يَقُولُونَ أَءِنَّا لَمَرْدُودُونَ فِى ٱلْحَافِرَةِ · أَءِذَا كُنَّا عِظَٰمًا نَّخِرَةً · قَالُوا۟ تِلْكَ إِذًا كَرَّةٌ خَاسِرَةٌ
Yaqūlūna a-innā la-mardūdūna fi'l-ḥāfira · A-idhā kunnā ʿiẓāman nakhira · Qālū tilka idhan karratun khāsira "They say: 'Are we really to be brought back to our former state? When we have become decayed bones?' They said: 'That, then, would be a losing return.'"
Up to the ninth verse the Day of Resurrection was being described. In the tenth verse there is a sudden return to the present tense: "they say."
That is, the sūra sets up the scene of the future and then comes back to this world and reports the one addressed as he speaks today.
This is the same thing Sūrat al-Nabaʾ does. Al-Nabaʾ too opened by reporting the speech of the one addressed ("about what are they asking one another?"). Both neighbouring sūras take the other side's own sentence into the text.
In Arabic the presence of two emphases in a sentence shows that the sentence is said with great force. And combined with the interrogative hamza what emerges is a rhetorical question of denial: a question that seeks no answer but expresses rejection.
In English it comes out as: "So we are really to be brought back, are we?" — the tag at the end is there to show disbelief.
A note on variant readings. Differences are transmitted among the imāms of the variant readings in the pronunciation of the two hamzas in this verse (full realisation, easing, separating the second hamza with an alif, and so on). These differences do not change the meaning; since I cannot state with certainty which imām held which preference, I give no name.
The word is passive, and this is worth recording. The objection is not "shall we return?" but "shall we be brought back?"
That is, those objecting know that the operation will be done to them. Their objection is not to the agent but to the possibility of the operation.
Root: ح-ف-ر. To dig, to hollow out, to open a pit. حُفْرَة — a pit. حَافِر — one who digs; and a hoof (the nail of a horse or a donkey).
The relation between the two derivatives: a hoof is called ḥāfir because the animal digs the ground as it walks. A walking horse leaves a mark in the soil at every step.
| View | Explanation | Its ground | Its weak side |
|---|---|---|---|
| The former state, the original condition | In Arabic رَجَعَ فِى حَافِرَتِهِ / عَلَىٰ حَافِرَتِهِ — "he returned by the road he came", "he returned to his former state" — is an idiom. Its origin: an animal's returning by treading in its own hoof-prints. Ḥāfira is the road on which the prints dug on the way out are found | The idiom is established in Arabic; and the context of the verse concerns returning to a former state (resurrection) | The lexicographers are not in full agreement about the origin of the idiom |
| The grave | Ḥāfira means "that which has been dug" — an active participle in a passive sense. That is, the grave | The root's original sense (to dig) goes straight to this; ḥufra (a pit) is from the same root | That the verse is built with the particle fī (in) does not make this reading difficult, but "being brought back into the grave" is not the subject of the objection — they already accept entering the grave. Their objection is to coming out of the grave |
| The life of this world | The first life; "shall we be brought back to our former state" | It is a sub-case of the first view | Hard to count as a separate view |
The weak side of the second view is especially important and needs to be dwelt on: their objection is not to entering the grave but to coming out of it. The next verse confirms this: "when we have become decayed bones?" That is, they accept the decay; what they object to is the stage that comes after the decay.
I prefer the first view; it is not binding. My ground is this: the existence of the idiom is on record in Arabic and it sits directly on the meaning of the verse; the second view does not agree with the subject of the objection.
A note on the language. In Arabic an expression ٱلنَّقْدُ عِنْدَ ٱلْحَافِرَةِ is transmitted, and it is said to mean "payment in cash" — the money being paid while the animal has not stirred from its place, at the sale of a horse. Since I cannot give certain information about the currency and the exact sense of this expression, I record it as a note on the language and do not use it as evidence.
A note on variant readings. It is transmitted that the word is also read as ٱلْحَفِرَة. On this reading the sense comes closer to "pit / grave". I give no imām's name.
