: to hurl something from a distance, to throw. The Qurʾān uses the same root of Moses' being placed in a chest and cast into the water (Ṭāhā 20/39), and of casting a slander as well (qadhf in Sūrat al-Nūr).

The verb is passive: yuqdhafūn — they are pelted. The agent is not named.

min kulli jānib — "from every side". Not one door, that is, has been closed; the whole perimeter has been closed.

دُحُورًا — root د-ح-ر: to push away, to drive off. In the Qurʾān it occurs in the form madḥūr (driven off) (al-Aʿrāf 7/18; al-Isrāʾ 17/18).

Word order: duḥūran is in the accusative and the grammarians count it either as an object of cause ("they are pelted so as to be driven off") or as the cognate accusative of an elided verb. Both are transmitted; it does not markedly change the sense.

وَاصِب — root و-ص-ب. The lexicographers record two branches of sense:

• Continuance: waṣaba — it continued, it did not break off. In the Qurʾān: wa lahu'd-dīnu wāṣibā (al-Naḥl 16/52) — "and religion is His lastingly".
• Weariness / exhaustion: waṣab — sickness, an ache that wears one out.

Most of the lexicographers bring the first sense forward here; the second is also transmitted. If the two senses are joined: unbroken and wearying.

The word occurs in only two places in the Qurʾān (here and al-Naḥl 16/52), and in both occurrences the same attribute is given to two opposite things: the one the lastingness of religion, the other the lastingness of the punishment. This is a textual datum.

The word shihāb was analysed at al-Jinn 72/8 — root ش-ه-ب: the brightness of fire, a grizzled colour; shihāb = a blazing piece of fire, an ember. The most important note there must be repeated: the word is not the name of a heavenly body; it means "flame".

ثَاقِب — root ث-ق-ب: to pierce. Thiqāb — a hole; mithqab — a drill. From the same root the Qurʾān has al-najmu'th-thāqib (al-Ṭāriq 86/3), treated in al-Ṭāriq.

The lexicographers give two senses for thāqib:

In this context both are at work: a flame that both pierces the darkness and burns.

There is a balance worth noting, and it is read off the text:

I record this as my own reading: the one is slippery, the other piercing. The two attributes are set against one another in the same scene. This is an observation about word choice; I do not claim that the text sets up a deliberate contrast.

خَطِفَ — root خ-ط-ف: to snatch a thing away suddenly. In the Qurʾān: yakādu'l-barqu yakhṭafu abṣārahum (al-Baqara 2/20) — "the lightning almost snatches away their sight".

The object is definite: al-khaṭfa — "that snatching". The definiteness here indicates the kind: a known, described act of snatching.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the sentence comes with illā — the absolute obstacle in the eighth verse, that is, is not fully absolute. A gap is left, but immediately behind the gap comes the pursuit: fa-atbaʿahu — with fāʾ, without interval.

The scene, then, is this: the snatching is possible, the escape is not. This says the same thing as the expression shihāban raṣadā ("a watching flame") in Sūrat al-Jinn — there waiting, here pursuing.

The two sūras show the same scene from two different moments.

What is the work of these five verses in the sūra? In the fourth verse it had been said "your God is one". The sixth verse gives its first proof: the sky is built by a single ordering and guarded by a single management.

And there is a further link: the second of the attributes sworn by in the first three verses was al-zājirāt (those who drive). Verses six to ten are a scene of driving: they are pelted, driven off, pursued. The second word of the oath turns into a scene five verses later. This is a textual observation; it is not a ruling about who is sworn by.

The "measure of knowledge" recorded in the section on al-Jinn holds here too and I do not repeat it. I add only one thing here:

The two words the sixth and seventh verses set side by side — zīna and ḥifẓ — describe a bearing: the same thing is beauty to one and a limit to another. The limit itself is not ugly. That an order looks like an adornment from outside and like a wall when one presses against it from within is something with a counterpart in everyday life too.

Fa'staftihim a-hum ashaddu khalqan am man khalaqnā. Innā khalaqnāhum min ṭīnin lāzib · Bal ʿajibta wa yaskharūn

"Now ask them for their opinion: are they the stronger in creation, or those We have created? We created them from a sticky clay. · Rather, you have marvelled, while they mock."

Root ف-ت-ي. And the semantic field of the root is worth noting: fatā — a young man, a youth; fatwā — an opinion given on a question; iftāʾ — to give an opinion; istiftāʾ — to ask someone for his opinion.

The link the lexicographers make is this: a fatwā is the answer that renews, makes young again a question that has remained closed — the word, that is, that unties the knot and gives the matter fresh life. I transmit this link as the lexicographers record it.

The choice of the verb carries a point here. The verse does not say fa's-alhum ("ask them"); it says fa'staftihim — "ask them for their opinion".

The difference is this, and I record it as my own reading: suʾāl asks for information, istiftāʾ asks for a judgement. What is asked of the addressee, that is, is not that he state something he does not know, but that he reach a decision with what he does know. The question is not an examination; it is a demand for a comparison.

And the verb occurs twice in the sūra — both times opening a block:

Both are a "which of the two" question, and both catch the addressee by his own measure. This is a countable structural datum.

The proof is this: can the one who made the greater not make the lesser?

This proof was treated with the same structure at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/57 (la-khalqu's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi akbaru min khalqi'n-nās), and it was tied there to al-Aḥqāf 46/33 as well. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

The differences here must be recorded — and there are three:

The last row is the most important. In Ghāfir the ruling is given; here the ruling is not even asked for — an opinion is requested. The addressee will give his own answer.

Ashadd — root ش-د-د: to bind, to tighten, to make firm. The root was mentioned in the section on the seventh verse (in connection with the discussion of al-Jinn). The sense here is not "great" but "firm" — the comparison, that is, is built on structure, not on bulk.

Man khalaqnā — "the one whom We created". And note: not mā but man. In Arabic man is used of rational beings. This is a point the grammarians record, and it gives rise to this explanation: what is meant may be not only the heavens and the earth but all rational creatures, the angels included.

The disagreement in a table:

I do not impose a preference. The text does not specify, and all three readings accord with the context.

These two words are analysed here for the first time in this commentary; they were not treated in any other section.

طِين — root ط-ي-ن. The mixture of water and earth: clay. The Qurʾān recounts the creation of the human being with different words, and these form a series:

This is an enumerated list; the claim that there is an "order of stages" among the words is widespread in the classical commentaries, but the Qurʾān declares no such order. I issue no ruling.

لَّازِب — root ل-ز-ب. And the word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

The sense the lexicographers give: sticking, clinging together, adhering to the hand. Lazaba — it stuck, it locked together. Lāzib is also used in the sense of "lasting, inseparable": ṣāra dhālika ḍarbatan lāzib — "this became an inseparable habit".

The lexicographers also draw attention to the closeness of the word in sound and sense to lāzim (necessary, inseparable); that the letters ب and م interchange in certain roots is a fact. I give this link as a transmission from the lexicographers; it is not a finding of my own.

And the work of the word is this — I record it as my own reading: the verse could have said "We created them from clay" and stopped. An attribute is added: sticky. Sticky clay stays on the hand, takes shape, but at the same time soils. The word carries at once both its capacity to be shaped and its capacity to cling. This accords with the context of the sentence: the side being compared is named not with the sky but with a substance that stays on the hand.

The eleventh verse is two sentences, with no conjunction between them:

1. A-hum ashaddu khalqan am man khalaqnā — a question. 2. Innā khalaqnāhum min ṭīnin lāzib — a statement.

The second sentence is not the answer to the question but its ground. That is: "Are they the firmer? — We created them from sticky clay." The answer is not stated; what is given is the knowledge that will supply the answer.

This is consistent with the verb istiftāʾ in the first sentence: an opinion is asked for, a ruling is not imposed. The verse leaves a gap that forces the addressee to think.

بَلْ — in Arabic the particle of retraction (iḍrāb): leaving the preceding statement and passing to something else. A similar use was treated in the section on Qāf (50/2 — bal ʿajibū).

عَجِبَ — root ع-ج-ب: to be astonished, to find strange. The root was analysed at Qāf 50/2 (bal ʿajibū an jāʾahum mundhirun minhum fa-qāla'l-kāfirūna hādhā shayʾun ʿajīb). I rely on that treatment.

And here there is one of the most discussed variant readings in the Qurʾān.

Both readings are transmitted in the sources on the variant readings. I give no reciter's name.

A long discussion has been held over the second reading, because "to marvel" seems a state requiring ignorance. The answers given in the classical period fall under two headings, and I give them in a table:

No preference is imposed in this commentary, and the theological dispute is not entered into. What is recorded is this: both readings are transmitted, and both set up the same contrast — on one side taking seriously, on the other mockery.

Root س-خ-ر. It has two branches of sense, and both are used in the Qurʾān:

• To make submit / to press into service: sakhkhara lakumu'sh-shamsa wa'l-qamar — "He made the sun and the moon subservient to you". This branch was treated in al-Zukhruf.
• To mock: to make someone an object of amusement.

The link the lexicographers make: one who mocks presses the other into the service of his own amusement. The two branches, that is, meet in the common denominator "to make another subject to one's own purpose". I give this link as a transmission from the lexicographers.

And the mood of the verbs is worth noting: ʿajibta is perfect (past), yaskharūn imperfect (continuous). On one side a state that has come about, on the other a behaviour that goes on. The contrast is set up by tense as well.

The difference of mood will continue in the next verse: wa idhā dhukkirū lā yadhkurūn — imperfect throughout.

Wa idhā dhukkirū lā yadhkurūn · Wa idhā raʾaw āyatan yastaskhirūn · Wa qālū in hādhā illā siḥrun mubīn · A-idhā mitnā wa kunnā turāban wa ʿiẓāman a-innā la-mabʿūthūn · A-wa ābāʾuna'l-awwalūn

"When they are reminded they do not remember. When they see a sign they seek to make a mockery of it and say, 'this is nothing but plain sorcery'. 'When we are dead and have become dust and bones, are we really to be raised? And our forefathers of old?'"

Five verses build a single movement step by step, and the steps are marked by verbs:

The chain widens from silence to speech, from reaction to claim, from themselves to their forefathers. This is a structure read off the order of the verses.

Root ذ-ك-ر. And the verse uses the same root in two different forms:

• ذُكِّرُوا۟ — Form II, passive: they were reminded. Work coming from outside.
• يَذْكُرُونَ — Form I, active: they remember. Work that must come from inside.

The sentence says this, then: the outer act was performed, the inner response did not form. A negation comes between the two forms of the same root.

And this ties to the third verse. In the third verse what was sworn by was al-tāliyāti dhikrā — "those who recite a reminder". In the thirteenth verse that reminder comes but is not taken. The sūra shows, that is, that what was carried arrived but was not received.

Four occurrences tell a single story, and this is countable from the text. In the hundred and sixty-eighth verse the same people will say "if only a reminder from those of old had come to us" — whereas in the thirteenth verse it had come.

In the twelfth verse it was yaskharūn (Form I); here it is yastaskhirūn (Form X). The difference of pattern carries sense.

In Arabic Form X (استفعال) does three pieces of work:

All three are transmitted by the lexicographers; on which comes forward I issue no firm ruling.

But the increase between the two verses is plain: in the twelfth verse they were mocking; in the fourteenth they mock in the face of a sign. As the proof comes, that is, the reaction hardens. This is a fact read off the order of the verses.

