al-Muddaththir 74:18-25 — The step-by-step anatomy of denial

Innahū fakkara wa qaddara / Fa-qutila kayfa qaddara / Thumma qutila kayfa qaddara / Thumma naẓara / Thumma ʿabasa wa basara / Thumma adbara wa'stakbara / Fa-qāla in hādhā illā siḥrun yuʾthar / In hādhā illā qawlu'l-bashar

"He thought and he measured. Confound him, how he measured! Again, confound him, how he measured! Then he looked. Then he scowled and glowered. Then he turned his back and grew proud. And he said: 'This is nothing but sorcery handed down. This is nothing but the word of a human being.'"

The strongest place in the sūra, and a section with few parallels in the Qurʾān: the record, one by one, of the steps a mind passes through until it reaches a decision.

The section must first be seen as a whole.

And now the real matter.

There are eight steps. And the verdict is the eighth.

The man first thinks, measures, looks, scowls, turns his back, grows proud — and then he says "this is sorcery".

That is, the decision comes before the ground.

Look at the order: the scowling (4-5), the turning of the back (6) and the growing proud (7) take place before the verdict. These are not the expression of a conclusion; they are states that exist before the conclusion is reached.

If a person examined a claim and came to a conclusion, the order would be this:

1. He thought 2. He measured 3. He looked 4. He gave his verdict 5. (He took the attitude the verdict required: he scowled, he turned his back)

The order in the verses is not this. The scowling, the turning of the back and the growing proud come before the verdict.

And the meaning of this is: the attitude was taken first and the verdict produced afterwards. Before the man said "this is sorcery" he had already scowled, already turned his back, already grown proud. The sentence "it is sorcery" is not the result of an examination; it is the ground found afterwards for an attitude already taken.

I record this as my own reading. The verses do not make this interpretation openly; but the order of the verbs stands in the text, and that they are sequential is stated openly by the thumma conjunctions.

Another point, no less important than this.

The first verb of the list is to think. And thinking is not a verb the Qurʾān blames — on the contrary, it is commanded many times over (a-fa-lā tatafakkarūn, laʿallakum tatafakkarūn).

That is, the verse does not disparage thinking. What it disparages is not where the thinking arrives but what the thinking is used for.

The man thought — but not in order to understand something; in order to find an answer to something. And this is understood from the second verb.

Root: ف-ك-ر. The lexicographers do not fully agree on its concrete sense; the widespread explanation is that the word means "to turn a thing over and over in the mind, to go round and round it".

Some lexicographers count the root related to ف-ر-ك (fark — to rub, to crumble), and say that with the transposition of letters (qalb) it carries the same idea: a likeness is set up between rubbing a thing to crumbs and breaking it up and examining it in the mind.

I record this explanation as a possibility; I do not present it as a definite etymological ruling.

And the pattern is important: فَكَّرَ — the tafʿīl form, with doubling. This form conveys intensity and repetition.

That is, the man did not think casually; he thought long and hard, over and over. He spent labour.

This detail sets the tone of the section. The verse does not describe the person opposite as a fool or as thoughtless. On the contrary: it describes him as someone who thinks a great deal.

Root: ق-د-ر. The three branches of meaning of this root (measure / determining, worth / honour, straitness) were treated in detail in al-Qadr; in ʿAbasa it was taken up as well, in the context of fa-qaddarahū. I do not repeat them.

The core recorded there: qadara — he measured, he cut to size, he determined its amount; taqdīr — determining by a measure.

And there is a weave here that needs recording.

In the last verse of the preceding sūra this occurred: وَٱللَّهُ يُقَدِّرُ ٱلَّيْلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ — "and it is God who measures the night and the day" (al-Muzzammil 73/20).

And here: إِنَّهُۥ فَكَّرَ وَقَدَّرَ — "he thought and he measured."

The same root, the same form (tafʿīl), two different subjects.

Two sūras use the same verb in two separate places. I record this as an observation; I do not claim that there is a deliberate reference between the two verses. But it is an observable coincidence and can be added to the data that show the link between the two sūras.

Several explanations are given in the classical commentaries:

1. He prepared, framed and shaped the words he was going to say. He designed an answer. 2. He weighed the Qurʾān and tried to place it in a category. Is it poetry, is it soothsaying, is it sorcery? 3. He calculated his own position. He measured what would follow if he said what.

All three are possible and they do not exclude one another. I impose no preference.

But the second explanation is worth dwelling on, because it is directly connected with what follows in the sūra: the man ends by proposing two categories — "sorcery" and "the word of a human being". That is, the work of measuring can be read as an effort to put the text that has come onto a known shelf.

