al-Ṣāffāt 37:103-107

Fa-lammā aslamā wa tallahu li'l-jabīn · Wa nādaynāhu an yā Ibrāhīm · Qad ṣaddaqta'r-ruʾyā, innā kadhālika najzi'l-muḥsinīn · Inna hādhā la-huwa'l-balāʾu'l-mubīn · Wa fadaynāhu bi-dhibḥin ʿaẓīm

"When the two of them had submitted and he had laid him down upon his temple — We called out to him: 'Abraham! You have fulfilled the dream. Thus do We requite those who do good. This was indeed the plain trial.' And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice."

And that the verb is dual is the most important datum of word order in this section.

Aslamā — the dual of the verb aslama (he submitted): "the two of them submitted".

The text attributes the submission, that is, not to one person but to both. This is the counterpart of the consultation in the hundred and second verse: the father asked, the son answered, and the two of them submitted together.

And the root س-ل-م does its fourth piece of work in the sūra here. It was given above in a table (in the section on verse 84). What is to be added here: the mustaslimūn of the twenty-sixth verse (those who surrender perforce) and the aslamā here (those who submit willingly) are two opposite states from the same root. This is a contrast that can be verified from the text.

Lammā — "when". In Arabic it announces a temporal condition and requires an apodosis. And there is a dispute of word order over the apodosis here:

Both solutions are transmitted. And the first is worth noting in point of sense — as my own reading: that the apodosis is not stated shows that the scene is cut off at exactly that point. What happened is not recounted.

And this is one of the places where the Qurʾān says the most with the fewest words.

Talla — root ت-ل-ل. And the word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

The sense the lexicographers give: to throw someone to the ground, to lay him down, to tip him face down. Tall — a mound, a heap of earth. The link the lexicographers make: talla is to lay someone out on the earth (the mound). I give this link as a transmission.

Al-jabīn — root ج-ب-ن. This root is analysed here for the first time in this commentary.

The sense the lexicographers give: jabīn is the side of the forehead — the region where the temple meets the brow. A person has two jabīns (right and left); the flat region in the middle is called jabha (the forehead).

From the same root jubn — cowardice. The lexicographers make the link thus: the colour and expression of the face of one who fears change. I give this link as a transmission; I issue no firm ruling.

And the choice of the word carries the whole scene — I record it as my own reading:

The verse does not say "he laid him down"; it says "he laid him down upon his temple". That means the face is turned to the side.

And this has a single consequence: the meeting of eyes is broken off. If you lay a person on his back his face turns toward you; if you turn him to the side, it does not. The word announces that a mutual gaze has been broken.

I do not present this as a claim of intent; what I record is that the word is temple (jabīn) and not forehead (jabha), and this is a choice that can be verified from the text.

The hundred and third verse begins with a lammā clause and its apodosis does not come.

What the text does:

I record this as my own reading: the telling is cut off at the peak of the event and never recounts what came after. The hundred and fourth verse passes straight to the voice. The reader, that is, is left at the most strained moment of the scene, and that moment is never completed.

And this is a fact noticed in the classical period as well: that the apodosis of lammā is elided is the solution most of the grammarians prefer, and its ground is exactly this — what is not said is heavier than anything that could be said.

In this commentary that gap is not filled. The details recounted in the classical sources about the knife, the manner of the laying down, the words spoken, are of isrāʾīliyyāt origin and are not transmitted.

Nādaynā — root ن-د-و/ن-د-ي. Its link with the seventy-fifth verse was given above in a table: Noah called upon us; to Abraham We called out.

An — here the explicative an (an tafsīriyya). The grammarians render it "that is": it comes after a verb of speaking and opens the content of the utterance. "We called out to him — that is: Abraham!"

And note: he is called by name. This is the only place in the sūra's sequence of prophets where a prophet's name is called out directly in address. This is a fact countable from the text.

Ṣaddaqa — root ص-د-ق, Form II: to hold true, to confirm.

And the word occurs for the third time in the sūra:

Three occurrences, the same root. This is a textual datum.