Āya — root أ-ي-ي: a sign, a mark, a proof. The root was analysed in al-Baqara. Its use here is in the direction of "miracle": a sign seen, a sign shown.

In … illā is one of the sharpest moulds of restriction in Arabic: "nothing but". What they say, then, is not a conjecture but a ruling.

Siḥr — root س-ح-ر. The lexicographers give the root's original picture as "to show a thing as other than it is, to turn the eye". From the same root saḥar — the hour before dawn when darkness and light are mixed. At the centre of the root, that is, there is confusion: the state in which one cannot tell what is what.

This accusation is the most widespread accusation levelled at messengers in the Qurʾān, and it was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/52 (mā ata'lladhīna min qablihim min rasūlin illā qālū sāḥirun aw majnūn). I rely on that treatment.

The point here must be recorded: mubīn — "plain". Root ب-ي-ن: to separate, to distinguish. Bayān — distinguishing speech.

There is a tension in the sentence, then, and I record it as my own reading: in the root of siḥr there is confusing, in the root of mubīn distinguishing. To say "a plain confusion" is to say a confusion that can be distinguished — that is, "a deception whose being a deception is evident". The choice of words carries the difficulty inside the claim itself. This is an observation; I do not claim that the text intends it.

This sentence occurs twice in the sūra, and between them there is one word of difference. This is a fact that can be verified from the text:

The two words:

• مَبْعُوثُون — root ب-ع-ث: to be sent, to be raised up. Resurrection.
• مَدِينُون — root د-ي-ن: to be called to account, to be requited. The root was analysed in al-Fātiḥa (māliki yawmi'd-dīn).

The same objection, then, rejects two different things: the first the rising, the second the reckoning. And the sūra gives them from two different mouths — one the deniers as a body, one a single person.

I record this as my own reading: at the second occurrence the one who makes the objection is shown in the midst of the fire (55). The sūra shows in the fifty-third verse where the word said in the sixteenth arrives — by repeating the sentence and changing who says it.

Turāb and ʿiẓām. The ground of the objection is the dispersal of matter: dust (formlessness) and bone (dryness). And the eleventh verse had already answered this: min ṭīnin lāzib — from sticky clay. The answer to the question "how is dust to be gathered?" was given five verses earlier: when water is mixed in, it gathers. I record this link as my own reading; the verse does not set it up openly.

The sentence begins with an interrogative particle (a) and a conjunction (wa): a-wa. The grammarians count this as "an attachment to the preceding question": "…we? And our forefathers of old too?"

A point of word order and of variant reading: if ābāʾunā is read in the nominative it attaches to an elided verb yubʿathu or to the noun of innā; the accusative reading (ābāʾanā) is also transmitted, and then it is attached directly to the noun of innā. The sense does not change markedly.

And the logic of the objection must be recorded — as my own reading: by adding the forefathers the objection is enlarged, because more time has passed over them. The argument, that is, is this: "if even the newly dead cannot be gathered, the long dead can never be gathered at all." This is a proof resting on time, and the verse will answer it not with time but with a single sound: fa-innamā hiya zajratun wāḥida (19). The sūra's answer speaks not of the span but of the span's irrelevance.

Al-awwalūn — "those of old". The word will occur twice more in the sūra: 71 (aktharu'l-awwalīn — most of those of old had gone astray) and 168 (dhikran mina'l-awwalīn — a reminder from those of old). All three occurrences are from the mouths of the same side or about them.

Qul naʿam wa antum dākhirūn · Fa-innamā hiya zajratun wāḥidatun fa-idhā hum yanẓurūn · Wa qālū yā waylanā hādhā yawmu'd-dīn · Hādhā yawmu'l-faṣli'lladhī kuntum bihi tukadhdhibūn

"Say: Yes — and abased at that. It is but a single cry; and at once there they are, looking on. 'Woe to us! This is the day of reckoning,' they say. — This is the day of separation, which you used to deny."

And this is one of the shortest answers in the Qurʾān.

The sixteenth and seventeenth verses had built a long objection: after we are dead and have become dust and bones? And our forefathers too? The answer is a single word: naʿam — yes.

I record this as my own reading: the objection is not met with a proof of the same length. The difference between the length of the question and the shortness of the answer shows that the answer is not a debate but an announcement. The proof had already been given in the eleventh verse.

Naʿam — the particle of affirmative answer in Arabic. It occurs in only a few places in the Qurʾān (al-Aʿrāf 7/44, 114; al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/42; here). That a rarely used word is placed at exactly this point is worth recording.

And the answer does not end at "yes"; a circumstance is added.

دَاخِر — root د-خ-ر: to be made small, to be brought low, to submit. Dakhara — he was abased; adkhara — he brought low.

The root had occurred at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/60 (sa-yadkhulūna jahannama dākhirīn) and there it concerned the end of those who grow proud. The same word is used in the Qurʾān in the context of prostration as well: wa li'llāhi yasjudu mā fi's-samāwāti… wa hum dākhirūn (al-Naḥl 16/48-49).

A point of word order: wa antum dākhirūn is a circumstantial clause — it announces, that is, how the verb "you will be raised" will come about.

And the contrast must be recorded: the objecting side was mocking in the twelfth and fourteenth verses — that is, holding the other in contempt. The answer turns the same act back on them: brought low. This turn between sukhriyya (mockery) and dukhūr (being brought low) is a method the sūra uses often. I record this observation as my own reading.

The root ز-ج-ر was treated in the second verse, in reliance on al-Nāziʿāt and al-Qamar.

And here is one of the plainest internal links of the sūra: in the second verse the oath was al-zājirāti zajrā. In the nineteenth verse the name of the resurrection becomes zajra.

This is a repetition that can be verified from the text. And its meaning is this: the act praised at the head of the sūra becomes, later in the sūra, the resurrection itself. The picture of the herdsman raising the beast with his voice turns into the raising of the dead by a sound.

At al-Nāziʿāt 79/13 the same sentence occurs almost exactly: fa-innamā hiya zajratun wāḥida · fa-idhā hum bi's-sāhira. Treated in al-Nāziʿāt. The two sūras use the same sentence and part only at the last word.

The one gives the place, the other the act. The two sūras show the same moment through two different framings.

Innamā — the particle of restriction: "only". The whole matter is compressed here: one single sound.

Wāḥida — "single". And the word is from the same root as the wāḥid of the fourth verse (و-ح-د). The sūra uses again, to announce the singleness of the resurrection, the word by which it announced the oneness of God. This is a textual datum; I set up no claim of intent.

Idhā here is the idhā of suddenness (fujāʾiyya): "and at once there you see". It announces no condition; it announces abruptness.

Yanẓurūn — root ن-ظ-ر: to look, to turn the eye. The imperfect: they keep looking.

I record this as my own reading: the verse does not say "they rise" or "they are raised". It says "they are looking". The resurrection is recounted, that is, not by the act itself but by the first movement of the one raised: opening the eyes and looking about.

And this ties to the fourteenth verse: wa idhā raʾaw āyatan yastaskhirūn — "when they see a sign they seek to make a mockery of it". The same side, in the same verb: in this world he laughs at what he sees, there he stands staring at what he sees. Two lookings, two reactions.

وَيْل — in Arabic an exclamation announcing ruin, destruction, punishment. In al-Mursalāt the refrain waylun yawmaʾidhin li'l-mukadhdhibīn was treated in detail. I rely on that treatment.

But the difference here must be recorded: in al-Mursalāt the wayl was said to them; here they say it themselves. Yā waylanā — "woe to us".

The judgement comes, that is, not from outside but from within. This is a method recurring in the Qurʾān's scenes of the resurrection: to make the addressee pronounce the verdict himself.

And the point of word order is very marked here: the same day is named twice, but from two different mouths.

And in the second sentence the address turns to the second person: kuntum — "you". In the twentieth verse they were recounted in the third person (wa qālū); in the twenty-first it is said directly to their faces. In Arabic this transition is called iltifāt (a shift in the direction of address).

The table "the same day, three names" recorded in the section on Qāf is set up here with two names. And the two names complete one another: reckoning and separation.

Yawmu'l-faṣl — root ف-ص-ل: to separate, to open a space between two things. The root was analysed in detail at al-Mursalāt 77/13-14 (li-yawmi'l-faṣl · wa mā adrāka mā yawmu'l-faṣl). I do not repeat it.

Yawmu'd-dīn — analysed in al-Fātiḥa. The branches of the root د-ي-ن — "debt / requital / submission" — were given there.

Uḥshuru'lladhīna ẓalamū wa azwājahum wa mā kānū yaʿbudūn · Min dūni'llāhi fa'hdūhum ilā ṣirāṭi'l-jaḥīm · Wa qifūhum, innahum masʾūlūn · Mā lakum lā tanāṣarūn · Bal humu'l-yawma mustaslimūn

"Gather those who did wrong, and their consorts, and what they used to serve apart from God; and lead them to the road of the blaze. And halt them — they are to be questioned. — What is the matter with you, that you do not help one another? — Rather, today they have surrendered."

With the twenty-second verse the manner of telling changes: from declarative sentences it passes to imperatives.

Three commands one after another, and in none of them is the addressee named. In the classical commentaries it is widely said that the commands are directed to the angels; but the verse does not state this, and I give no name.

I record this as my own reading: that the addressee is not named makes the scene visual. We hear the command, the giver is clear, the receiver is indefinite — and this sets up the impression that the command is carried out at once. The step in between is not recounted.

Root ح-ش-ر: to drive together and gather what is scattered. The concrete use of the word comes from the context of war and exile: to raise a community from its place and drive it somewhere. The root was treated at Qāf 50/44 (dhālika ḥashrun ʿalaynā yasīr) and in al-Ḥashr.

And there is compulsion inside the word: ḥashr is not an invitation but a driving.

Root ز-و-ج. And there is disagreement over the sense of the word here:

In al-Wāqiʿa the sense of azwāj as "class" was treated. All three views are transmitted in the classical sources; I do not impose a preference. The verse does not specify.

And a note is required — per the method (Method): even if the first view is adopted, the verse does not say "spouses bear one another's sin". What those gathered have in common is, in the verse's own words, that they did wrong — alladhīna ẓalamū. The attribute is what is shared, not the kinship.

Note: not man but mā. Not "those whom they served", then, but "the things they served". In Arabic mā is used of non-rational beings.

This will tie to the ninety-fifth verse: a-taʿbudūna mā tanḥitūn — "do you serve what you carve?" The same particle, the same work.

And the sūra keeps to this choice consistently: the things they serve are named with mā, they themselves with alladhīna. This is a countable datum of the language.

And this is one of the sūra's harshest choices of word.

هَدَىٰ — root ه-د-ي: to lead to a way, to guide. The root was analysed in al-Fātiḥa (ihdina'ṣ-ṣirāṭa'l-mustaqīm), and as was recorded there, at the centre of the word are showing a way and leading along it.

In the Qurʾān this verb is positive almost everywhere. Here it is used for leading to the road of the blaze.

And the construct carries the same reversal:

The same verb, the same word (ṣirāṭ), the opposite direction.

In Arabic rhetoric this is called tahakkum (a mocking style): producing sharpness by using a word in the opposite context. In the section on al-Wāqiʿa the use of the word nuzul (hospitality) for punishment was another instance of the same method, and it was treated in al-Wāqiʿa.