And the finding recorded in al-Inshirāḥ looks at this place: the epithets fastened on the Prophet in that period (majnūn, shāʿir, sāḥir, kāhin) were "not random insults; they are the standard ways in that culture of making a man's word void — of classifying the speaker instead of discussing what is said."

Here the same operation is shown step by step. The very effort of classification has been named with the verb "he measured".

قُتِلَ — the passive perfect of the verb qatala (to kill): "he was killed".

But here it is not a statement but the pattern of an imprecation (duʿāʾ): "confound him", "may he perish". In Arabic the passive perfect can perform this function.

This pattern occurs in several places in the Qurʾān:

• "Confound man, how ungrateful he is!" (ʿAbasa 80/17) — qutila'l-insānu mā akfarah. Treated in ʿAbasa.
• "Confounded were the men of the trench!" (al-Burūj 85/4) — treated in al-Burūj.
• "Confounded be the liars!" (al-Dhāriyāt 51/10).

كَيْفَ normally asks "how". Here no question is being asked; wonder (taʿajjub) is being conveyed.

Its equivalent in English: "how he measured!" — an exclamation.

And the tone of the exclamation is worth dwelling on. This is not a contemptuous tone; it is a tone of astonishment. The sentence looks as though it were wondering at how careful the work the man did was.

And this agrees with the general manner of the section: the man is described not as a fool but as someone who spends labour.

I record this reading as my own inference.

The nineteenth and twentieth verses are exactly the same — the only difference is the conjunction at the head:

• فَقُتِلَ كَيْفَ قَدَّرَ (19) — with the fāʾ
• ثُمَّ قُتِلَ كَيْفَ قَدَّرَ (20) — with thumma

In al-Inshirāḥ the similar repetition at al-Inshirāḥ 94/5-6 (again with a single letter as the only difference) was treated, and this was recorded: "the first is a statement of fact, the second is a ruling"; and also the emphatic function of the repetition, and that the place of the repetition is meaningful.

Here the structure is similar but the conjunctions differ.

• فَ — immediately afterwards, without a break. That is, "he measured — and at once: confound him."
• ثُمَّ — after an interval of time, or rising by a degree.

In the classical commentaries it is said that thumma here states not time but degree: the second imprecation is more severe than the first. In Arabic thumma can be used with this function.

An observation, as my own reading: nothing at all comes between the two imprecations. That is, the verses stand still upon the work the man did — twice at the same point, without advancing the narrative.

And the narrative goes on only at the twenty-first verse: thumma naẓar. That is, there are four thumma (20, 21, 22, 23) and one of them does not advance the narrative.

The verse is two words. One of the shortest verses of the sūra.

Root: ن-ظ-ر. To look; and from this: to examine, to think, to wait.

Derivatives: naẓar (a look), manẓar (an appearance), naẓīr (an equal — what appears in the same measure), intiẓār (waiting), munāẓara (looking at one another → debate).

The verse does not say. The classical explanations:

I impose no preference.

But the second explanation is worth dwelling on, because it fits well the picture the section sets up: if the man looked about him, then there is an accounting for the audience in the verdict he gives. That is, the verdict has to do not only with the text but also with those who will hear it.

This is not something the verse says; it is a reading opened up by one of the possibilities.

An observation — at the level of sound.

This verse is two words, and it stands in the middle of the section. Before it, two long repetitions (19-20); after it, pairs of verbs (22-23).

And the shortness itself produces the effect of a pause. The text halts for a moment.

I record this as an observation about sound; it is not a theological claim.

Root: ع-ب-س. This root was treated in detail in ʿAbasa as the first word of that sūra. The description recorded there:

"Its meaning: to knot the face, to draw the brows together, the hardening of the countenance. عَبُوس (ʿabūs) — sour-faced, frowning."

And what was stressed there was the concreteness of the word:

"The word describes something concrete and narrow: the movement of the muscles of the face. Not a word, not an attitude, not a decision — a movement of muscle."

Moreover ʿAbasa has already mentioned this verse (74/22) and made this finding: "the root is not a light word in the Qurʾān's own vocabulary. It is used once of the face of a denier, and once of the day of resurrection itself" (the yawman ʿabūsan qamṭarīrā of al-Insān 76/10).

Now we can complete the comparison.

And reading the two sūras together shows exactly what the word is.

The same movement of muscle, in two separate sūras. In the one it is corrected, in the other it is recorded as a link in a chain of denial.

