al-Infiṭār 82:17-18

Wa mā adrāka mā yawmu'l-dīn • thumma mā adrāka mā yawmu'l-dīn "And what will make you know what the day of reckoning is? Then, what will make you know what the day of reckoning is?"

The pattern mā adrāka was treated in the sections on al-Humaza and al-Qadr. In brief: the root د-ر-ي (dirāya — to know, to be aware); adrā (the afʿala form) — he made known. Mā adrāka is literally "what has made you know?" — its sense: "your knowledge cannot take hold of this; had you known it, you would have known it from one who made it known."

And there was a regularity recorded there:

Here the pattern is in the perfect and the rule holds: in the nineteenth verse the explanation will come — "on that day no soul has power over anything for another."

That the pattern is repeated one after the other, in identical wording, is striking. Mā adrāka occurs in many places in the Qurʾān; but as a place where two verses repeat the same sentence word for word, this holds a special position.

In Sūrat al-Qāriʿa the pattern occurred twice (101/3 and 101/10), but there were seven verses in between and the object changed. In the next sūra it will again occur twice (83/8 and 83/19) but the objects will be different (Sijjīn and ʿIlliyyūn). Here the object is the same, the wording is the same, and the two verses stand side by side.

What is the function of the repetition?

In Arabic the repetition of the same wording (takrīr) is a recognised instrument of rhetoric, and its functions are these: emphasis, the producing of awe (tahwīl), and the fixing of attention.

It can be said that all three are at work here. But there is a fourth function as well, and it follows from the structure of the text:

The question is asked twice because the answer is given once. The seventeenth verse asks the question, the eighteenth asks the same question again without giving the answer, and only in the nineteenth does the answer come. That is, the answer has been delayed twofold.

This delay is the reverse of the structure at the beginning of the sūra. There were four conditions there and a single answer; here there are two questions and a single answer. In both places waiting is produced.

The second verse begins with ثم.

Thumma in Arabic conveys basically succession with an interval: "then, after a while has passed." This is its difference from fāʾ — fāʾ joins without an interval, thumma joins with one.

But thumma has one further usage, and it is the one that holds here: the conveying of rank (tarākhī fī'l-rutba). That is, not an interval of time but a difference of degree: "moreover, further, beyond even this."

An example: when in praising a person one says "he is learned, then he is generous", no order of time is meant; it is conveyed that the degree of the second is higher.

So here too: the second question is not asked after the first; it stands further out than the first. That is, "you do not know what that day is — and even your knowing that you do not know is not enough."

This usage is recorded in the classical sources. I state this as a preference; there are also those who say that thumma here conveys ordinary succession, and that reading is possible too.

A grammatical detail must be dwelt on.

Adrā-ka — the one addressed is singular. Yet in the verses immediately before, the plural was used: ʿalaykum (10), tafʿalūn (12), and hum (16).

So the sūra returns here to the singular — to the address of verses 6-8.

This is the same function as the iltifāt treated in the section on al-Humaza: the narration breaks off, and the one addressed is taken before it one by one.

And thus the movement of pronouns in the sūra is completed:

The sūra changes position six times. And in the last verse it returns to the expression "a soul" of the opening verses.

As was recorded in the section on al-Humaza, this pattern declares, before it gives any information, that knowledge will not suffice. The question is not a request for a definition; it is a declaration of an impossibility.

Its particular consequence here is this: the nineteenth verse will give an answer, but the answer it gives is not a description. The fire will not be recounted, the scene will not be drawn. The only piece of information to be given is what will not work on that day.

That is, the question is asked as "what kind of day is that day?" and the answer is "on that day no one can do anything for anyone." The sūra describes the day not by its qualities but by its impossibilities.