al-Ṣāffāt 37:139-148

Wa inna Yūnusa la-mina'l-mursalīn · Idh abaqa ila'l-fulki'l-mashḥūn · Fa-sāhama fa-kāna mina'l-mudḥaḍīn · Fa'ltaqamahu'l-ḥūtu wa huwa mulīm · Fa-lawlā annahu kāna mina'l-musabbiḥīn · La-labitha fī baṭnihi ilā yawmi yubʿathūn · Fa-nabadhnāhu bi'l-ʿarāʾi wa huwa saqīm · Wa anbatnā ʿalayhi shajaratan min yaqṭīn · Wa arsalnāhu ilā miʾati alfin aw yazīdūn · Fa-āmanū fa-mattaʿnāhum ilā ḥīn

"And Jonah too was one of the messengers sent. When he ran off to the laden ship. He drew lots and was among those who lost. Then the fish swallowed him whole, and he was one deserving blame. Had he not been of those who glorify, he would have stayed in its belly until the day they are raised. But We cast him out upon the bare shore, and he was sick. And We caused a gourd plant to grow over him. And We sent him to a hundred thousand — or more. And they believed; so We let them enjoy for a time."

And this is one of the harshest choices of word in the sūra.

Abaqa — root أ-ب-ق. And the word is analysed here for the first time in this commentary.

The sense the lexicographers give is very narrow, and this narrowness must be recorded: ibāq is a slave's running away from his master without leave. Ābiq — a runaway slave. The word is not used in Arabic of any other flight; the flight of a free man is called haraba or farra.

In the Qurʾān the word occurs only here.

And the harshness of the word lies in this — and I record it as a linguistic datum:

The verse, that is, recounts a prophet's departure in the language of the relation of slave and master.

And what this requires must be written: the word sets up a relation of authority. The one who flees is not counted ill-intentioned; it is said that he departed without leave. The offence of a runaway slave is not theft or rebellion but not being where he ought to be.

And that this word is used of a prophet is one of the striking places of the Qurʾān.

At al-Qalam 68/48-50 the same person was named as a negative example (wa lā takun ka-ṣāḥibi'l-ḥūt), and it was recorded there: "a prophet is named as a negative example; this is rare in the Qurʾān and must be read carefully." I rely on that treatment.

And the difference between the two sūras must be recorded:

The two sūras recount the same person from two different angles: the one as a warning, the other as a messenger. And al-Ṣāffāt holds both the praise and the harsh word in the same section — in 139 mina'l-mursalīn, in 140 abaqa, in 142 mulīm.

I record this as my own reading: the section sets up neither an acquittal nor a condemnation. It leaves the two side by side.

Fulk — a ship. And in Arabic the word is used both as singular and as plural — its form does not change. Both uses are present in the Qurʾān.

Mashḥūn — root ش-ح-ن, a passive participle: filled, loaded to the brim. Shaḥana — he loaded, he filled.

In the Qurʾān the same attribute is used of Noah's ark too: ḥamalnā dhurriyyatahum fi'l-fulki'l-mashḥūn (Yā Sīn 36/41). The same construction, two different ships.

I record this as my own reading: the attribute announces that the ship was full, and this prepares the drawing of lots in the next verse. On a full ship an extra passenger is a problem. The verse does not state the reason, but the attribute implies it.

Sāhama — root س-ه-م, Form III. And the word is analysed here for the first time in this commentary.

Sahm — an arrow. And the concrete picture of the root is this: when the Arabs divided a matter or made a choice they used marked arrows; whoever's name the drawn arrow bore received the portion. From this sahm took the sense of "a portion, a share" — the Turkish word sehim ("share") comes from this root.

Musāhama (Form III) — to draw lots against one another, to compete in a drawing of lots. Form III announces two parties entering into a matter with one another.

Sāhama, that is, is not "he drew lots" but more exactly "he took part in the drawing of lots". This is a datum of the pattern.

Mudḥaḍīn — root د-ح-ض. The sense the lexicographers give: to slip, for the foot to slip, to fail to hold. Daḥaḍa — it slipped; madḥaḍa — a slippery place. And from this the sense "to be void, to be refuted" arises: in the Qurʾān ḥujjatuhum dāḥiḍatun ʿinda rabbihim (al-Shūrā 42/16) — "their argument is void with their Lord". Treated in al-Shūrā.

Mudḥaḍ — the passive participle of Form IV: made to slip, brought down, the loser in a drawing of lots.