The difference is not in the movement itself; it is in to whom and why it is made. And the principle recorded in ʿAbasa looks directly at this place: there it was said "what is not seen goes on the record" — the blind man had not even seen the scowl made at him.

Here there is something similar: the scowl is not a message directed at the one opposite; it is the man's own reaction. But it is recorded.

I record this joining as my own reading.

And one further inference: "The Qurʾān corrects the facial muscles of its own prophet and records the facial muscles of an opponent." That is, the measure is applied to both sides. This agrees with the finding made in the section ## The text criticising its own prophet of ʿAbasa; there too it was recorded that this was presented "not as a proof" but as an observation. The same record holds here as well.

Root: ب-س-ر. Several uses gather under this root, and the link the lexicographers set up is an interesting one:

• بُسْر (busr) — the unripe date. The stage at which it has reddened but is not yet sweet, and is still hard.
• بَسَرَ (basara) — to do a thing before its time, to be in haste.
• بَاسِر (bāsir) — a face extremely sour, hardened, darkened.

The link the lexicographers set up: busr is fruit that has hardened before ripening; and the bāsir face is a face that has hardened before its cause has ripened. The giving of a reaction before its time.

I ascribe this explanation to the lexicographers; I do not present it as a definite ruling. But if it is right, it explains exactly the place of the word in this section: the man draws his face down before he has yet given his verdict. The reaction comes before its ground.

The word occurs once more in the Qurʾān: "That day some faces will be scowling (bāsira)" (al-Qiyāma 75/24).

Do ʿabasa and basara say the same thing?

The classical explanation: ʿabasa is the knotting of the face, basara the intensifying of that knotting and the darkening of the face. That is, the second verb is a degree of the first.

And the word order supports this: the two verbs are joined by wa, with no thumma coming between them. That is, two faces of the same moment.

An observation: the paired verbs in this section all work in this way.

All three pairs have the same structure: an outward movement + its inner or intensified state. This classification is my own reading.

Root: د-ب-ر. Its concrete sense: the back, the rear, the hinder part of a thing.

Derivatives:

• دُبُر (dubur) — the hinder part.
• أَدْبَرَ (adbara) — he turned his back, he turned away, he withdrew.
• تَدْبِير (tadbīr) — to think of the back, the end, of a matter. The Turkish tedbir ("provision, forethought").
• مُدَبِّر (mudabbir) — the one who manages a matter, who looks to its end.

And this breadth of the root is striking: the same root means both "to turn one's back" and "to think of the end". The lexicographers' link: in both there is the hinder part of a thing — the one physical, the other temporal.

And there is a weave here, easy to miss.

The same verb will occur once more, eleven verses later:

• 74/23: thumma adbara wa'stakbara — the man turned his back.
• 74/33: wa'l-layli idh adbara — "and by the night when it retreats."

The same verb, two subjects: a man and a night.

In al-Ḍuḥā this second use (74/33) was recorded in a table of oaths by the night: "idh adbara — when it turns its back — withdrawal."

And when the two uses are set side by side a contrast appears:

The night's turning of its back opens onto a lightening; the man's turning of his back onto a darkening.

I record this weave as my own reading. That the same verb is found in two places is beyond dispute; the contrast set up is an interpretation.

Root: ك-ب-ر. It was treated above (74/3), and this weave was recorded there:

The istifʿāl form is especially important here. This form, as was recorded in al-Muzzammil, conveys request or reckoning a thing to be so.

ٱسْتَكْبَرَ — to count oneself great, to appropriate greatness to oneself.

And the difference between tafʿīl and istifʿāl becomes visible exactly here:

• كَبَّرَ — to ascribe greatness to another.
• ٱسْتَكْبَرَ — to ascribe greatness to oneself.

The same root, the same idea, two opposite addresses. And the sūra contains both: the one as a command, the other as a record.

An observation — as my own reading.

The verse says first adbara (he turned his back), then istakbara (he grew proud).

And the order looks like the reverse of what one would expect: usually one grows proud first and turns one's back afterwards.

As it stands, the order may be saying this: pride is not the ground of the turning of the back but its consequence. That is, the man first withdraws, and then constructs his withdrawal as a superiority.

I offer this as an inference; the text does not make this justification, and the conjunction wa does not state a definite order in time.

After four thumma comes a فَ.

All the steps had been joined with thumma (with time passing in between). The last step is joined with the fāʾ (immediately afterwards, without a break).

That is, the verdict comes immediately after the growing proud — there is no distance between them.

