Muḥammad 47:25

Inna'lladhīna'rtaddū ʿalā adbārihim min baʿdi mā tabayyana lahumu'l-hudā; ash-shayṭānu sawwala lahum wa amlā lahum

"Those who have turned back upon their backs after the guidance had become clear to them: Satan has made [the evil] look fair to them and has drawn out the time for them."

ٱرْتَدَّ — root ر-د-د, Form VIII: to turn back. The primary sense of the root: to turn a thing back, to return it. From the same root radd, mardūd, irtidād.

عَلَىٰٓ أَدْبَٰرِهِم — "upon their backs".

And the picture of the idiom is concrete: in turning back the person does not turn his face and go; he goes backwards, upon his back.

The Qurʾān uses this idiom in several places and the best known is Āl ʿImrān 3/144: "If he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?" — inqalabtum ʿalā aʿqābikum.

Note: Āl ʿImrān uses aʿqāb (heels), here adbār (backs) is used. Two different words, the same picture.

And Āl ʿImrān 3/144 is the verse in which the name this sūra bears occurs — it was given in the table above, in the section on "the name Muḥammad".

And the link with the preceding verse: verse 24 said tadabbur (to get behind); verse 25 says adbār (backs). The same root, in two consecutive verses, in two opposite directions.

This qualification determines whom the verse is speaking about and must not be passed over.

تَبَيَّنَ — root ب-ي-ن, Form V: to come out into the open, to become clear. The word bayyina was treated at verse 14.

That is, the verse is not speaking of those who turn back without knowing anything. What is at issue is: one who knows, sees, to whom it has become clear — and then turns back.

And the same qualification will be repeated letter for letter in verse 32: min baʿdi mā tabayyana lahumu'l-hudā.

The same sentence in two verses. And both do the same work: they narrow the scope of the ruling to an act performed after knowledge has been had.

In terms of the method (Method) this is a limit that must be recorded: the verse does not issue a ruling upon one who does not know.

Root: س-و-ل. The sense the lexicographers record: to make a thing look beautiful, easy and desirable to a person; to adorn what the soul wants and set it before it.

The word is explained by the lexicographers with two different derivations:

I make no preference between the two.

The word occurs in four places in the Qurʾān and all four have the same structure:

And there is a striking distribution: in three occurrences the agent is the soul; only in this verse is the agent Satan.

I record this as a textual observation.

And its relation with zuyyina lahu in verse 14: there the verb was passive, the agent was not stated. Here the agent is stated explicitly: ash-shayṭān.

The sūra recounts the same operation once without an agent and once with one — just as in verses 16 and 24 it recounted the closing of the heart once with an agent and once without.

I record this recurring structure as an observation about word order.

The normal order of the sentence would be sawwala lahumu'sh-shayṭān (verb + agent). The verse brings the agent forward: ٱلشَّيْطَٰنُ سَوَّلَ لَهُمْ.

In grammar this fronting announces ikhtiṣāṣ or taʾkīd.

And further: a nominal sentence comes as the predicate of inna. The nominal sentence announces fixity.

I content myself with recording this.

أَمْلَىٰ — root م-ل-و / م-ل-ي, Form IV.

The primary sense of the root: a long stretch of time. مَلَاوَة (malāwa) — a long span of time. مَلِيًّا (Maryam 19/46: wa'hjurnī maliyyā) — "for a long while".

From here: إِمْلَاء — to grant time, to give respite, to let out the rope.

A second branch from the same root: إِمْلَاء — to dictate (to say something for another to write down; the word imlāʾ in use today). The connection is that speech is delivered drawn out.

And there are two disagreements:

The first disagreement — who is the agent?

The second disagreement — the variant reading.

It is also transmitted that the word is read أُمْلِىَ لَهُمْ (umliya lahum — passive: "time was drawn out for them"). On this reading the agent becomes indefinite.

I make no preference in either disagreement.

And I record this: there is an indication in the Qurʾān supporting the second view — the verb imlāʾ occurs elsewhere attributed to God: "Let not those who deny suppose that Our granting them time is good for them; We grant them time only that they may increase in sin" (Āl ʿImrān 3/178) — numlī lahum.

This is an indication, not a preference.

And the picture the word carries is the same on both views: time is being drawn out. The difference lies in who is drawing it out.

An observation — it is my own reading: these two verbs (sawwala and amlā) together describe a mechanism. The first changes the appearance (what is bad looks good); the second draws out the time (the outcome is delayed). And there are two ways of understanding that something is wrong: because it looks bad, or because its outcome has arrived. The verse says that both have been closed off.