Al-Jaḥīm — root ج-ح-م: the fire's blazing in its fiercest heat. Jaḥmatu'n-nār — the fire at its fiercest. And this word occurs six times in the sūra (23, 55, 64, 68, 97, 163) — it is the most repeated name of a place in the sūra.

وَقَفَ — root و-ق-ف: to stand, to halt. And the verb is used here transitively: qifūhum — "halt them".

A point of word order and my own reading: in the twenty-third verse the command was to lead; in the twenty-fourth comes the command to halt. The driving, that is, is broken off midway. They are being led to the road of the blaze but are stopped before arriving.

The reason is stated at once: innahum masʾūlūn — "they are to be questioned". The halt, then, is for a questioning.

Masʾūl — root س-أ-ل: to ask. A passive participle: the one asked, the one of whom an account is required. The Qurʾān uses this word elsewhere too: apart from the wa qifūhum scene, inna's-samʿa wa'l-baṣara wa'l-fuʾāda kullu ulāʾika kāna ʿanhu masʾūlā (al-Isrāʾ 17/36).

And what will be asked is not said here. The twenty-fifth verse brings a question, but that question is not a question for information.

Mā lakum — "what is the matter with you?" In Arabic a mould announcing astonishment and reproach. It will occur twice more in the sūra: 92 (mā lakum lā tanṭiqūn — to the idols), 154 (mā lakum kayfa taḥkumūn — to the deniers).

All three occurrences are questions about an inability to function, and this is a countable repetition. Two are directed at what is served, one at those who serve — and in both cases no answer comes.

Tanāṣarūn — root ن-ص-ر, Form VI (تَفَاعُل): reciprocity. Tanāṣara — they helped one another. Its original is tatanāṣarūn; one tāʾ has dropped.

The choice of Form VI is worth noting: the question is not "who will help you?" but "why do you not help one another?". No rescuer from outside is asked after, that is; what is asked after is the solidarity among themselves.

And this is the mirror of their state in this world — as my own reading: in the twenty-second verse they had been gathered together (themselves, their consorts, what they served). They came as a body but can do nothing as a body.

Bal is again iḍrāb: it leaves the question and announces the situation. The question is not answered; the impossibility of an answer is announced.

مُسْتَسْلِم — root س-ل-م, Form X. The root was analysed in al-Baqara, Qāf and al-Ḥujurāt: to be sound, wholeness, to surrender.

The work of Form X here: istaslama — he surrendered himself entirely, he gave up resisting. It is a word from the language of war: to lay down one's weapon.

And the contrast within the sūra is very marked — this is a textual datum:

The same root, the same sūra, two extremes. In the twenty-sixth verse surrender is a defeat; in the hundred and third it is a choice. The sūra uses the word twice and lets the scenes make the difference between them.

Al-yawma — "today". The bringing forward of the adverb creates emphasis: not yesterday, today. Yesterday they were resisting.

Wa aqbala baʿḍuhum ʿalā baʿḍin yatasāʾalūn · Qālū innakum kuntum taʾtūnanā ʿani'l-yamīn · Qālū bal lam takūnū muʾminīn · Wa mā kāna lanā ʿalaykum min sulṭān, bal kuntum qawman ṭāghīn · Fa-ḥaqqa ʿalaynā qawlu rabbinā, innā la-dhāʾiqūn · Fa-aghwaynākum innā kunnā ghāwīn

"They turn to one another, questioning. They say: 'You used to come at us from the right.' The others: 'No, you were not believers to begin with. And we had no power over you; you were a people who transgressed. The word of our Lord has come true against us; we too shall taste it. We led you astray, because we ourselves had gone astray.'"

This sentence occurs twice in the sūra, with one letter of difference:

This is one of the plainest structural data of the sūra, and it is entirely countable.

The difference of conjunction is also worth noting: in the twenty-seventh verse wāw (simple joining), in the fiftieth fāʾ (succession without interval). In the garden the conversation begins immediately after the picture of the favours, without a pause; in the fire it comes as a separate movement after the scene of the halting. I record this as an observation.

Aqbala — root ق-ب-ل: to turn toward, to turn one's face. Qibla — the direction faced; qabl — front. The verb announces, that is, a turning of the face: they turned to one another.

Yatasāʾalūn — root س-أ-ل, Form VI: to question one another. In the twenty-fourth verse it had been said masʾūlūn (they are to be questioned). Here they question one another. The same root, two different interrogations: one vertical, one horizontal. This is a textual datum.

And this expression is one of the most disputed places in the sūra.

Yamīn — root ي-م-ن. The root has three separate branches in Arabic, and all are used in the Qurʾān:

And on the sense of the expression here there is more than one view in the classical commentaries. I give them in a table and impose no preference:

The weakness of the second view is read off the text, and this must be recorded: in the thirtieth verse the other side rejects the claim of power by saying "we had no sulṭān over you". The text, that is, produces within itself an objection to this reading. This is not a preference; it is a datum of the text.

As my own reading — and it is not binding: the preposition in the expression ʿani'l-yamīn (ʿan, "from, from the side of") announces a direction, and this gives a ground to the first view. "To come from the right" is the picture of an enemy approaching from the unexpected and unguarded side. But I do not set this down as a ruling; the word is open to more than one branch and the text does not specify.

The verse names neither side. There is only qālū … qālū.

In the classical commentaries two divisions are transmitted:

Both are transmitted and the text is open to both. The expression fa-aghwaynākum ("we led you astray") in the thirty-second verse suits the second reading, while mā kāna lanā ʿalaykum min sulṭān in the thirtieth suits both. I do not impose a preference.

The scene of the quarrel in the fire was treated in detail at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/47-50. The three-stage chain table there is not repeated; here I set down a comparison of the two scenes.

The most marked difference between the two scenes is this, and it is read off the text: in Ghāfir the weak make a request (share the burden); in al-Ṣāffāt there is no request at all, only accusation. In Ghāfir the quarrel is looking for a solution; in al-Ṣāffāt a settling of scores is going on.

The second difference: Ghāfir gives names to the parties (the weak / those who grew proud); al-Ṣāffāt does not. The result of this is that the scene in al-Ṣāffāt turns into a quarrel whose parties are undefined — and, as was recorded above, in the classical commentaries this indefiniteness has led to two different divisions.

I record this as my own reading: in Ghāfir the quarrel has an addressee (the keepers), in al-Ṣāffāt it has none. This is why the scene in al-Ṣāffāt seems to take place in a closed room: no one calls out, everyone turns to the one beside him. The question asked in the twenty-fifth verse ("why do you not help one another?") is answered by this scene: in place of help they produce accusation.

Root س-ل-ط: to gain mastery over something, to dominate it. Sulṭān — a proof, an argument; and the power of rule. The root was treated at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/56 (bi-ghayri sulṭānin atāhum) and at al-Najm 53/23 (mā anzala'llāhu bihā min sulṭān).

A point the lexicographers record: sulṭān is connected with salīṭ (oil, olive oil) from the same root — as the oil takes up the wick and keeps the light standing, so a proof keeps a claim standing. I give this link as a transmission from the lexicographers.

Min here comes as zāʾida (a reinforcing particle): mā kāna lanā … min sulṭān — "we had no power or proof whatever". It generalises the negation.

Root ح-ق-ق: a thing's being fixed and in place. Ḥaqqa ʿalayhi — it came true against him, it became unavoidable. The root was treated in Qāf.

Qawlu rabbinā — "the word of our Lord". Which word is not said here; elsewhere the Qurʾān names the word about the filling of the fire (al-Sajda 32/13; Hūd 11/119). I give no name; the verse gives none.

Root غ-و-ي: to go from the way, to lose one's bearings, to miss the mark. Ghayy — waywardness; ghāwī — one who goes astray.

And the structure of the sentence is worth noting:

• fa-aghwaynākum — Form IV, transitive: "we led you astray".
• innā kunnā ghāwīn — an active participle from Form I, intransitive: "we ourselves had gone astray".

The confession thus has two layers: they admit the act they did, but they give as its ground their own condition. "We led you astray — because we had already gone astray."

I record this as my own reading: this is not a defence but an equalising. The other side was saying "you led me astray"; the answer becomes "yes, but we too had gone astray." The guilt is admitted, that is, but the difference is abolished. And the next verse seals it: fa-innahum yawmaʾidhin fi'l-ʿadhābi mushtarikūn.

Fa-innahum yawmaʾidhin fi'l-ʿadhābi mushtarikūn · Innā kadhālika nafʿalu bi'l-mujrimīn · Innahum kānū idhā qīla lahum lā ilāha illa'llāhu yastakbirūn · Wa yaqūlūna a-innā la-tārikū ālihatinā li-shāʿirin majnūn · Bal jāʾa bi'l-ḥaqqi wa ṣaddaqa'l-mursalīn · Innakum la-dhāʾiqu'l-ʿadhābi'l-alīm · Wa mā tujzawna illā mā kuntum taʿmalūn

"That day they are partners in the punishment. Thus do We deal with the guilty. For when it was said to them 'there is no god but God' they would grow proud, and would say: 'Are we to leave our gods for a mad poet?' — No! He brought the truth and confirmed the messengers who were sent. — You will surely taste the painful punishment. And you are requited only for what you used to do."

Root ش-ر-ك, Form VIII: to be a partner. And the choice of the word is sharp.

The same root is the root of the word shirk — to set partners beside God. Here the sūra uses the same root for their punishment: those who set partners become partners in the punishment.

In Arabic rhetoric this is close to the method called mushākala (using the same word as the response). What is recorded is this: the act and its requital are chosen from the same root.

And its link with the thirty-second verse is plain: a moment before, the parties were throwing the guilt at one another. The verse closes the matter: there is no separating, there is partnership.

And this sentence is the reverse of the closing mould in the sūra's sequence of prophets.

The same skeleton of a mould — innā kadhālika + verb + bi/li + a group — is applied to two opposite groups. This is a fact countable from the text.

And the difference between the two verbs is worth noting:

• nafʿalu bi'l-mujrimīn — "we do to the guilty". The verb is faʿl (to do), the preposition bāʾ.
• najzi'l-muḥsinīn — "we requite those who do good". The verb is jazāʾ (to give a requital), directly transitive.

I record this as my own reading: the word jazāʾ announces an equivalence — a requital equal to what was done. Faʿl announces only the act. On the side of good, then, the language of reciprocity is used; on the side of guilt, the language of procedure. This is an observation about word choice.

Mujrim — root ج-ر-م. The lexicographers give the original picture of the root as "to pluck fruit from the branch / to cut": jarama'n-nakhla — he harvested the palm. From here the sense "to earn" and then "evil earning, guilt" arises. Jurm — a crime; mujrim — one who commits it.

The thirty-fifth verse gives the ground of the thirty-fourth: why it is done thus.

And the ground is the reaction they showed to a single sentence: lā ilāha illa'llāh.

Yastakbirūn — root ك-ب-ر, Form X. The work of the pattern: to see oneself as great, to give oneself airs of greatness. The root was treated in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) as the backbone of that sūra (al-kibr, yastakbirūn).

A point of word order: the sentence is built as innahum kānū … yastakbirūn — kāna + imperfect. In Arabic this announces a habit continuing in the past: not once, but every time.

And the conditional particle is idhā (whenever), not in (if). The difference between the two: idhā is used for what is certain to occur, in for what is possible. Not "when it was said to them", then, but "every time it was said to them".

Two accusations together: shāʿir and majnūn.

