al-Ṣāffāt 37:94-98

Fa-aqbalū ilayhi yaziffūn · Qāla a-taʿbudūna mā tanḥitūn · Wa'llāhu khalaqakum wa mā taʿmalūn · Qālū'bnū lahu bunyānan fa-alqūhu fi'l-jaḥīm · Fa-arādū bihi kaydan fa-jaʿalnāhumu'l-asfalīn

"They came hurrying toward him. He said: 'Do you serve what you yourselves carve? When God created you and what you make.' They said: 'Build him a structure and cast him into the blaze.' They wanted a plot against him; and We made them the lowest."

Root ز-ف-ف. And the concrete picture of the word is worth noting: the running of the ostrich — going fast with its wings spread, half flying and half running. Zaffa'ẓ-ẓalīm — the ostrich went fast.

From the same root zifāf is the leading of a bride to the bridegroom's house — the Turkish word zifaf ("the bridal night") comes from this root. The link the lexicographers make: in both there is a fast, collective leading.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

And a variant reading is transmitted: yaziffūn (Form I) and yuziffūn (Form IV). In the second the sense becomes "urging one another on" or "urging their camels on". The sense does not change markedly; I give no reciter's name.

And the contrast with the ninetieth verse was given above in a table: they had turned away and gone (mudbirīn), now they come back hurrying (aqbalū). The sūra shows the same community twice, in two opposite directions.

And Abraham's question is the densest sentence of the whole section.

Naḥata — root ن-ح-ت. This root is analysed here for the first time in this commentary. Its sense: to give shape to a hard material (stone, wood) by carving. Nuḥāta — the chips that fall in carving; manḥūt — carved.

The Qurʾān uses the root of Thamūd too: wa tanḥitūna mina'l-jibāli buyūtan fārihīn (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/149) and kānū yanḥitūna mina'l-jibāli buyūtan āminīn (al-Ḥijr 15/82).

And the choice of the verb carries the whole proof — I record it as my own reading: Abraham does not say "do you serve stone?" He says "do you serve what you carve?" What is brought forward, that is, is not the material of the object but whose hand it came from. The centre of the proof is not in the material but in the making.

And the verb is imperfect: tanḥitūn — "you carve". The work is not finished, then, but going on. What is served is still in production.

And there are two readings of the mā in the last word of this sentence. This is one of the classical questions of the Arabic language, and I give it in a table.

Both readings are transmitted by the grammarians, and both have been defended in the classical commentaries.

And a note is required — per the method (Method): this verse has stood at the centre of a long dispute in theology. The second reading (verbal-noun) has been counted one of the grounds of that dispute. That dispute is not entered into in this commentary — because the matter stands here as a matter of language, and both readings are linguistically possible.

What can be recorded in point of word order is this, and it is not a ruling: in the ninety-fifth verse mā tanḥitūn is plainly relative ("what you carve"). The mā taʿmalūn of the ninety-sixth comes immediately after it and is in the same mould. That the two verses come one after another gives the first reading an ease in point of word order. This does not eliminate the second reading.

And the proof itself arrives at the same place on either reading: both the maker and the made are created. What is created cannot serve what is created.

Wa'llāhu khalaqakum — a point of word order: the sentence begins with wāw, and the grammarians count this as the wāw of circumstance: "…you serve, when God created you." The sentence, that is, is not a separate piece of information but an objection set inside the question.

And the people's answer is worth noting: not a proof but a command.

Abraham had asked two questions (95-96). No answer comes. Instead they give instructions to one another.

I record this as my own reading: in the ninety-second verse Abraham had asked the idols "why do you not speak?" In the ninety-seventh verse the people too give no answer to the question. Both sides do the same thing: not respond to a question. The sūra does not set up this parallel; I record it as an observation.

Ubnū lahu bunyānan — the verb and the object are from the same root (ب-ن-ي). This is the third time in the sūra: qāla qāʾilun (51), yaʿmali'l-ʿāmilūn (61), ubnū … bunyānan (97). This is a countable linguistic fact.

Bunyān — a structure, a building. What it was is not said. In the classical commentaries it is said to be a furnace or a wall built for kindling a fire. The verse does not give it, and neither do I.

Fa-alqūhu fi'l-jaḥīm — "and cast him into the blaze". And the choice of word is worth noting: not nār (fire) but al-jaḥīm.

Al-jaḥīm occurs for the sixth time in the sūra (23, 55, 64, 68, 97, 163). And this is the only place where the word is used of a fire in this world.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: throughout the sūra al-jaḥīm is the name of the punishment of the hereafter. In the ninety-seventh verse the same word is used for a fire kindled by a human community. Human beings, that is, set up with their own hands a thing bearing the name of the punishment of the hereafter — and in the next verse its outcome comes: fa-jaʿalnāhumu'l-asfalīn.

Alqū — root ل-ق-ي, Form IV: to cast. The root was treated in detail in Qāf, and it was given there in a table that the same root is used in that sūra in four different pieces of work (alqaynā, yatalaqqā, alqiyā, alqa's-samʿ). And alqiyā fī jahannam there stands in the same field as this verse.

Kayd — root ك-ي-د: to lay a scheme in secret in order to do harm. The root was treated in detail at al-Ṭāriq 86/15-16 (innahum yakīdūna kaydā · wa akīdu kaydā). I rely on that treatment.

And the word order of arādū bihi kaydan is worth noting: kayd comes indefinite and is the object of the verb arāda. "They wanted a plot" — the intention is emphasised, that is, not the plot itself.

As my own reading: the verse does not say "they laid a plot" but "they wanted to lay a plot". And immediately after it gives the outcome. What happened to the fire, what happened to Abraham, is not recounted in between. The Qurʾān recounts this elsewhere (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/69). Here it is not recounted, and I do not add it.

Al-asfalīn — root س-ف-ل: to be low. Sifla — the lower side; asfal — the lowest. In the Qurʾān: thumma radadnāhu asfala sāfilīn (al-Tīn 95/5) — treated in al-Tīn.

And the contrast must be recorded — this is a textual datum:

They wanted to raise; they fell low. And both words are on the axis of height and lowness: bunyān (a structure, a thing raised) and asfal (the lowest). This is a contrast read off the choice of words.

And a comparison with the other sections of the sequence: in the Noah section the other side is named with the verb aghraqnā (We drowned), in the Lot section with dammarnā (We razed). In the Abraham section there is not destruction but being brought low. The people are not wiped out; their position is changed. This is the one exception in the sequence, and it is countable from the text.