And the sense of the verb is worth noting here — as my own reading: taṣdīq is not merely to count a word true; it is to make it come true. In Arabic ṣaddaqa'l-waʿda means "he fulfilled his promise". "You have confirmed the dream", then, means "you have made real what the dream said".

Al-ruʾyā — root ر-أ-ي: what is seen in sleep. And the expression arā fi'l-manām of the hundred and second verse is here reduced to a single word: al-ruʾyā.

And there is a note in the word order: the verse does not say "you have carried out the command"; it says "you have fulfilled the dream". The name of the thing in question remains dream. This is consistent with the distinction recorded in the hundred and second verse: the father spoke of a dream, the son said command, the text says dream.

And this is the most striking structural fact in the sequence.

The mould normally comes at the end of the account (80, 110, 121, 131). Here it comes in the middle of the account — and the account has not yet ended (the ransom will be given in verse 107, Isaac announced in 112).

This is a fact that can be verified from the text and is the one exception in the sequence.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the placing of the mould here shows that the reward is given before the ransom. The requital, that is, is not tied to the sacrifice's taking place; it is tied to the submission itself. And the ransom in the hundred and seventh verse becomes not the reward itself but an addition that comes after it.

The word order again has three reinforcements: inna + lām + huwa (ḍamīr al-faṣl). Exactly the same structure as the sixtieth verse: inna hādhā la-huwa'l-fawzu'l-ʿaẓīm.

The same mould, two different rulings. This is a repetition countable from the text.

Balāʾ — root ب-ل-و: to try, to test. And the root has two directions in Arabic, and both are used in the Qurʾān: balāʾ is testing both with favour and with hardship. The Qurʾān: wa nablūkum bi'sh-sharri wa'l-khayri fitna (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/35).

And the lexicographers record a second branch of sense: baliya — to wear out, to be worn. The link is made thus: a testing wears down the one tested. I give this link as a transmission.

Al-mubīn — root ب-ي-ن: plain, distinguishing. The word occurs five times in the sūra: 15 (siḥrun mubīn), 106 (here), 113 (ẓālimun li-nafsihi mubīn), 117 (al-kitāba'l-mustabīn — from the same root), 156 (sulṭānun mubīn).

And whom this verse concerns is disputed:

Both arrive at the same place. Moreover whose trial it was is not specified either — the father's, the son's, or both. The text does not specify and neither do I; but the dual verb in the hundred and third verse (aslamā) points to both.

Fadaynā — root ف-د-ي: to save someone by giving a substitute in his place. Fidya — a price of redemption; fidāʾ — a substitute. The root was treated at Muḥammad 47/4 (fa-immā mannan baʿdu wa immā fidāʾan) and at al-Maʿārij 70/11-14 (yawaddu'l-mujrimu law yaftadī min ʿadhābi yawmaʾidhin bi-banīh).

And the comparison with the verse in al-Maʿārij is worth noting — this is a textual datum:

The two verses use the same root and the directions are exactly opposite. In the one a man wants to make his child the price; in the other a price is given for the child himself. Whether the text sets up this link cannot be said; the sharing of the root is a datum.

Dhibḥ — root ذ-ب-ح. And the word is read dhibḥ, not dhabḥ, and this difference is meaningful:

In Arabic the fiʿl pattern often announces "the thing that is the object of the act" (raqm — writing / riqm; ḥiml — a load). The verse, then, speaks not of an act but of an animal.

This is a linguistic datum and must be recorded: the verse does not say what it was (which animal), but by the pattern of the word it announces that a living creature is meant.

ʿAẓīm — root ع-ظ-م: great, mighty. And what "great" means is disputed:

All of these are transmitted in the classical commentaries. I do not impose a preference.

As my own reading I record only this: the sūra uses the attribute ʿaẓīm in two other places — al-karbi'l-ʿaẓīm (76, 115) and al-fawzu'l-ʿaẓīm (60). All three uses announce a scale: a great distress, a great triumph, a great sacrifice. This is a count of a word.