Shāʿir — root ش-ع-ر: to perceive finely, to sense. Shuʿūr — becoming aware; shiʿr — poetry. The link the lexicographers make: a poet is one who perceives what others do not and says it in measured speech. In the root of the word there is fineness and perception, not fabrication.

This accusation occurs in several places in the Qurʾān and was treated at al-Ḥāqqa 69/41 (wa mā huwa bi-qawli shāʿirin qalīlan mā tuʾminūn) and at al-Ṭūr 52/30 (am yaqūlūna shāʿirun natarabbaṣu bihi rayba'l-manūn). I rely on those treatments.

Majnūn — root ج-ن-ن: to cover, to hide. Jinn — the unseen; janīn — the covered one in the womb; janna — a garden covered with trees; majnūn — one whose reason is covered. The root was analysed in al-Jinn.

And the oddity of the two accusations coming together must be recorded — as my own reading: to be a shāʿir requires skill; to be majnūn announces the absence of skill. The two accusations refute one another. This pair of accusations occurs together in several places in the Qurʾān, and a similar pair was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/52 (sāḥirun aw majnūn).

A point of word order: li-shāʿirin — the preposition lām announces cause: "because of a poet". What is named, that is, is not what they would gain in return for leaving their gods but the person who leads them to leave them. The expression reduces the matter to an individual.

And ālihatinā — "our gods". In the fourth verse it had been said inna ilāhakum la-wāḥid — "your God is one". The same word, the same pronominal suffix, the opposite ruling. The sūra sets its own key word in their mouths. This is a textual datum.

Bal is again iḍrāb: it leaves the accusation and announces the truth.

And the answer is two sentences — and both are answers to the accusation:

The second answer is worth noting: what is shown as proof is not something new but continuity. "This man is not alone; he says the same thing as those before him." One who is mad is not consistent.

Al-mursalīn — root ر-س-ل. And this word will occur six times in the sūra: 37 (here), 123, 133, 139, 171, 181. The three introductory moulds in the sequence of prophets (Elijah, Lot, Jonah) use this word, and the sūra's closing with peace (181) uses the same word. This is a countable structural datum.

I record this as my own reading: that it is said in the thirty-seventh verse "he confirmed the messengers" announces in advance the sūra's later sequence of prophets. Who the confirmed messengers are will be enumerated one by one from the seventy-fifth verse. This link between the two blocks is not set up openly in the text; the sharing of the word is a textual datum.

And here there is iltifāt (a shift in the direction of address): in verses thirty-three to thirty-seven the third person (innahum, yaqūlūn); in the thirty-eighth the second person (innakum).

The same transition was treated at al-Wāqiʿa 56/51, and what was recorded there was this: the telling turns to the addressee at the point where it becomes most concrete. The same observation is at work here.

Dhāʾiqū — root ذ-و-ق: to taste. And in the thirty-first verse the same word had come from the mouth of the other side: innā la-dhāʾiqūn ("we too shall taste it"). The same word two verses apart, one about themselves and one about them. This is a textual datum.

The choice of the verb: to taste announces that the punishment is direct and personal. Not hearing or seeing; contact with the mouth.

The block closes with a sentence of measure: only the requital of what you did.

Tujzawn — root ج-ز-ي: to requite, to pay what is equal. In the thirty-fourth verse nafʿalu was used; here tujzawn. The block closes, that is, by passing from the language of "procedure" to the language of "requital".

The restriction set up with illā announces that there is no excess in the punishment. This is a measure repeated in the Qurʾān, and similar sentences were treated in the sections al-Jāthiya and al-Aḥqāf.

And the next verse will give the other face of this measure: illā ʿibāda'llāhi'l-mukhlaṣīn (40) — the exception. The punishment is exactly equivalent; but there is a group exempted from the equivalence.

Illā ʿibāda'llāhi'l-mukhlaṣīn · Ulāʾika lahum rizqun maʿlūm · Fawākihu wa hum mukramūn · Fī jannāti'n-naʿīm · ʿAlā sururin mutaqābilīn

"Except God's chosen servants. For them there is a known provision: fruits. And they will be honoured — in gardens of bliss, upon couches facing one another."

This sentence occurs four times in the sūra: 40, 74, 128, 160. This is a countable fact, and it forms the structural skeleton of the sūra.

In all four the same work is done: a group is set apart from a ruling. And in all four places the ruling is negative and the exception positive.

And there is a fifth occurrence — but this time the sentence is inside a falsehood:

The sūra, that is, gives the very construction it set down four times as the condition of deliverance a fifth time as an unrealised claim of the deniers. And immediately after: fa-kafarū bihi — "then they denied it" (170). This is a structure that can be verified from the text and is one of the sūra's most elegant internal links.

Root خ-ل-ص: a thing's being pure, unmixed. The root was analysed at al-Baqara 2/139 (wa naḥnu lahu mukhliṣūn): like the separating of butter from milk, a thing's having nothing else mixed into it. I do not repeat the definition given there.

But here there is a difference of pattern, and it changes the sense:

Both readings are transmitted in the sources on the variant readings. I give no reciter's name.

The difference of sense is marked and must be recorded: on the first reading the source of deliverance is being chosen, on the second sincerity. And the two readings do not exclude one another — both patterns are used in the Qurʾān: innahu min ʿibādina'l-mukhlaṣīn (Yūsuf 12/24) and mukhliṣīna lahu'd-dīn (al-Bayyina 98/5; al-Zumar 39/2).

I do not impose a preference. In this commentary the form in the received orthography of the text (mukhlaṣīn) has been taken as the basis and rendered "chosen"; that the other is also transmitted has been recorded.

ʿIbād — root ع-ب-د. The word will occur in the sūra's closing mould as well: innahu min ʿibādinā'l-muʾminīn (81, 111, 132). Note: there the construct is ʿibādinā (Our servants), here ʿibāda'llāh (God's servants). The two constructs say the same thing, but one in the first person and the other in the third. This is an observation about the structure.

Root ر-ز-ق: to convey to a living being what it will benefit from. The root was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/22 (wa fi's-samāʾi rizqukum) and 51/58 (inna'llāha huwa'r-razzāq).

مَعْلُوم — root ع-ل-م, a passive participle: known, determined.

And the choice of the attribute has been dwelt upon. The explanations transmitted in the classical commentaries:

All three are transmitted; the verse does not specify and I impose no preference.

But a contrast must be recorded — and this is a textual datum: in the section on al-Wāqiʿa it was said of zaqqūm that it is "a tree of unknown, unrecognised kind", and the estranging function of that indefiniteness was given there in a table (al-Wāqiʿa). Here the reverse is present: maʿlūm — known. And in the sixty-second verse the sūra will compare these two sides directly: a-dhālika khayrun nuzulan am shajaratu'z-zaqqūm.

And the word will occur once more in the sūra: wa mā minnā illā lahu maqāmun maʿlūm (164) — "each of us has a known station". The same attribute, one of provision and one of station. This is a textual datum.

Fawākih — the plural of fākiha, root ف-ك-ه. The root was analysed in al-Wāqiʿa (fākiha 56/20, 32; tafakkahūn 56/65). The note there: in the root there is "taking pleasure, delighting the heart"; fākiha is not necessary food but something eaten for delight.

And a point of word order must be recorded — as my own reading: the forty-first verse says rizqun maʿlūm; the forty-second explains it with a single word: fawākih. What is called "a known provision", then, has as its content not the necessary but the additional. The word provision suggests subsistence; its explanation turns out to be hospitality.

Mukramūn — root ك-ر-م, the passive participle of Form IV: honoured, treated with hospitality. The original sense of the root is given by the lexicographers as "generosity and worth"; karīm means both generous and worthy.

And the word carries the idea of a host. The definition recorded for the word nuzul in al-Wāqiʿa is at work here too: the reception given to a guest. In the sixty-second verse the sūra will set these two words (nuzul and zaqqūm) directly against one another.

Surur — the plural of sarīr: a raised seat, a couch, a throne. The lexicographers record the link between the root س-ر-ر and surūr (joy): a sarīr is the seat one sits on in a place of joy. I give this link as a transmission from the lexicographers.

Mutaqābilīn — root ق-ب-ل, Form VI: to be facing, to stand face to face. The same root as the aqbala of the twenty-seventh verse.

And the symmetry within the sūra is completed here — this is a textual datum:

The same root three times, and in all three a "turning of the face"; but the work of the turning is different each time.

The word mutaqābilīn was treated in the same context at al-Ṭūr 52/20 and at al-Dukhān 44/53. The note there holds here too: to sit facing one another is the lifting of distance and of turned backs.

Yuṭāfu ʿalayhim bi-kaʾsin min maʿīn · Bayḍāʾa ladhdhatin li'sh-shāribīn · Lā fīhā ghawlun wa lā hum ʿanhā yunzafūn · Wa ʿindahum qāṣirātu'ṭ-ṭarfi ʿīn · Ka-annahunna bayḍun maknūn

"A cup filled from a flowing spring is passed round among them; white, a delight for those who drink. In it there is no befuddling, nor are they drained by it. And with them are companions of modest gaze, wide-eyed — as though they were sheltered eggs."

Root ط-و-ف: to go round something. Ṭawāf — going round; ṭāʾifa — a circulating group.

The verb is passive: yuṭāfu — it is passed round. Who passes it round is not said. At al-Ṭūr 52/24 this work was plainly given to a group (wa yaṭūfu ʿalayhim ghilmānun lahum); here the agent is concealed.

I record this as my own reading: the passive takes the service out of the scene — attention rests not on the one who serves but on the state of the one served.

Kaʾs — a cup, a full vessel. The lexicographers record a distinction: in Arabic kaʾs is used only of a full cup; an empty one is called qadaḥ. I give this distinction as a transmission from the lexicographers.

Maʿīn — root م-ع-ن or ع-ي-ن. Two derivations are transmitted: (a) from the root م-ع-ن, "flowing water"; (b) from the root ع-ي-ن, "water visible to the eye, issuing from its source". It occurs elsewhere in the Qurʾān too: bi-māʾin maʿīn (al-Mulk 67/30), treated in al-Mulk.

What the two have in common is this, and it is worth noting: the water is not standing but flowing. The forty-fifth verse gives the source, the forty-sixth the colour, the forty-seventh the effect.

Bayḍāʾ — root ب-ي-ض: whiteness. And the attribute may belong, according to most of the lexicographers, to kaʾs or to maʿīn. The disagreement over the case does not markedly change the sense.

Ladhdha — root ل-ذ-ذ: to taste, to please. And a point of word order is worth noting: the word is not an adjective but a verbal noun.

The verse, that is, does not say "delicious" (ladhīdha), it says "a delight". In Arabic, when the verbal noun itself is given to a thing in place of an adjective, it is announced that the thing does not merely bear the quality but is the quality itself — a way of intensification.

In English: not "a delicious drink" but "a delight for those who drink".

And the note li'sh-shāribīn is important: the delight is defined not in the drink itself but for the one who drinks. At al-Wāqiʿa 56/55 the drinking of the left-hand side was recounted as shurba'l-hīm (the drinking of a camel that is never satisfied). The two pictures take the same act and tie it to two different outcomes.

And these two negations remove, separately, the two harms of the drink of this world.

