al-Taghābun 64:6

Dhālika bi-annahu kānat taʾtīhim rusuluhum bi'l-bayyināti fa-qālū a-basharun yahdūnanā, fa-kafarū wa tawallaw, wa'staghna'llāh, wa'llāhu ghaniyyun ḥamīd

"That is because their messengers kept coming to them with clear proofs and they said, 'Shall a mortal guide us?' So they denied and turned away. And God showed that He needed nothing. God is without need, worthy of praise."

The preceding verse stated the result (they tasted). This verse states the cause: dhālika bi-anna — "this is because."

And the cause given is striking. The expected cause might have been an immorality or an injustice. Instead of that the verse records a sentence: a-basharun yahdūnanā. That is, what is shown as the ground of destruction is not an act but an objection.

Note the structure of the verb: kānat taʾtīhim — the perfect kāna + the imperfect taʾtī. In Arabic this compound conveys an action that went on and was repeated in the past.

That is, not "their messengers came to them" but "their messengers used to keep coming to them." Not a single event but a repeated state. And this sets up the side of the verse that has to do with justice: the warning was not given once and passed over.

بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰت — the plural of bayyina. The root of this word (ب ي ن) and the definition "the proof that distinguishes, and is clear because it distinguishes" were analysed in detail in al-Bayyina; I do not repeat that analysis.

Only one point needs carrying over here: there the coming of bayyina in the singular and definite (al-bayyina) was dwelt on, and it was established that that single bayyina was not a book but a person. Here the word is plural and definite: al-bayyināt. The difference is one of scope: there a messenger himself was the proof; here the proofs the messengers brought are being counted.

The densest sentence of the sūra, and the direct counterpart of the main thesis of al-Bayyina.

بَشَر — root ب ش ر. At the centre of this root stands skin: bashara is a person's outer skin. The analysis of the root was done in al-Muddaththir (in connection with 74/25 and 74/29: qawlu'l-bashar and lawwāḥatun li'l-bashar); what was recorded there was this — both good tidings (bushrā) and scorching show themselves in the skin.

The word bashar names the human being in the Qurʾān in his biological, flesh-and-bone aspect. The word insān, by contrast, more in his relational and moral aspect. This distinction is not absolute — the Qurʾān uses both flexibly — but the tendency runs this way.

And that the word chosen in the objection is exactly this one shows the logic of the objection. Those who object do not say "shall a human being"; they say "shall a mortal". That is, they reduce the one before them to his flesh and his skin: a body that eats, drinks, tires and dies.

Its coming indefinite is meaningful too: a-basharun, "a mortal" — unspecified. The person's name, his qualities, his past are not mentioned. Only his kind is stated. The belittling is done by leaving him unspecified.

The verb's being plural: yahdūnanā — "shall they guide us". The subject is singular (basharun), the verb plural. Classical grammar explains this thus: bashar here is a generic noun, and in the singular form the plural is intended — "the tribe of mortals". That is, the objection is directed not at a person but at a category: what is refused is that a being of the human kind should do this work.

When the second verse of Sūrat al-Bayyina was treated, the following was established, and I do not repeat it, I recall it: a bayyina is not a text but a person — rasūlun mina'llāhi yatlū ṣuḥufan muṭahhara. And four consequences of that choice were counted there; the fourth was this: "a proof is fragile. A human being grows tired, falls ill, dies. To choose a human being as the bayyina is to place the proof inside fragility."

And this too was recorded there: the Qurʾān records this objection itself — the mushrikūn say "what sort of messenger is this, he eats food, he walks about in the markets" (al-Furqān 25/7); and the Qurʾān does not reject the objection, it turns the proposition round: "Say: I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me" (al-Kahf 18/110).

Al-Taghābun 64/6 is the barest form of the same objection.

The meaning of the difference is this: al-Taghābun presents this objection not as a local reaction but as a repeated pattern. All the peoples framed the same sentence.

And an observation on why the objection is so durable — this is my own reading. The objection in fact looks reasonable: one expects a source of knowledge to be greater than the one who carries the knowledge. The disproportion between source and carrier disturbs the mind. People think an extraordinary message requires an extraordinary carrier.

The Qurʾān's answer is not to meet this expectation but to question the expectation itself — and, as was shown in al-Bayyina, the carrier's being human is counted not a defect but a condition: because what is delivered is something livable, and the proof of livability can only be someone living it.

A sentence of three words. And one of the most distancing expressions in the Qurʾān.

Root: غ ن ي. Ghinā is needlessness, self-sufficiency. The English rendering "wealth" catches only one side of the root; in Arabic ghaniyy is not one whose property is much but one who is not in need. The two notions overlap but are not the same: wealth is a quantity, ghinā a position.

The pattern: Form X (istaghnā). This form generally conveys seeking (istaghfara — he sought forgiveness). But it has a second function as well, and that is what is at work here: to show that an attribute is present in oneself, to be in that state. Istaghnā — He made plain that He was in no need, He showed His needlessness.

This is hard to put into English. Expressions such as "God showed Himself above need" or "it became plain that God had need of nothing" can be used. What the sentence does is this:

They turned away; and from the other side no answering move came.

This is a heavier sentence than a threat. A threat shows interest; indifference does not. What the deniers do is, to their own minds, a great move — to refuse an invitation, to turn a messenger away. The verse records that that move produced no deficiency at all on the other side.

And this is a principle the Qurʾān repeats:

"Moses said: If you and all who are on the earth were ungrateful, know that God is indeed without need, worthy of praise." (Ibrāhīm 14/8)

The same two names, in the same order, in the same context. And the verse-ending of al-Taghābun is exactly this: wa'llāhu ghaniyyun ḥamīd.

What does the coming of the two names together do? Ghaniyy conveys needlessness, ḥamīd worthiness of praise. These work in two different directions:

• Had there been only ghaniyy, a cold indifference would have remained in the picture: He has no need, therefore He takes no interest.
• The addition of ḥamīd cuts that off. To deserve praise requires doing good. The one without need gives not because He is without need but because He is generous.

That is, the end of the verse balances the coldness in its middle: a giving that expects no return. And this joins with the lahu'l-mulku wa lahu'l-ḥamd of the first verse — there dominion and praise were set side by side; here ghinā and praise.