This observation is beyond dispute at the level of grammar; the conclusion to be drawn from it is interpretation. My reading is this: the verdict and the pride are parts of the same movement.

إِنْ here is a particle of negation (in place of mā), إِلَّا an exception.

In hādhā illā… — "this is nothing but…"

This is one of the strongest patterns of restriction (ḥaṣr) in Arabic. And it belongs to the same family as the structure treated in al-Ikhlāṣ, "first deny, then make an exception".

And the man uses this pattern twice. That is, he draws a boundary twice: only sorcery, only the word of a human being.

An observation, as my own reading: the rigidity of the sentence and the length of the eight steps before it stand in inverse proportion. A long process of hesitation ends in an absolute verdict. And this is something that can be observed: the most categorical sentences most often come after the longest hesitations.

سِحْر — from the س-ح-ر root: sorcery, magic. It is said that the root carries the idea of "deceiving, turning the eye". From the same root comes saḥar (the hour before dawn); the link is set up by way of the hour at which light and darkness are mixed and the eye can be deceived — I ascribe this explanation to the lexicographers.

يُؤْثَرُ — from the أ-ث-ر root, a passive imperfect.

Root: أ-ث-ر. Its concrete sense: a trace, a remnant, a mark left behind.

• أَثَر (athar) — trace, remnant. In Turkish eser, âsâr ("work", "works, remains").
• مَأْثُور (maʾthūr) — transmitted, handed down. The expression "maʾthūr prayers" comes from this branch.
• تَأْثِير (taʾthīr) — a thing's leaving a trace in another. The Turkish tesir ("effect").
• آثَرَ (āthara) — to prefer, to put in front. Īthār (preferring another to oneself) comes from this branch.

And yuʾthar has been read in two ways — not a variant reading but a disagreement over the sense:

The first reading is the more widespread in the classical sources. I impose no preference; both come out of the root.

And the first reading says something: the man does not count the text new. He places it inside a known tradition. This is the natural consequence of the effort at classification — the easiest way to reject what is new is to declare it the continuation of something old.

I record this reading as my own inference.

The first word of the sūra was ٱلْمُدَّثِّر, its root د-ث-ر — and it was recorded above that the second branch of that root is "whose trace has been effaced".

And here there is the root أ-ث-ر: "a trace".

The two roots are entirely separate and I claim no kinship between them. What I record is that the idea of "trace" should come round at the two ends of the sūra by way of two separate roots — as an observation, not as a claim.

The finest verbal weave of the sūra begins here.

Root: ب-ش-ر. And the original sense of this root was treated in al-Baqara 2/25. The passage recorded there was this:

"The root b-sh-r, and the original sense of this root is the skin: bashara is the outer skin of the face. Good news was given this name because good news shows in the skin of the face — when a person receives good news his face opens, its colour changes. From the same root comes bashar (a human being): the being whose skin is visible, not covered with fur."

The same finding was repeated in al-Inshiqāq as well: "بِشَارَة (bishāra, good news) comes from here too: the skin of the face of the one who receives good news changes — the blood runs, the expression opens. That is, good news is something seen first in the skin."

This is the key needed for reading the rest of the sūra.

Here ٱلْبَشَر plainly means a human being (human beings): qawlu'l-bashar — "the word of a human being".

And what the man says is clear: this text is not divine but human.

This is a settled objection that the Qurʾān records:

• "This is nothing but a human being like yourselves (basharun mithlukum)" (al-Muʾminūn 23/24; similarly 23/33-34; al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/154, 26/186).
• "Has God sent a human being as a messenger?" (al-Isrāʾ 17/94).
• "This is nothing but manifest sorcery" (al-Ṣāffāt 37/15; al-Aḥqāf 46/7).

That is, the two accusations — "sorcery" and "the word of a human being" — are two standard objections that the Qurʾān records in other places as well.

And there is something that must be noticed: the two accusations contradict one another.

Sorcery is extraordinary; the word of a human being is ordinary. A thing cannot be at one and the same time extraordinary and commonplace.

In order to classify the text, the man puts it at once on two separate and mutually incompatible shelves.

I record this observation as my own reading. And it completes the picture the section has been setting up from the beginning: the verdict was given first, the grounds produced afterwards — and the grounds produced do not hold together.

The word ٱلْبَشَر occurs in this sūra four times:

And the twenty-ninth verse is the place at which the two senses of the word coincide. It will be taken up when we reach it.

For now what must be recorded is this: the man said "this is the word of the bashar"; and four verses later an attribute of Hell will be given with the very same word.