Ghawl — root غ-و-ل. The original sense the lexicographers give: to destroy unnoticed, to spoil stealthily. Ghāla — he destroyed unawares; ightiyāl — assassination. From the same root ghūl is the name of a creature believed in Arab folklore to lead travellers astray and destroy them — I mention this name only to show the field of use of the word, not as a transmission of a belief.

What is transmitted about its sense here:

All three are transmitted; the root's sense of "stealthy spoiling" covers all three. I issue no separate ruling.

Yunzafūn — root ن-ز-ف. And the root's original picture: the water of a well being drawn off until it is exhausted. Nazafa'l-biʾr — the well ran dry. Nazf — loss of blood.

And there are two variant readings, and they change the sense:

Both are transmitted. I give no reciter's name. In both readings the two branches of sense (exhaustion / loss of reason) have also been discussed. I issue no firm ruling.

But the structure of the two negations is worth noting — as my own reading: the first (ghawl) removes the harm coming from the drink, the second (yunzafūn) what goes out of the drinker. One from outside in, one from inside out. Both directions, that is, have been closed.

The construction qāṣirātu'ṭ-ṭarf was treated at al-Wāqiʿa 56/35-37, and a connection was made there with Ṣād 38/52 as well (wa ʿindahum qāṣirātu'ṭ-ṭarfi atrāb). I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

The summary there: قَصَرَ — root ق-ص-ر: to shorten a thing, to limit it, to confine it to a place. Qaṣr — a palace (a place one closes oneself into); maqṣūra — a partitioned chamber. Qāṣirātu'ṭ-ṭarf — "those who keep their gaze short", that is, who do not turn their eyes to another.

Ṭarf — root ط-ر-ف: the edge of the eyelid, the tip of the gaze.

ʿĪn — the plural of ʿaynāʾ, root ع-ي-ن: having large and beautiful eyes. The lexicographers record that the concrete origin of the word is the large-eyed wild ox or the gazelle. The construction ḥūrun ʿīn was treated at al-Dukhān 44/54 and al-Ṭūr 52/20.

And this comparison was already cited at al-Ṭūr 52/24 (in the discussion of luʾluʾun maknūn), and this verse was referred to from there. I complete the mutual link here.

Maknūn — root ك-ن-ن: to cover, to keep hidden, to put inside a vessel. The root was analysed at al-Wāqiʿa 56/23 and 56/78. I do not repeat it.

Bayḍ — an egg. And there is disagreement over what the comparison is made in respect of:

All three are transmitted, and the attribute maknūn brings the second forward. I do not impose a preference.

And a comparison must be recorded — this is a textual datum:

The same attribute (maknūn), three different things likened. What is shared is the attribute: being kept hidden.

I record this as my own reading: a pearl is a comparison of worth, an egg a comparison of untouchedness. Both are qualified by the same attribute, but the one looks to value and the other to contact.

Fa-aqbala baʿḍuhum ʿalā baʿḍin yatasāʾalūn · Qāla qāʾilun minhum innī kāna lī qarīn · Yaqūlu a-innaka la-mina'l-muṣaddiqīn · A-idhā mitnā wa kunnā turāban wa ʿiẓāman a-innā la-madīnūn · Qāla hal antum muṭṭaliʿūn · Fa'ṭṭalaʿa fa-raʾāhu fī sawāʾi'l-jaḥīm · Qāla ta'llāhi in kidta la-turdīn · Wa lawlā niʿmatu rabbī la-kuntu mina'l-muḥḍarīn

"They turn to one another, questioning. One of them says: 'I had a companion who used to say to me: Are you really one of those who hold it true? When we are dead and have become dust and bones, are we really to be called to account?' — He says: 'Will you look?' He looks and sees him in the very middle of the blaze. He says: 'By God, you almost ruined me. Had it not been for my Lord's favour, I too would have been among those brought.'"

The fiftieth verse is an exact repetition of the twenty-seventh — only the conjunction has changed. It was given above in a table. And the content of the two scenes is exactly opposite:

I record this as my own reading: the speech in the fire is turned to the second person (innakum, kuntum) — that is, accusation. The speech in the garden is built in the first person (innī, lī, la-kuntu) — that is, narration. The same sentence opens onto two different modes of speech.

A point of word order: qāla qāʾilun — the verb and its subject are from the same root (not م-ف-ع-و-ل but the same root: ق-و-ل). In Arabic this is called reinforcement by derivation (ishtiqāq).

And the subject is indefinite: qāʾilun minhum — "a speaker from among them". No name, and one in number. The scene, that is, descends from a crowd to a single person.

As my own reading: verses forty to forty-nine were a picture of a group (they, around them, with them). From the fiftieth verse it passes to a single voice. The picture turns into a narrative.

Root ق-ر-ن: to bind two things together, to pair. Qarn — a horn (what is joined to the head); qirān — a joining; qarīn — one who is constantly together with another, a close companion.

The word was treated in Qāf (50/23, 27 — wa qāla qarīnuhu), and the use of this word in the scene of the fire was analysed there. I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded:

Whether the qarīn here is a human being or another kind of being has been disputed in the classical commentaries. The text does not specify and I issue no ruling. The content of the speech (denial of resurrection, mockery) accords with both possibilities.

Muṣaddiq — root ص-د-ق, the active participle of Form II: one who holds true, who confirms.

And the same root had occurred in the thirty-seventh verse: wa ṣaddaqa'l-mursalīn — "he confirmed the messengers". The same verb, two different sides: one who confirms the messengers, and one who mocks those who confirm. This is a textual datum.

A point of word order: the question opens with a-innaka — that is, a reinforced question. In Arabic this is not a real question for information but announces incredulity and mockery. In English: "Come now, do you really believe?"

And la-mina'l-muṣaddiqīn — "one of those who hold it true". The person, that is, is placed in a group. The mockery is not individual but directed at a category.

This sentence is a repetition of the sixteenth verse, with one word of difference. It was given above in a table (in the section on 13-17) and I do not repeat it.

What is to be added here is this: in the sixteenth verse this speech was said by a crowd; in the fifty-third by a single person. And in the fifty-fifth verse that person is shown.

I record this as my own reading: the sūra gives a sentence twice, and at the second giving adds a face to it. The objection in the sixteenth verse belonged to an abstract crowd; the objection in the fifty-third belongs to a particular person standing in the middle of the blaze.

Root ط-ل-ع: a thing's coming out, rising and becoming visible. Ṭulūʿ — rising; maṭlaʿ — the place of rising; ṭalīʿa — a vanguard. The root was treated at Qāf 50/10 (wa'n-nakhla bāsiqātin lahā ṭalʿun naḍīd) and in al-Humaza (taṭṭaliʿu ʿala'l-afʾida).

Muṭṭaliʿ — the active participle of Form VIII: one who looks from above, who glances into a place. The pattern announces looking from a height downward.

And at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/36-37 the same root occurred in Pharaoh's mouth: fa-aṭṭaliʿa ilā ilāhi Mūsā — "that I may look upon the god of Moses". The same verb, two directions: one wants to climb up and look, the other looks down from above. This is a textual observation.

A point of word order: the question is hal antum muṭṭaliʿūn — "are you people who look?" It is asked with a nominal sentence. Not "will you look?", then, but "are you in a state to look?"

And note: the question is put to those beside him, but in the next verse the one who looks is a single person: fa'ṭṭalaʿa (singular). The offer is in the plural, the act in the singular. This is an observation about the structure.

Sawāʾ — root س-و-ي: equality, equivalence. Sawāʾu'sh-shayʾ — the very middle of a thing; because the middle point is equidistant from the edges. The word's sense of "middle" arises from this equality.

The same construction occurs in the Qurʾān at al-Dukhān 44/47: fa'tilūhu ilā sawāʾi'l-jaḥīm. Treated in al-Dukhān.

As my own reading: it is not said "in the blaze" but "in the very middle of the blaze". Not the edge but the centre. And what was offered in the fifty-fourth verse was looking — the speaker, that is, sees his companion's place with his own eye.

Ta'llāhi — an oath with the letter tāʾ. In Arabic wāw, bāʾ and tāʾ are particles of oath; and tāʾ is used only with the word "God". The lexicographers record that the tāʾ oath also carries the sense of astonishment and of an unlooked-for state.

In kidta — here in is not the negative but the mukhaffafa mina'th-thaqīla (the lightened form of the heavy inna). The grammarians know it by the presence of the lām: la-turdīn. The sense: "you really did almost…"

Kāda — the verb in Arabic announcing "to be near": to be on the point of.

Turdīn — root ر-د-ي: to fall from a height, to perish. Taraddā — he fell, he perished. In the Qurʾān: wa mā yughnī ʿanhu māluhu idhā taraddā (al-Layl 92/11) — treated in al-Layl.

And the picture of the word is worth noting: ruin is described as falling — that is, from a height downward. And the speaker is at that very moment looking down from above (muṭṭaliʿ). The scene and the word overlap. I record this as an observation.

And the block closes with an admission: "Had it not been for my Lord's favour…"

Lawlā — in Arabic the conditional particle announcing "had it not been for"; it announces a possibility that was not realised.

Muḥḍarīn — root ح-ض-ر, the passive participle of Form IV: those brought, those made to be present. And this word occurs three times in the sūra:

All three occurrences are in the same mould. Only the first carries a difference: there the verb stands inside an unrealised condition. This is a fact that can be verified from the text.

The choice of the word is worth noting: iḥḍār is to bring someone into the presence of an authority. The word announces, that is, not the punishment but the summons. In all three places the sūra names not the penalty itself but the procedure that leads to it.

A-fa-mā naḥnu bi-mayyitīn · Illā mawtatana'l-ūlā wa mā naḥnu bi-muʿadhdhabīn · Inna hādhā la-huwa'l-fawzu'l-ʿaẓīm · Li-mithli hādhā fa'l-yaʿmali'l-ʿāmilūn

"'So then we are not to die — save our first death? And we are not to be punished?' — This indeed is the great triumph. For the like of this let the workers work."

And here there is a disagreement: who says these two verses?

The text does not specify; all three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

A point of word order: the question opens with a-fa-mā — interrogative particle + fāʾ + negation. These three set up a question of astonishment attached to what precedes. In English: "So then…?"

And the question is not a real question — because its answer is known. In Arabic this is called the interrogative of astonishment (istifhām al-taʿajjub): to say again, with joy or with wonder, something already known.

I record this as my own reading: the man has just seen someone in the middle of the blaze. The source of the question is what he has seen. He perceives his own state anew by comparing it with the state he has seen.

Mawta — root م-و-ت, the marra pattern announcing "a single dying" (the faʿla pattern announces a single occurrence). Not mawt (death), that is, but mawta (one event of dying).

Al-ūlā — "the first". And the construct sets up a logic: saying "the first" appears to require the existence of a "second" — but the verse negates the second.

The explanation transmitted in the classical commentaries: al-ūlā here is not an ordinal number but means "that death which lies in the past" — that is, death in this world. There is a similar expression at al-Dukhān 44/56: lā yadhūqūna fīha'l-mawta illa'l-mawtata'l-ūlā, treated in al-Dukhān. I rely on that treatment.

Two negations side by side: no death, no punishment.

And the order of the two is worth noting — as my own reading: first the duration is secured (we shall not die), then the state (we shall not be punished). The two conditions of a favour: that it last and that it not be spoilt. The same pair had been made for the drink in the forty-seventh verse: it neither harms (ghawl) nor is exhausted (yunzafūn). In both places the same logic: no spoiling from without, no ending from within.