عِظَام — bones. The root is ع-ظ-م; and as recorded at al-Nabaʾ 78/2, this root is also the root of the word ʿaẓīm (great) — because the bone is the skeleton of the body.
The choice of bones is no accident. Bone is the part of the body that decays last. The flesh goes, the skin goes, the bone remains.
That is, the objection is built from the furthest point: after even the most durable part has decayed.
"When we have become bones and crumbled dust, shall we really be raised in a new creation?" (al-Isrāʾ 17/49, 98)
"He has struck for Us a similitude and forgotten his own creation: he said, 'Who will give life to the bones when they are decayed?' Say: He who brought them forth the first time will give them life." (Yāsīn 36/78-79)
"Does man suppose that We shall not gather his bones? Indeed — We are able to set in order even his fingertips." (al-Qiyāma 75/3-4)
The last verse is striking: the objection is built on bones, the answer is given by way of the fingertips — that is, a still finer detail.
1. To decay and become hollow within. Nakhira'l-ʿaẓm — the bone decayed, its inside became a cavity. 2. A sound issuing from the nose. نَخِير — snoring, a nasal sound. مَنْخِر — a nostril.
The place where the two senses meet: a bone hollowed out within gives a sound when blown upon. A hollow thing whistles when the wind passes through it.
That is, the word describes the furthest stage of decay: not merely brittle but hollowed out within.
A variant reading is transmitted: the word is also read as نَاخِرَة (nākhira). The difference of meaning between the two readings is small; some lexicographers distinguish nakhira as "decayed" and nākhira as "hollow, giving out sound", while some count the two equivalent. Since I cannot state with certainty which imām of the variant readings held which preference, I give no name.
And an observation — my own reading: the sound-association of the word joins with the thirteenth verse of the sūra. There the resurrection will come about by a cry (zajra). A bone hollowed out within is a thing that lets sound through.
I must state that I am making this connection and am not claiming that the verse intends it. But both senses of the word do stand in the dictionary.
In the tenth verse يَقُولُونَ (imperfect — "they say"), in the twelfth verse قَالُوا۟ (perfect — "they said").
| Explanation | Account |
|---|---|
| Two separate utterances | The imperfect reports the ongoing objection, the perfect a word said at a particular moment |
| A future utterance | Qālū here describes the future: "they will say" — a widespread manner in the Qurʾān |
| A mocking concluding sentence | The first two verses are questions, the third the conclusion they themselves draw. The perfect shows the conclusion being made definite |
The third explanation best suits the tone of the sentence: two questions are asked and then a verdict is delivered.
كَرَّة — Root: ك-ر-ر. To return, to repeat, to come back. كَرَّ — he turned back, he repeated the charge. Karra is also used as a noun of instance — "a turn, one time".
"If only we had a return, that we might quit them." (al-Baqara 2/167)
"If only we had a return, that we might be among the believers." (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/102)
That is: the "return" made an object of mockery in this world becomes the thing begged for in the hereafter.
خَاسِرَة — Root: خ-س-ر. This root was treated in detail in the section on Sūrat al-ʿAṣr and the finding there will be relied on.
What was recorded there was this: khusr is a term of accounting — the balance coming out negative, the capital diminishing. And it was compared in the section on al-Shams with khāba (failing to find what one hoped for): in khusr there is a reckoning, in khayba a hope.
They characterise the resurrection as a loss-making transaction. That is, they are making a calculation: "if we are brought back, it is a loss for us."
And they are right. The rest of the sūra confirms it: for them the resurrection really is a loss (79/39: "the Fire, that is the refuge").
But the place where the reckoning is set up is wrong. They use the resurrection's being harmful as evidence that it will not take place. Yet a thing's being harmful does not show that it will not happen.
I record this as my own reading. But the choice of the word and the rest of the sūra are in the text.
A structural note. The verse-endings of these three verses — al-ḥāfira, nakhira, khāsira — belong to the same family of sound as wājifa, khāshiʿa in the eighth and ninth verses. And so do the sixth and seventh verses: al-rājifa, al-rādifa.
That is, from the sixth verse to the fourteenth, nine verses are bound by a single sound: -ira / -ifa / -iʿa.