I record this as my own reading: the word does not say "he lost"; it says "he was among those made to slip" — a passive. Losing in a drawing of lots is not something within a person's power. And this sets up a balance beside the harshness of the verb abaqa: the departure was his act, the outcome of the lot was not.

And a note: the verse does not say why lots were drawn. In the classical commentaries it is said that the ship was in danger of sinking and the excess was to be thrown overboard. The verse does not give this; nor do I.

Iltaqama — root ل-ق-م, Form VIII. Luqma — a mouthful. The verb, then, is "to swallow in a single mouthful".

I record this as my own reading: the verb is not akala (he ate) or balaʿa (he swallowed). Iltaqama — without chewing, at one go. And the picture of "a mouthful" in the root of the word reduces a human being to the size of a mouthful. This is what sets up the scene in respect of scale.

Al-ḥūt — the fish. And the word comes definite: al-ḥūt.

The grammarians' explanation: the definiteness here announces the class — "the thing called fish" — or points to a known event. The verse does not say the species of the fish, and neither do I.

Wa huwa mulīm — a circumstantial clause.

Mulīm — root ل-و-م, the active participle of Form IV. Lawm — to blame. Form IV here announces "to have done something that deserves blame": alāma — he did something blameworthy. Mulīm, then, is not "one who blames" but "one who has done a thing deserving blame".

The word occurs in two places in the Qurʾān: one here, one at al-Dhāriyāt 51/40: fa-akhadhnāhu wa junūdahu fa-nabadhnāhum fi'l-yammi wa huwa mulīm — of Pharaoh.

And the resemblance between the two verses is striking and is entirely a textual datum:

The same two words (nabadhnā and mulīm) are used of two different persons, and the outcomes are opposite. I record this as a textual observation; I do not claim that the two verses refer to one another.

Lawlā — "had it not been". It announces a condition that was not realised.

Musabbiḥ — root س-ب-ح, the active participle of Form II: one who glorifies. And the original sense of the root: to swim in water or in air, to glide on. The Qurʾān: kullun fī falakin yasbaḥūn (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/33). The root was treated at al-Wāqiʿa 56/74, 96 (fa-sabbiḥ bi'smi rabbika) and in al-Aʿlā.

The note there holds here too: tasbīḥ, by its root, is to keep at a distance — to hold God away from everything unworthy of Him, to declare Him free of it. Its link with the sense of swimming: what swims moves away from where it is.

And the word occurs in three places in the sūra — this is a countable fact:

And the hundred and forty-third and hundred and sixty-sixth verses share the same mould: al-musabbiḥīn / al-musabbiḥūn. The one a prophet inside a belly, the other a company standing in ranks in the sky. The same act, two extreme positions.

I record this as my own reading: the work done in the belly of the fish and the work done in the heavens are named with the same word. And the sūra ties the deliverance to this act: fa-lawlā annahu kāna mina'l-musabbiḥīn.

And a point of word order: the verse does not say "because he glorified" but "because he was of those who glorify". What saves, then, is not an act at that moment but a belonging. Kāna mina'l-musabbiḥīn — kāna announces the past: he was of that company already.

This is the most meaningful use of the sūra's preference for the mould of the group (see the section on verse 81).

Labitha — root ل-ب-ث: to remain in a place, to linger.

And the apodosis of the condition is worth noting: ilā yawmi yubʿathūn — "until the day they are raised".

I record this as my own reading: the verse does not say "he would have remained a long time". It gives a date: until the resurrection. And in the sixteenth verse the deniers had asked a-innā la-mabʿūthūn ("are we really to be raised?"). The same root (ب-ع-ث), the same sūra. Here the fact of the resurrection is used, without dispute, as a measure of time.

And the verb is plural: yubʿathūn — "they are raised". Jonah is one person; the plural means all human beings. The verse ties a personal confinement, that is, to a general day.

Nabadha — root ن-ب-ذ: to throw a thing away as worthless, to fling it down. The root was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/40.

And the harshness of the verb is worth noting: nabadha is not to set down carefully but to throw. Yet the outcome is deliverance.

Al-ʿarāʾ — root ع-ر-ي: to be bare. ʿArāʾ — a flat place with nothing upon it, without tree, without shade, without shelter.

And the same word had occurred at al-Qalam 68/49: la-nubidha bi'l-ʿarāʾi wa huwa madhmūm — "he would have been cast onto the bare shore, blamed".

The difference between the two verses is exactly this, and it is read off the text:

The two sūras recount the same scene, that is, and part at the last word: the one madhmūm (blamed), the other saqīm (sick).