Muʿadhdhab — root ع-ذ-ب, the passive participle of Form II. The lexicographers record an oddity: from the same root ʿadhb means sweet water. Different explanations are transmitted about the link between the two senses — on one view ʿadhāb is what cuts off a sweet life. I give this link as a transmission; I issue no firm etymological ruling.

And here the speaking party changes: verses fifty-eight and fifty-nine were a question; the sixtieth is a ruling. In the classical commentaries it is widely said that this sentence is the text's own voice.

The word order is very strong: three reinforcements one upon another.

Ḍamīr al-faṣl in Arabic sets up restriction (ḥaṣr) by separating the subject from the predicate. The sentence says, that is, not "this is a great triumph" but "the great triumph is precisely this, and nothing else".

Fawz — root ف-و-ز. The original sense the lexicographers give: to escape and to attain what one desires — the two together. Fāza — he both escaped danger and obtained what he wanted. Mafāza — both a place of deliverance and a perilous crossing in the desert.

And that both senses are at work here is worth noting: the fifty-ninth verse recounted escaping (no death, no punishment), verses forty-one to forty-nine attaining (provision, hospitality, companions). The word gathers the two under one heading.

And the block closes with the only command in this part of the sūra.

A point of word order — and an important one: li-mithli hādhā has been brought forward. The ordinary order would have been fa'l-yaʿmali'l-ʿāmilūna li-mithli hādhā. In Arabic bringing forward (taqdīm) sets up ḥaṣr: "let them work for this, and not for anything else."

Li-mithli hādhā — "for the like of this". And note: not li-hādhā (for this) but li-mithli hādhā (for the like of this).

Two explanations are transmitted in the classical commentaries for this expression's being built with the word mithl:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

Fa'l-yaʿmal — a command to the third person with the imperative lām. Not "work", then, but "let the workers work".

And the verb and its subject are from the same root: yaʿmali'l-ʿāmilūn. The same structure as qāla qāʾilun in the fifty-first verse. In this section the sūra uses a verb and subject from the same root twice. This is a textual datum.

I record this as my own reading: the sentence is not a summons but a correction of direction. "The workers" already exist and are already working; the verse does not command working, it changes the aim of the working. In the thirty-ninth verse it had been said "you are requited only for what you did" — here the same verb (ع-م-ل) is named together with its aim.

A-dhālika khayrun nuzulan am shajaratu'z-zaqqūm · Innā jaʿalnāhā fitnatan li'ẓ-ẓālimīn · Innahā shajaratun takhruju fī aṣli'l-jaḥīm · Ṭalʿuhā ka-annahu ruʾūsu'sh-shayāṭīn · Fa-innahum la-ākilūna minhā fa-māliʾūna mina'l-buṭūn · Thumma inna lahum ʿalayhā la-shawban min ḥamīm · Thumma inna marjiʿahum la-ila'l-jaḥīm

"Is this the better hospitality, or the tree of zaqqūm? We have made it a trial for the wrongdoers. It is a tree that comes forth in the very bottom of the blaze; its spathes are as though they were the heads of satans. They will eat of it and fill their bellies with it. Then upon it they will have a draught mixed with scalding water. Then their return is again to the blaze."

The word nuzul was analysed in detail at al-Wāqiʿa 56/56 (hādhā nuzuluhum yawma'd-dīn) and 56/93 (fa-nuzulun min ḥamīm). I do not repeat it.

The definition there — and the whole weight of the comparison here rests on it: nuzul, according to the lexicographers, is the first hospitality set out for a guest on his arrival. Not the feast itself, but what is offered while receiving him at the door.

And what was recorded in the section on al-Wāqiʿa turns here into a question. There the word had been used for one side only (the hospitality of the left-hand side, twice). In al-Ṣāffāt the word becomes a measure of comparison:

The same word, then, does two different pieces of work in two sūras: in the one it seals the ruling, in the other it makes the ruling be asked for. This is a difference that can be verified from the text.

A point of word order: nuzulan is in the accusative and the grammarians count it as a specifier (tamyīz): "which is better — in respect of being hospitality?" The specifier determines in what respect the comparison is made. The question is not "which is better?" but "which is better as hospitality?"

And this ties to the forty-second verse: wa hum mukramūn — "and they will be honoured". The root ك-ر-م and the word nuzul are in the same field: hospitality. The sūra sets up the idea of hospitality in the forty-second verse and makes it a measure in the sixty-second.

And the form of the question is worth noting: a-dhālika khayrun … am … — a two-sided question (istifhām al-taʿalluq). This is the same mould as a-hum ashaddu khalqan am man khalaqnā in the eleventh verse. Twice the sūra asks in the same form and twice it leaves the answer to the addressee.

The word zaqqūm and the disagreement over its root were treated in detail at al-Wāqiʿa 56/52 — including the table of the disagreement over the root. I do not repeat it. The three views there (from the Arabic root tazaqqama; the name of a known plant; of foreign origin) were given there, and no firm etymological ruling was issued there either. That note holds here too.

The only thing to be added here is the difference of definiteness, and this is a textual datum:

This comparison was already made at al-Dukhān 44/43-44, and the difference between al-Wāqiʿa and al-Dukhān was given there in a table. I rely on that treatment.

That al-Ṣāffāt uses the same form as al-Dukhān is worth recording. In al-Wāqiʿa the word did not identify; here and in al-Dukhān it does identify — because in both, information is given about the tree (where it grows, what it resembles, what is done with it).

Fitna — root ف-ت-ن. And the concrete picture of the root is worth noting: to put gold into the fire and separate the pure from the dross. Fatana'dh-dhahab — he tested gold with fire. The root was analysed at al-Dhāriyāt 51/13-14 (yawma hum ʿala'n-nāri yuftanūn). I rely on that treatment.

And there is disagreement over the use here:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. Both branches of the root (separating / testing by fire) are at work in this context.

Aṣl — root أ-ص-ل: the root of a thing, its bottom, what it rests on. Aṣīl — the hour after the afternoon (the bottom of the day); aṣl — the root of a tree.

And the construct is odd — the lexicographers record this: takhruju fī aṣli'l-jaḥīm — "it comes forth in the bottom of the blaze". The expected preposition would have been min (it comes forth from its bottom). The use of fī announces that the coming forth takes place inside: the tree does not come out, it grows within the fire.

I record this as my own reading: the choice of words sets up a reversed garden. A tree normally grows in soil and rises with water; here it grows in fire. And because the word aṣl means both "root" and "bottom", in the sentence the root of the tree and the bottom of the blaze fall in the same place.

Ṭalʿ — root ط-ل-ع: what comes out, what appears. In the palm tree, the spathe of the bud, the first state in which the fruit appears. The root was treated at Qāf 50/10 (lahā ṭalʿun naḍīd), where it was used of the palm bud.

The sūra, that is, uses on the side of the fire the word used in describing the plants on the side of the garden. This is a textual datum.

And here there is a question the classical lexicographers dwelt on at length: the heads of satans is a thing no one has seen. How can a comparison be made with something never seen?

The way a comparison (tashbīh) works is this: the mushabbah (what is likened) may be unknown, but the mushabbah bihi (what it is likened to) must be known — because the work of a comparison is to build a bridge from the known to the unknown. Here the thing likened to appears itself to be unknown. That is the objection.

The answers given in the classical period. I give them in a table and impose no preference:

And a note is required — as my own reading: the first and fourth explanations do not exclude one another. The comparison both calls up a settled image of fear and refuses to describe. The English "like a monster" does the same work: neither speaker nor hearer has seen a monster, yet the expression works.

A point of word order and pronoun agreement: ṭalʿuhā ka-annahu ruʾūsu'sh-shayāṭīn — the pronoun is masculine singular (hu), while the predicate is plural (ruʾūs). The grammarians resolve this thus: the pronoun refers to the word ṭalʿ (masculine singular), and because ṭalʿ is a collective noun its predicate can come in the plural. Not "each of its buds", then, but "its buds taken together".

And this sentence is an almost exact repetition of al-Wāqiʿa 56/52-53. It was analysed there and I do not repeat it.

The note there: the root م-ل-أ is to fill; the verse does not say "they will be satisfied" but "they will fill their bellies". To be satisfied is a satiation, to fill is a matter of volume.

The difference between the two sūras in a table:

The last row is the most important difference, and it is countable. In al-Wāqiʿa the whole scene ran with fāʾ — without interval. In al-Ṣāffāt, after two fāʾ, thumma comes twice.

Thumma in Arabic announces tarākhī (time coming between); fāʾ announces the absence of interval. In al-Ṣāffāt, that is, the scene is a scene with pauses: after eating and filling they drink, and after that they are taken back.

I record this as my own reading: the chain of al-Wāqiʿa ran without drawing breath; the chain of al-Ṣāffāt is built with stops. The two sūras make two different rhythms out of the same material.

Shawb — root ش-و-ب: to mix a thing with something else. Shāba — he mixed; shāʾiba — a foreign element that gets into a thing, a taint. The Turkish word şaibe ("taint") comes from this root.

And the word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

In al-Wāqiʿa it was said ʿalayhi mina'l-ḥamīm — "upon it, of scalding water". Here shawban min ḥamīm — "a draught mixed with scalding water".

As my own reading: the addition of the word shawb announces that what is drunk is not pure. In the forty-sixth verse bayḍāʾ (pure white) was said of the other side — that is, unmixed. The drink of the two sides is distinguished by the same measure: the one pure, the other mixed.

Ḥamīm — root ح-م-م: to become extremely hot. The root was treated at al-Wāqiʿa 56/42, 54, 93, and it was recorded there that all three occurrences belong to the same group.

Marjiʿ — root ر-ج-ع: to return. A noun of place / a maṣdar mīmī: the place of return, the returning.

And the sentence closes a circle — this is a textual datum:

What they eat comes out of the blaze, and they themselves return to the blaze. The tree does not come out, and neither do they.

And an oddity in the word order must be recorded: la-ilā'l-jaḥīm — the reinforcing lām has come at the head of a preposition. The grammarians count this as rare but permissible. Its effect is this: the emphasis falls not on the place of return but on the direction of the returning.

I record this as my own reading: in the sixty-second verse a question had been asked — "which is the better hospitality?" The sixty-eighth verse does not give the answer; it shows that the answer is unnecessary. For seven verses what the second option is has been recounted, and the comparison has finished of itself.

Innahum alfaw ābāʾahum ḍāllīn · Fa-hum ʿalā āthārihim yuhraʿūn · Wa laqad ḍalla qablahum aktharu'l-awwalīn · Wa laqad arsalnā fīhim mundhirīn · Fa'nẓur kayfa kāna ʿāqibatu'l-mundharīn · Illā ʿibāda'llāhi'l-mukhlaṣīn

"They found their forefathers astray, and they are rushed along in their tracks. Before them most of those of old had gone astray. And We had sent warners among them. Look, then, how the end of those warned turned out — except God's chosen servants."

Root ل-ف-و (also recorded as أ-ل-ف-و): to come upon a thing, to meet with it, to find. Form IV: alfā — he found, he came upon.

And the choice of the verb is worth noting. Wajada (he found) could also have been said. The difference the lexicographers record: alfā announces meeting by chance, without searching. In the Qurʾān: wa alfayā sayyidahā lada'l-bāb (Yūsuf 12/25) — "and they came upon her husband at the door".

