أَذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ نُّزُلًا أَمْ شَجَرَةُ ٱلزَّقُّومِ · إِنَّا جَعَلْنَٰهَا فِتْنَةً لِّلظَّٰلِمِينَ · إِنَّهَا شَجَرَةٌ تَخْرُجُ فِىٓ أَصْلِ ٱلْجَحِيمِ · طَلْعُهَا كَأَنَّهُۥ رُءُوسُ ٱلشَّيَٰطِينِ · فَإِنَّهُمْ لَءَاكِلُونَ مِنْهَا فَمَالِـُٔونَ مِنْهَا ٱلْبُطُونَ · ثُمَّ إِنَّ لَهُمْ عَلَيْهَا لَشَوْبًا مِّنْ حَمِيمٍ · ثُمَّ إِنَّ مَرْجِعَهُمْ لَإِلَى ٱلْجَحِيمِ
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:
| Sūra | Use | Its function |
|---|---|---|
| Al-Wāqiʿa 56/56 | hādhā nuzuluhum — a statement | A seal — it closes the block |
| Al-Wāqiʿa 56/93 | fa-nuzulun min ḥamīm — a statement | A seal — it approaches the closing of the sūra |
| Al-Ṣāffāt 37/62 | a-dhālika khayrun nuzulan — a question | A measure — it compares two pictures |
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.
| Sūra | Expression | Definiteness |
|---|---|---|
| Al-Wāqiʿa 56/52 | min shajarin min zaqqūm | Indefinite — "from a tree, from zaqqūm" |
| Al-Dukhān 44/43 | shajarata'z-zaqqūm | Definite — in a construct |
| Al-Ṣāffāt 37/62 | shajaratu'z-zaqqūm | Definite — in a construct |
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.
| Explanation | What fitna means | Ground |
|---|---|---|
| A matter of dispute / an occasion of objection | When the news of the tree was given the deniers objected: "does a tree grow inside fire?" — and so the report became a point of division | The root's sense of "separating"; and that the expression al-shajarata'l-malʿūnata fi'l-Qurʾān at al-Isrāʾ 17/60 is named as a fitna |
| Punishment / testing | A punishment and a trial for the wrongdoers | The root's sense of "putting into fire" |
| Both at once | A trial as a report in this world, a testing as a punishment in the hereafter | The two senses working together |
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.
| Answer | What it says | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| A likening to what is in the mind | The comparison is made not to an object in the outer world but to the image of horror settled in the addressee's mind. In Arabic it was common to say "like a satan" of ugliness; the comparison rests on this settled usage | The most defended explanation. Its ground is that the work of a comparison is not to give information but to produce an effect: it calls up an image already present in the hearer |
| Shayṭān is the name of a plant | It is transmitted that in Arabia a bitter, ugly-looking plant was called "satans' heads" (ruʾūsu'sh-shayāṭīn) | It is transmitted, but there is no certain knowledge about how widespread this name was |
| Shayṭān is a kind of snake | It is recorded that in Arabic a kind of ugly and fearsome snake was called shayṭān | It occurs among the lexicographers; but it risks conflicting with the sense in which the Qurʾān uses the word elsewhere |
| The unknowability is itself the point | The work of the comparison is not to describe but to announce indescribability. To liken a thing to something unknown is a way of saying "you cannot picture this" | It accords with the "estranging" function recorded in the section on al-Wāqiʿa for the indefiniteness of zaqqūm |
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.
| Al-Wāqiʿa 56/51-53 | Al-Ṣāffāt 37/66 | |
|---|---|---|
| Person | innakum — second person | innahum — third person |
| The tree | min shajarin min zaqqūm — indefinite | shajaratu'z-zaqqūm — definite (62) |
| The chain | Four fāʾ: eating → filling → drinking → drinking like an animal | Two fāʾ, then two thumma: eating → filling → then the mixture → then the return |
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.
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".
| Al-Wāqiʿa 56/54 | Al-Ṣāffāt 37/67 | |
|---|---|---|
| The expression | fa-shāribūna ʿalayhi mina'l-ḥamīm | inna lahum ʿalayhā la-shawban min ḥamīm |
| Is there a verb | Yes — shāribūn (they drink) | No — a nominal sentence: "for them there is…" |
| The word | ḥamīm directly | Shawb — a mixture |
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.
| Verse | Where al-jaḥīm occurs |
|---|---|
| 64 | The tree comes forth from the bottom of the blaze |
| 68 | Their return is to the blaze |
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.