al-Dhāriyāt 51:24-25

Hal atāka ḥadīthu ḍayfi Ibrāhīma'l-mukramīn · Idh dakhalū ʿalayhi fa-qālū salāmā; qāla salāmun qawmun munkarūn "Has the account of Abraham's honoured guests come to you? They had entered upon him and said 'Peace'. And he said 'Peace' — 'a people not known.'"

This pattern was taken up in the section on al-Burūj, and when its occurrences in the Qurʾān were enumerated there this verse was already named. I do not repeat it. In summary: the pattern hal atāka ḥadīthu… is used in opening a narrative and occurs in several places in the Qurʾān (Ṭāhā 20/9; al-Nāziʿāt 79/15; al-Ghāshiya 88/1; here).

What is to be added here is the pattern's oddity in this place.

Hal atāka — "has it come to you?" A question. And the answer to the question is not obvious: does the one addressed know this narrative or not?

In the classical sources the pattern is generally counted as taqrīr (eliciting assent): "of course it has come". But some exegetes count it as the opening of a real piece of information: "here it comes now".

There is a practical difference between the two readings, and it concerns who is addressed: in Mecca the narrative of Abraham was known — the Kaʿba was named with his name. The question therefore cannot be a question for information.

I do not impose a preference. But this must be recorded: where the same pattern is used in al-Ghāshiya the object (the day of resurrection) is new to the one addressed, whereas here it is old. The pattern is used in both situations; and so the state of the addressee's knowledge cannot be drawn from the pattern.

Root: ض-ي-ف. Its concrete sense: to incline to a side, to draw near, to join.

• ضَافَ إِلَيْهِ — he turned towards him, he alighted beside him.
• أَضَافَ — he added, he annexed. Not the Turkish ilave, but the Arabic iḍāfa (annexation — attaching one word to another) is from this root.
• ضَيْف — a guest. That is, "one who draws near, one who joins".

And the word's grammatical peculiarity is interesting: in Arabic ḍayf is used for both singular and plural — because it comes from a verbal noun it takes neither number nor gender. In the verse the word is singular (ḍayf) but its adjective is plural (al-mukramīn) and its verbs are plural (dakhalū, qālū). This is not a contradiction; it is a known usage of the word.

And that "joining" lies at the root of the word for "guest" is worth noting. A guest is not one who enters the house from outside but one who is added to it. The legal weight of the Arab tradition of hospitality stands in this word: from the moment he arrives the guest is a part of the house and under the host's protection.

Root: ك-ر-م. This root was treated in the sections on al-Fajr and al-Maʿārij; I do not repeat it. In summary: the centre of the root is worth and generosity, and in the section on al-Maʿārij the word mukramūn's being in the passive pattern was dwelt upon.

And here too the word is passive: al-mukramīn — "those who have been honoured", "those who are entertained".

Who honoured them? — two readings:

The two readings do not exclude one another and both are transmitted in the classical sources. The second has a certain force: the attribute is given at the beginning of the narrative — that is, while Abraham's entertaining has not yet been recounted. This suggests that the attribute already belongs to them.

But the first has a force too: the attribute may be the heading of what the narrative is about to recount.

I do not impose a preference.

And now the finest point of the verse. What the two sides say is not exactly the same word.

The guests: سَلَٰمًا — salāman (accusative) Abraham: سَلَٰمٌ — salāmun (nominative)

The same word, two different case-endings. And the grammarians do not leave this difference empty.

And that in Arabic the nominal sentence conveys thubūt (fixity) and the verbal sentence ḥudūth (coming to be) has been recorded in many places in this commentary.

Its consequence here is this: Abraham returns the greeting given him in a more lasting pattern. They gave a greeting; he stated a state of peace.

In the classical sources this difference is recorded regularly and is generally tied to this conclusion: the greeting has been returned with a better one. And this agrees with an explicit command of the Qurʾān:

"When you are greeted with a greeting, answer with a better one, or return the same." (al-Nisāʾ 4/86)

The verse, that is, shows a rule that will be laid down later in its carried-out form. I transmit this as a link commonly built in the classical sources; the wordings of the two texts were given above.

The root سلام. س-ل-م — soundness, freedom from flaw, completeness. Salāma, islām, muslim, taslīm are from the same root. That the word is used in greeting rests on the sense "you are safe from me" — a greeting, that is, is not a wish but a guarantee.

And the most realistic detail of the narrative.

Root: ن-ك-ر. Not to know, to find strange. Munkar — not recognised, found odd. From the same root come inkār (refusing to acknowledge), nakira (an indefinite noun), munkar (what is found repugnant morally).

Whose sentence this is has been disputed:

The first is the more widespread, because for a host to say to his guest "I do not know you" is contrary to the Arab etiquette of hospitality. And the rest of the narrative supports this reading: Abraham keeps his fear inside (fa-awjasa); he does not let it out.

And this detail of word order matters: Abraham first returns the greeting, and only then notices that he does not know them. That is the order.

Entertaining, that is, is not conditional on knowing. A guest is a guest even unknown.

I record this as an observation about the structure; the verse lays down no rule, it shows an order.