I record this as my own reading: the verb announces that the finding was not their own choice. It is a state they found ready where they were born. And it is not this that the verse blames; what is blamed is in the next verse: continuing without question what they found.

Ḍāllīn — root ض-ل-ل: to lose the way. The root was analysed in al-Fātiḥa (wa la'ḍ-ḍāllīn). The note there: the concrete picture of the root is losing the way in the desert; one who is lost need not be of ill intent.

A point of word order: ḍāllīn stands as a circumstantial — "they found them in a state of having gone astray". What is qualified, that is, is not the persons they found but the state they found.

Root ه-ر-ع. And the word is worth noting: the verb is in the passive pattern but its sense is active.

The sense the lexicographers give: ihrāʿ — to walk fast, in haste, as though being pushed. Yuhraʿūn — they are hurried along, they are dragged.

It occurs once more in the Qurʾān: wa jāʾahu qawmuhu yuhraʿūna ilayh (Hūd 11/78) — the people of Lot came rushing toward him.

And the passive is at work here — I record this as my own reading: the verse does not say "they run", it says "they are rushed along". Who does the rushing is not said. The movement, that is, is not their own. In the sixty-ninth verse there was a state they found; in the seventieth that state carries them.

ʿAlā āthārihim — "upon their tracks". Athar — root أ-ث-ر: the mark a thing leaves behind, a footprint. The root was treated at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/21 (wa āthāran fi'l-arḍ).

And the preposition ʿalā (upon) is worth noting: not fī (in) or ilā (toward). ʿAlā announces treading on a surface. They go, that is, treading in the footprints.

This is the most widespread mould of the theme of following the forefathers in the Qurʾān, and it was treated in detail at al-Zukhruf 43/22-23 (innā wajadnā ābāʾanā ʿalā ummatin wa innā ʿalā āthārihim muhtadūn). I rely on that treatment.

The difference here: in al-Zukhruf they themselves said this ("we are rightly guided in their tracks"); here the text says it about them, and the verb is passive. In al-Zukhruf a claim, then; here a diagnosis.

Akthar — "most". And the choice of this word is worth noting.

The verse does not say "all". Aktharu'l-awwalīn — "most of those of old".

I record this as my own reading: the word does two pieces of work. One: that the majority went astray shows that the majority is not the measure of truth — it breaks the proof from the forefathers directly. Two: saying "most" also announces that a minority did not go astray. And that minority will be named in the seventy-fourth verse: illā ʿibāda'llāhi'l-mukhlaṣīn.

The six-verse block thus sets up a logic of number: the majority went astray, the minority was saved, and the warner went to both.

Al-awwalūn — for the third time in the sūra. 17 (ābāʾuna'l-awwalūn), 71 (here), 126 (rabba ābāʾikumu'l-awwalīn — from Elijah's mouth), 168 (dhikran mina'l-awwalīn). Four occurrences, four different pieces of work.

The hundred and twenty-sixth verse is the most interesting place in this table, and I will treat it separately there: Elijah does not reject following the forefathers — he says that the forefathers too had the same Lord. The sūra, that is, takes up the question of following the forefathers from two directions: it rejects blind following, but it does not condemn the forefathers wholesale either.

Mundhir — root ن-ذ-ر, the active participle of Form IV: one who warns, who announces a bad outcome in advance. The root was treated in al-Mursalāt, in al-Qamar (the most frequent word of that sūra: 11 times) and in al-Muddaththir. I do not repeat it.

The basic note there: indhār is not to frighten but to give notice in advance — to announce while there is still time.

A point of word order: arsalnā fīhim — "We sent among them". Not ilayhim (to them). Fī announces an inclusion: the warner is not a stranger coming from outside but from among them. The same emphasis was present at Qāf 50/2: mundhirun minhum ("a warner from among themselves"), treated in Qāf.

Mundhirīn is an indefinite plural: "warners". How many they were and who they were is not said. And this indefiniteness will be removed from the seventy-fifth verse onward: the sequence will begin and the names will be given one by one.

I record this as my own reading: the seventy-second verse is the heading of the sūra's sequence of prophets. It says "We sent warners"; three verses later the names of those warners begin to be enumerated. The command fa'nẓur (look) in the seventy-third verse supports this too: what is to be looked at comes immediately after.

And the sharpest point in the word order is here:

The same root, two consecutive verses, a difference of a single vowel: kasra / fatḥa. And the sense turns about.

This is a linguistic fact that can be verified from the text and is one of the most elegant places in the sūra.

And the word will turn once more at the end of the sūra: fa-sāʾa ṣabāḥu'l-mundharīn (177) — "how evil is the morning of those who were warned". The same passive participle pattern. This is a countable repetition.

ʿĀqiba — root ع-ق-ب: to come after a thing; the heel. ʿAqib — the heel; ʿāqiba — the outcome, what comes behind a matter. The root was treated at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/21 (kayfa kāna ʿāqibatu'lladhīna kānū min qablihim).

Fa'nẓur — root ن-ظ-ر, an imperative: look. And the addressee is singular. The command is given, that is, not to a crowd but to one person — to the Prophet, or to each single reader.

The sentence occurs for the second time in the sūra (40, 74). It was analysed in the section on the fortieth verse; I do not repeat it.

The question of word order here must be recorded: what does the exception attach to? In the seventy-third verse there was al-mundharīn (those warned); in the seventy-first, aktharu'l-awwalīn (most of those of old).

Both are transmitted by the grammarians; the sense arrives at the same place either way. I do not impose a preference.

And the closing of the block is worth recording — as my own reading: the seventy-fourth verse is identical with the fortieth, and thirty-four verses lie between them. Blocks III and IV are thus framed by the same sentence: one opens, the other closes. And inside that frame there are two pictures — the garden and zaqqūm. The frame holds the two pictures together.

Wa laqad nādānā Nūḥun fa-la-niʿma'l-mujībūn · Wa najjaynāhu wa ahlahu mina'l-karbi'l-ʿaẓīm · Wa jaʿalnā dhurriyyatahu humu'l-bāqīn · Wa taraknā ʿalayhi fi'l-ākhirīn · Salāmun ʿalā Nūḥin fi'l-ʿālamīn · Innā kadhālika najzi'l-muḥsinīn · Innahu min ʿibādina'l-muʾminīn · Thumma aghraqna'l-ākharīn

"And Noah called upon Us — and how excellent are We as answerers. We saved him and his household from the great distress. We made his progeny the ones who remained. And We left upon him, among those who came after: 'Peace be upon Noah among all the worlds.' Thus do We requite those who do good. He was one of Our believing servants. Then We drowned the others."

Eight verses, and within them not a full account — a summary. What Noah said to his people, how long he waited, the building of the ark, the flood — none of it is recounted. What is recounted is only this: he called, he was saved, his line continued, his name remained.

This is the method the sūra keeps to in its sequence of prophets, and it is worth recording: the accounts are given not as story but as outcome. Comparing this with Sūrat Nūḥ, treated in Nūḥ, makes it clear: there, for twenty-eight verses, Noah's case and his call are recounted; here the case itself is wholly absent, and only its result is present.

Nādā — root ن-د-و/ن-د-ي: to call to one who is far off. The root was treated at al-Qalam 68/48 (idh nādā wa huwa makẓūm — of Jonah).

And the picture of the word is worth noting: nidāʾ is a call made from a distance. One does not make nidāʾ to someone near; with him one makes najwā (a whisper).

And this ties to another place in the sequence — this is a textual datum:

The same verb, the opposite direction. Noah calls, Abraham is called. I record this as an observation.

And what he said is not stated. Elsewhere the Qurʾān states it: fa-daʿā rabbahu annī maghlūbun fa'ntaṣir (al-Qamar 54/10) — treated in al-Qamar. Here the content is not given; only the act and its answer.

Niʿma — in Arabic the verb of praise (fiʿl al-madḥ). Its opposite is biʾsa (how evil). The mould is used to praise a thing in the highest degree.

A point of word order: fa-la-niʿma — with fāʾ and lām at its head. The grammarians count this lām as the answer to an elided oath. At the head of the sentence, that is, there is an unstated oath: "By God, how excellent are We as answerers."

Mujīb — root ج-و-ب: to answer, to respond. The concrete sense of the root is "to cut through, to cleave": jāba'l-arḍa — he cleft the ground, he traversed it. In the Qurʾān: wa Thamūda'lladhīna jābū'ṣ-ṣakhra bi'l-wād (al-Fajr 89/9) — "and Thamūd, who hollowed the rocks in the valley" — treated in al-Fajr.

The link the lexicographers make: an answer is what cleaves the obstacle standing before a question. The word goes out and its response comes back. I give this link as a transmission from the lexicographers.

And the plural is worth noting: al-mujībūn — "the answerers". A plural of majesty. The same form will be repeated in the sūra: innā, jaʿalnā, taraknā.

Karb — root ك-ر-ب. The original sense the lexicographers give: a distress that narrows a person's breast and cuts off his breath. Kurba — a trouble; makrūb — one in distress. From the same root karaba also means "it drew near"; the lexicographers make the link thus: distress is what draws near and clings to a person.

And the construction occurs twice in the sūra — this is a countable fact:

The same construction, the same verb (najjaynā), two different deliverances. And both are deliverances from water: the one from the flood, the other from the sea. Whether the text sets up this link is not said; the sharing of the words is a datum.

Najjaynā — root ن-ج-و, Form II: to save. The concrete sense of the root is "high ground": najwa — a rise one climbs to be safe from a flood. "To save", then, is really "to raise up high". And in the context of the flood this picture works directly.

Dhurriyya — root ذ-ر-ر or ذ-ر-و. Two derivations are transmitted: (a) from ذ-ر-ر — a mote, a small particle; (b) from ذ-ر-و — to scatter, to spread. Both arrive at the picture of "small particles spread abroad". I issue no firm etymological ruling.

Al-bāqīn — root ب-ق-ي: to remain, to be left over.

A point of word order: jaʿalnā dhurriyyatahu hum al-bāqīn — the pronoun hum comes between. This is the ḍamīr al-faṣl and it sets up ḥaṣr (restriction): "the ones who remain are only his progeny".

And this is information the text gives; its detail is not given. In the classical commentaries it is said, on the basis of this verse, that the whole of humanity comes from Noah's line. The verse does not say this openly; it says "the ones who remained are his progeny". I record this much and write no more.

This sentence occurs four times in the sūra: 78 (Noah), 108 (Abraham), 119 (Moses-Aaron — ʿalayhimā), 129 (Elijah). It was given in a table in the section on the structure.

And there is an ellipsis in the sentence: taraknā ʿalayhi — "We left upon him". What was left is not said. The verb has no object.

The completions the grammarians record:

The third is worth noting and is the closest to the text: the seventy-ninth verse is directly a sentence of peace and stands like a quoted utterance. What "We left", then, may be that very sentence — the word that remained on people's tongues.

I record this as a view and impose no preference; but that all three moulds (78-79, 108-109, 129-130) come in the same order gives this reading a ground.

Al-ākhirīn — root أ-خ-ر: to come after. "Those who come after." And note: in the seventy-ninth verse al-ʿālamīn (the worlds) occurs, and in the eighty-second al-ākharīn (the others) will occur. The three words resemble one another but are three distinct things:

The two words in verses seventy-eight and eighty-two are from the same root and are distinguished by a single vowel (al-ākhirīn / al-ākharīn). This is a fact of the same kind as the mundhirīn / mundharīn pair in verses seventy-two and seventy-three, and it is countable.