Al-Qalam says "he would have been cast, blamed", and announces that he was not cast. Al-Ṣāffāt says "We cast him" and gives his state as sick.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the two verses do not conflict, because what is negated is not the same. In al-Qalam what is negated is being cast madhmūm (blamed); in al-Ṣāffāt what is realised is being cast saqīm (sick). The blame has been lifted, the sickness has remained. This is an explanation; the text does not set up the link between the two verses openly.

Saqīm was analysed in the section on the eighty-ninth verse, and the sharing of the word between Abraham and Jonah was given there in a table.

Anbata — root ن-ب-ت, Form IV: to cause to grow. The root was treated at Nūḥ 71/17 (wa'llāhu anbatakum mina'l-arḍi nabātā) and in Qāf and al-Nabaʾ.

ʿAlayhi — "over him". The preposition is worth noting: not lahu (for him). ʿAlā announces being above — the plant covers him over.

Yaqṭīn — root ي-ق-ط-ن (or ق-ط-ن). And the word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

The definition the lexicographers give: yaqṭīn is the general name of plants that do not stand upright on a stem but spread on the ground. The gourd, the watermelon and the melon fall into this class. In most of the classical commentaries it is explained as "gourd" (kad).

And its link with the root's sense of "settling" is transmitted: qaṭana — he settled in a place, he dwelt. The link is made thus: yaqṭīn is the plant that lies on the ground, that settles upon it. I give this link as a transmission from the lexicographers.

And a point of word order: shajaratan min yaqṭīn — "a tree/plant of the yaqṭīn kind".

Shajara in Arabic means not only "tree" but also a plant that has a stem. And the lexicographers record a tension here: shajara announces an upright plant, while yaqṭīn announces one that spreads on the ground. The construction joins the two.

The grammarians' explanation: the construct min yaqṭīn specifies the kind of the shajara — that is, "something of the plant kind, of the yaqṭīn sort". The wide use of the word makes this construction possible.

And the work of the plant is not said in the verse. The preposition ʿalayhi (over him) carries the idea of shade and covering. In the classical commentaries explanations such as its giving shade, keeping off flies, or its fruit serving as food are transmitted. The verse does not say, and I issue no ruling.

As my own reading I record only this: the hundred and forty-fifth verse said al-ʿarāʾ — a place without shade, without cover. The hundred and forty-sixth sets a cover there. The two verses complete one another: a bare place and a plant caused to grow over it.

And this expression is one of the most disputed linguistic questions of the sūra.

Miʾati alfin — "a hundred thousand". Aw yazīdūn — "or more / or they exceed that".

The problem is this: aw (or) in Arabic announces doubt or hesitation. To say "a hundred thousand or more" in a declarative sentence seems to imply that the number is not known.

The explanations the classical lexicographers give. I give them in a table and impose no preference:

And there is a datum of word order that must be recorded: the verse does not say aw akthar ("or more"); it uses aw yazīdūn — a verbal clause. Yazīdūn — "they increase / they are more".

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the use of a verb takes the number out of being a fixed figure. A community is not fixed; it increases. Aw yazīdūn may also be read not as "their number is this much or that much" but as "a hundred thousand — and increasing". This eliminates none of the explanations above.

And a note of limitation: no historical, geographical or demographic conclusion is drawn from this number. The Qurʾān gives no place name, and none is given in this commentary either.

And this is the most striking closing in the sequence of prophets.

As was recorded in the section on the structure: in five of the sequence's six sections the subject of the verb that determines the end is God. Here the subject of the last verb is the people themselves: fa-āmanū — "they believed".

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

Mattaʿnā — root م-ت-ع, Form II: to let enjoy, to provide enjoyment for a time. Matāʿ — a passing benefit, a provision. The root was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/43 (tamattaʿū ḥattā ḥīn) and in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin).

Ilā ḥīn — "for a time". Ḥīn — an indefinite stretch of time. And the word will occur twice more in the sūra: fa-tawalla ʿanhum ḥattā ḥīn (174) and wa tawalla ʿanhum ḥattā ḥīn (178).

The same indefinite term in all three occurrences. This is a countable repetition.

I record this as my own reading: after recounting through six sections destruction, drowning, razing and being brought low, the sequence closes with a people who believe. And this people is the only one for which the verse gives a number: a hundred thousand. The most numerous community of the sequence, that is, is the community that is saved. This is a textual observation; the verse does not set it down as a ruling.