Hūd 11:6

wa mā min dābbatin fi'l-arḍi illā ʿalā'llāhi rizquhā wa yaʿlamu mustaqarrahā wa mustawdaʿahā, kullun fī kitābin mubīn

"There is no creature that moves on the earth whose provision does not rest upon God. He knows its resting place and the place where it is left in trust. All of it is in a clear book."

The fifth verse was about hiding. The sixth turns suddenly to provision. At first sight the link is not visible.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verb the two verses share: yaʿlamu.

The same verb, in two consecutive verses. The verses are not changing the subject — they are widening the scope of the knowledge: first the inside of a human being, then the whole of the earth.

The root has been treated in several places across this series (al-Naml, Luqmān, al-Nūr, Sabaʾ, al-Jāthiya, al-Shūrā). In summary: د-ب-ب — to move slowly and lightly, to stir, to walk. Dābba is every living thing that moves on the earth; the word is wide enough to take in the birds and the human being as well.

And the choice of word is worth recording: the verse does not say ḥayawān (living thing) or khalq (created thing). It says that which moves. The question of provision is the question of a being that moves — a thing that does not rise from its place has no search for provision.

The preposition in the sentence is ʿalā, and in Arabic ʿalā reports undertaking and obligation.

That the same particle does the same work at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/113 (in ḥisābuhum illā ʿalā rabbī) and at 26/109 (in ajriya illā ʿalā rabbi'l-ʿālamīn) was treated there; I rely on that treatment. What was recorded there was this: "In both sentences ʿalā attaches the obligation to God: the payment and the reckoning are alike His."

And Hūd 11/6 attaches a third thing to the same particle: provision.

I enter a note, per the method (Method): the ʿalā here does not mean that a necessity is imposed upon God. I do not enter the classical theological dispute; the wording of the verse reports an undertaking, and the source of that undertaking is again God Himself.

The same field was treated at al-ʿAnkabūt 29/60 (wa ka-ayyin min dābbatin lā taḥmilu rizqahā, Allāhu yarzuquhā wa iyyākum), and I rely on that treatment. In summary, the entries there were these:

lā taḥmilu rizqahā — "it does not carry its own provision". The lexicographers explain this in two ways: it cannot store up its food and carry it about, or it has no power to secure its provision. The link with the verses before it: in verse 56 migration had been commanded. The most concrete obstacle to migration is anxiety about livelihood — and this verse is placed exactly there. The proof is brought not from the human being but from the animal — by saying that a creature which cannot carry its load is nevertheless fed, it is shown that storing up food is not a condition.

The difference between the two verses must be recorded, and it is a datum of the text:

al-ʿAnkabūt, that is, attaches provision to a question of courage, and Hūd to a question of knowledge.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the setting in which each verse stands. The question answered in al-ʿAnkabūt is "how shall I live?"; the question answered in Hūd is "where shall I hide?" — because the verse before it was about hiding.

Both words are nouns of place / passive participles from Form X, and they build an opposed pair.

The root ق-ر-ر: to stand in a place, to settle, to be fixed. The root has been treated in many places across this series (al-Muʾminūn, al-Naml, al-Sajda, Yāsīn, al-Qiyāma, al-Mursalāt). Mustaqar — the place where one comes to rest.

The root و-د-ع: to leave; and to entrust. The root was treated at al-Ḍuḥā 93/3 (mā waddaʿaka rabbuk) and in al-Aḥzāb. Wadīʿa — a trust. Mustawdaʿ — the place where a trust is left.

The difference between the two words is the difference between the two roots:

The exegetes differ over what the words refer to, and I give it in a table:

All four readings are transmitted in the classical sources; I do not impose a preference.

But there is something to record, and this is an observation about the language: all four readings carry the same structure — one lasting, the other temporary. What the words point to, that is, is disputed; what they do is not.

A limit, per the method (Method): the second reading is sometimes pressed into service for modern biology. That road is closed in this commentary (the same limit was set at al-Raʿd 13/8); the wording of the verse reports a scope of knowledge, it does not describe a mechanism.

And the verse closes with a "book". The sūra had opened with a "book" too.

I record this as an observation; I do not claim that the two are the same thing. What is recorded is that the word is used for two distinct offices within six verses.