And in this verse there is an addition not present in the other salutations of the sequence:

An adverbial phrase is added only to the peace given to Noah: fi'l-ʿālamīn. This is a fact that can be verified from the text.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: that the addition falls in the first salutation of the sequence is striking. The first peace is given with the widest extent, and those that follow are set upon it. Moreover the seventy-seventh verse had said that Noah's progeny are the ones who remain — the adverb ʿālamīn accords with this: a name remembered among everyone, in a world in which everyone remains within his line. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

Salām — root س-ل-م. The root was analysed in al-Baqara, Qāf, al-Wāqiʿa (56/91 — salāmun laka min aṣḥābi'l-yamīn) and al-Ḥujurāt. The basic note there: the original sense of the root is "wholeness, soundness, freedom from defect". To give peace is to wish wholeness to the other.

And salām comes indefinite: salāmun, not al-salāmu. In Arabic the indefinite is common in sentences of prayer and announces generality (ʿumūm): "peace of every kind".

A point of word order and my own reading: the sentence is a nominal sentence and has no verb. In Arabic a nominal sentence announces continuance and fixity. Not "let there be peace upon Noah" but "there is peace upon Noah" — not a wish but a statement of a state. And this is consistent with the verb "We left" in the seventy-eighth verse: what was left was left in order to last.

This sentence occurs five times in the sūra: 80, 105, 110 (without innā), 121, 131. It was given in a table in the section on the structure.

Najzī — root ج-ز-ي: to requite, to pay what is equal. The same field was treated in the thirty-ninth verse (wa mā tujzawna illā mā kuntum taʿmalūn) and in the thirty-fourth (nafʿalu bi'l-mujrimīn).

Muḥsin — root ح-س-ن, the active participle of Form IV. The root was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/16 (innahum kānū qabla dhālika muḥsinīn) and at al-Raḥmān 55/60 (hal jazāʾu'l-iḥsāni illa'l-iḥsān). I rely on those treatments.

The definition there holds here too: iḥsān is more than "doing good" — to do a thing beautifully, completely and with more than is due. In the root there is ḥusn (beauty).

And the sentence in al-Raḥmān gives the logic of this mould: hal jazāʾu'l-iḥsāni illa'l-iḥsān — "is the requital of iḥsān anything but iḥsān?" The requital, that is, is of the same kind as the act.

I record this as my own reading: this is why the closing mould of the sequence says not najzi'l-muʾminīn or najzi'l-muttaqīn but najzi'l-muḥsinīn. The subject of the mould is not belief but the doing of the work well. And the next verse states the belief separately: innahu min ʿibādina'l-muʾminīn. Two verses record two different things: the work he did and the place where he stands.

This sentence occurs three times in the singular in the sūra (81, 111, 132) and once in the dual (122 — innahumā).

And the construct is worth noting: ʿibādinā — "Our servants". In the fortieth verse it was said ʿibāda'llāh ("God's servants"). The two constructs say the same thing, but the one is first person and the other third. And the closing mould of the sequence prefers the first person — because the whole mould is built in the first person (taraknā, innā, najzī).

Al-muʾminīn — root أ-م-ن: to be safe, to give security. The root was analysed in al-Baqara.

And a point of word order: the sentence is not innahu muʾminun but innahu min ʿibādina'l-muʾminīn. The attribute is not given directly; the person is placed in a group. In the fifty-second verse the qarīn's speech had the same structure: a-innaka la-mina'l-muṣaddiqīn. The sūra prefers to name persons not singly but by the group they belong to. This is an observation about the language.

Aghraqnā — root غ-ر-ق, Form IV: to drown. The root had occurred at al-Nāziʿāt 79/1 (wa'n-nāziʿāti gharqā) — there as a verbal noun and in a different work.

Thumma announces time coming between.

And the point of word order is very marked — I record it as my own reading: the sentence of punishment has been set behind the closing mould. The order is this: deliverance (76) → progeny (77) → remembrance (78) → peace (79) → requital (80) → faith (81) → then punishment (82).

The destruction comes, that is, not in the middle of the account but at its end and as an appendix. And the particle thumma pushes it further away still: "then". The weight of the telling is on the side of those saved; the side that drowned is passed over in one sentence.

And the same structure will be repeated in the Lot section: thumma dammarna'l-ākharīn (136) — the same particle, the same word (al-ākharīn), the same position. This parallel between the two sections is countable from the text.

Wa inna min shīʿatihi la-Ibrāhīm · Idh jāʾa rabbahu bi-qalbin salīm · Idh qāla li-abīhi wa qawmihi mādhā taʿbudūn · A-ifkan ālihatan dūna'llāhi turīdūn · Fa-mā ẓannukum bi-rabbi'l-ʿālamīn

"And of those who followed his way was Abraham. When he came to his Lord with a sound heart. When he said to his father and his people: 'What is it you serve? Is it fabricated gods, apart from God, that you want? Then what do you suppose of the Lord of all the worlds?'"

Shīʿa — root ش-ي-ع. And the original sense of the root is worth noting: to spread, to disperse, to multiply. Shāʿa'l-khabar — the news spread; ashāʿa — he spread it. From this shīʿa arises: a company gathered around a person and spreading his view.

At the centre of the word, then, there are two things: to follow a person and to spread his cause.

The Qurʾān uses the word both positively and negatively: wa laqad ahlaknā ashyāʿakum (al-Qamar 54/51) — "We have destroyed your like"; and at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/15 a man is named as min shīʿatihi (of his party).

To whom does the pronoun refer? Shīʿatihi — "of his party". And this is disputed:

The first view is nearer grammatically (a pronoun refers to the nearest antecedent) and is transmitted more widely in the classical commentaries. The second is also transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

And a note as my own reading: the choice of the word announces that the sequence is a chain. Abraham is presented not as a separate beginning but as a continuation. In the thirty-seventh verse it had been said of the Prophet wa ṣaddaqa'l-mursalīn ("he confirmed the messengers"); here too a prophet is joined to the one before him. What is built through the sūra is not separate heroes but a single line.

And this is one of the most often cited expressions of the sūra.

Jāʾa … bi- — in Arabic the mould announcing "to bring a thing". Not "he came", then, but "he brought". Jāʾa bi-qalbin salīm — he brought his heart.

I record this as my own reading: the mould carries the idea of an offering. In the thirty-seventh verse it had been said of the Prophet jāʾa bi'l-ḥaqq ("he brought the truth") — the same mould. In both places the sūra uses the same structure: a person brings something. The one the truth, the other his heart.

Salīm — root س-ل-م. And this is the third place in which the sūra uses the s-l-m root:

This is a countable fact and shows that this is one of the densest roots of the sūra.

The faʿīl pattern in Arabic can carry both an active and a passive sense. The senses transmitted for salīm here:

All these senses are transmitted in the classical commentaries, and most exegetes count them as complementary. I impose no preference.

And an intra-Qurʾānic link: illā man ata'llāha bi-qalbin salīm (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/89). The same construction, the same verbal mould (atā … bi-). And there too the words are Abraham's. This is a textual datum.

Qalb — root ق-ل-ب: to turn, to turn over. This sense of the root was treated in Qāf and al-Baqara. The name of the organ, that is, means "what turns, what passes from state to state". That the attribute salīm is given to this root is worth noting: soundness is asked of a thing that is continually changing.

Abraham's first utterance is a question. And the question does not ask for information.

In Arabic this is called istifhām inkārī (an interrogative of denial) or tawbīkh (an interrogative of reproach): to ask about something whose answer is known, so as to bring the addressee face to face with his own answer.

And note: not man taʿbudūn (whom do you serve) but mādhā taʿbudūn (what do you serve). The same particle was used in the twenty-second verse: wa mā kānū yaʿbudūn. The sūra names the things served consistently with the particle for non-rational beings. This is a countable datum of the language.

Li-abīhi wa qawmihi — "to his father and his people". The order is worth noting: first the father, then the people. He begins from the nearest.

And this verse is one of the densest sentences in the sūra in point of word order.

The ordinary order would have been: a-turīdūna ālihatan ifkan dūna'llāh. In the verse the order has been changed entirely:

The verb, that is, has been thrown to the very end, and the word ifk has been brought to the very front.

In Arabic bringing forward (taqdīm) sets up emphasis and ḥaṣr. The centre of gravity of the sentence becomes not "do you want?" but "is it a fabrication?"

I record this as my own reading: the question is not "do you serve?" but "is it a fabricated thing that you want?" The emphasis falls not on the verb but on the quality of the object. Abraham questions not the serving but the kind of what is served.

Ifk — root أ-ف-ك: to turn a thing from its direction, to overturn it. Afaka — he turned it; maʾfūk — one whose reason has been turned. The same root was treated in the Qurʾān at al-Dhāriyāt 51/9: yuʾfaku ʿanhu man ufik — "turned away from it is he who is turned".

And the picture of the root is worth noting: ifk does not mean exactly "a lie"; it means "speech that has turned the truth about". A lie is a fabrication; ifk is the overturning of what exists.

And the word will occur once more in the sūra: alā innahum min ifkihim la-yaqūlūn · walada'llāh (151-152) — "out of their fabrication they say 'God has begotten'". Both occurrences do the same work: fabricating an attribution. This is a countable repetition.

Dūna'llāh — "apart from God, short of God". Dūn in Arabic announces "below, short of". It had occurred in the twenty-third verse too (min dūni'llāh).

And Abraham's second question does different work from the first.

Ẓann — root ظ-ن-ن: an opinion that is not certain, supposing. But the root is two-directional in Arabic: sometimes it means "to suppose" (a weak opinion), sometimes "to know with certainty". Both uses are present in the Qurʾān: alladhīna yaẓunnūna annahum mulāqū rabbihim (al-Baqara 2/46 — certainty here).

What is transmitted about its sense here:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The sentence is open to both readings.

And the order of the two questions is worth noting — as my own reading: the first question asked about what they serve (85-86); the second asks about what they do not serve (87). Abraham shows first what is in their hand, then what is not. And the object of the second question is given not with a name but with a construct: rabbu'l-ʿālamīn — the Lord of all the worlds. The other side's gods are "ālihatan" (plural, indefinite), what Abraham names is "the Lord of all the worlds" (singular, all-encompassing).

Rabbu'l-ʿālamīn — the same construct as in the last verse of the sūra: wa'l-ḥamdu li'llāhi rabbi'l-ʿālamīn (182). The sūra closes with the construct it set in Abraham's mouth. This is a fact that can be verified from the text.

Fa-naẓara naẓratan fi'n-nujūm · Fa-qāla innī saqīm · Fa-tawallaw ʿanhu mudbirīn

"Then he cast a glance at the stars and said, 'I am sick'. Thereupon they turned their backs and left him."

These three verses are among the places in the sūra that require the most care. The reason is this: the text says very little, and what it does not say has been filled in, in the classical sources, in very different ways.

What the text says is this, and this is all of it:

1. He looked once at the stars. 2. He said "I am sick". 3. They turned and went.

What the text does not say: why he looked, what he saw, what he meant by "sick", why they went, where they went. None of this is in the verse.

In this commentary those gaps are not filled with details of the isrāʾīliyyāt kind. I will give the classical explanations in a table and will set up no firm ruling.

Naẓara — root ن-ظ-ر: to look. And there is a cognate accusative: naẓratan — "a glance".