al-Aʿrāf 7:96-99

Wa law anna ahla'l-qurā āmanū wa'ttaqaw la-fataḥnā ʿalayhim barakātin mina's-samāʾi wa'l-arḍi wa lākin kadhdhabū fa-akhadhnāhum bimā kānū yaksibūn · A-fa-amina ahlu'l-qurā an yaʾtiyahum baʾsunā bayātan wa hum nāʾimūn · Aw amina ahlu'l-qurā an yaʾtiyahum baʾsunā ḍuḥan wa hum yalʿabūn · A-fa-aminū makra'llāh, fa-lā yaʾmanu makra'llāhi illa'l-qawmu'l-khāsirūn

"Had the people of those towns believed and guarded themselves, We would have opened upon them blessings from heaven and earth. But they called it a lie; so We seized them for what they had earned. · Did the people of those towns feel secure that Our violence would not come upon them by night, while they slept? · Or did the people of those towns feel secure that Our violence would not come upon them in the forenoon, while they played? · Did they feel secure from the devising of God? None feels secure from the devising of God but a people who are lost."

The ninety-sixth verse is the most striking sentence in the sūra's section of rules, and its construction must be recorded.

Law — in Arabic the particle of the unfulfilled condition. In English it answers to "had they … We would have": it states that the condition did not obtain, and therefore neither did the consequence.

That is, the verse is not a promise but the record of a possibility that did not come about. I record this as an observation about word order, and its ground is the particle.

And the second half of the sentence confirms it: wa lākin kadhdhabū — "but they called it a lie". The adversative particle (lākin) says outright that the condition did not obtain.

The condition is built with two verbs, and the order of the two is worth recording:

The two are asked for together; neither is set as a condition on its own.

This pattern was treated at 23/77 in al-Muʾminūn, where a table of three links was drawn up. I rely on that treatment and carry the table over here:

The conclusion recorded there was: the same pattern, the reverse content. And it was further recorded in al-Muʾminūn that at al-Anʿām 6/44, after the gates of bounty are opened, akhadhnāhum baghtatan follows.

The difference that belongs here is this, and it must be recorded: in al-Aʿrāf the gate is not opened. In al-Anʿām and al-Muʾminūn the act has taken place (fataḥnā), in al-Aʿrāf it is the apodosis of an unfulfilled condition (la-fataḥnā).

That is, the three verses hold three states of the same pattern: opened-bounty, opened-punishment, would-have-opened-did-not. I record this as an observation, and its ground is the verb forms of the three verses.

The root ب-ر-ك: a thing's staying fixed, settling; and from this, increasing, lasting good. The lexicographers tie the root to the picture of a camel kneeling and settling (baraka'l-baʿīr); and a pool of water (birka) is from the same root. That is, blessing is what stays, not what flows away.

And the word occurs twice in this sūra:

The same root, in the verse that opens the fifth block of the sūra and in the rule that closes the sixth. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And the plural pattern must be recorded: barakāt — an indefinite plural. Not the singular (baraka). The lexicographers record that the indefinite plural here states multiplicity and variety.

And the source of the blessing is given in two directions: heaven and earth.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the fifty-seventh verse: there too the water came down from the sky (fa-anzalnā bihi'l-māʾa) and the produce came out of the earth (fa-akhrajnā bihī min kulli'th-thamarāt). The pair in the ninety-sixth verse is the name of the two movements in the fifty-seventh. This is a reading, not a ruling.

And per the method (Method) I draw a limit: no mechanical law between faith and economic prosperity is to be derived from this. The sūra's own verses do not allow it: the ninety-fourth verse says that in every place a messenger was sent the people were seized with hardship; the ninety-fifth says that abundance too is a test. And the fifty-first verse records that the life of this world can delude.

That is, the sūra does not set up prosperity as a mark of reward. I record this as a datum of the text, and its ground is the sūra's own verses.

The ninety-seventh, ninety-eighth and ninety-ninth verses begin with the same verb: amina (he felt secure). Three questions, three different objects:

The first two verses overlap with the fourth verse of the sūra (bayātan aw hum qāʾilūn) and both choose the slackest moments of daily life: sleep and play.

I record this as an observation: the sūra places the danger not in the hour of work but in the hour of rest.

And the verb yalʿabūn connects with the fifty-first verse: there it was said that they took their religion as lahwan wa laʿibā. The same root, one an attribute and one a state.

For the word مَكْر I enter a note of tanzīh, per the method (Method):

The root م-ك-ر: to take a hidden measure, to act by a route the other side has not reckoned with. The word is not of itself pejorative in Arabic; the evil comes from against whom and for what it is done.

And when the word is ascribed to God in the Qurʾān, the shared note of the lexicographers and the exegetes is this: it is the requiting of the devising men have set up, by a route they have not reckoned with. It does not mean deception, trickery or injustice.

And the Qurʾān itself sets this out expressly in another place: wa yamkurūna wa yamkuru'llāh wa'llāhu khayru'l-mākirīn (al-Anfāl 8/30). That is, the word occurs in a context of requital.

I enter this note and close the discussion; I enter into no polemic of kalām (Method).

And the closing of the ninety-ninth verse must be recorded: fa-lā yaʾmanu makra'llāhi illa'l-qawmu'l-khāsirūn. The same word had occurred in the ninetieth and ninety-second verses in the story of Shuʿayb. The sūra carries the word of the story over into the rule.