17. Sūrat al-Isrāʾ

111 verses. It is widely reported that it was revealed in the last years of the Meccan period. It takes its name from the verb أَسْرَىٰ (asrā — He made travel by night) in the first verse. It is reported that the sūra is also called Banī Isrāʾīl — on account of the section running from the second verse to the eighth.

The sūra opens with a miracle and closes with a sentence of praise; but across the 109 verses in between it insistently does one thing: it takes the ruling away from the group and fastens it to the person.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the text's own sentences:

Seven separate places, the same work. And the second block of the sūra (the Children of Israel) is built on precisely this principle: a people is named, but the ruling is tied not to that people's name but to the condition if you do good / if you do evil.

Subḥāna'lladhī asrā bi-ʿabdihi laylan mina'l-masjidi'l-ḥarāmi ila'l-masjidi'l-aqṣa'lladhī bāraknā ḥawlahu li-nuriyahu min āyātinā, innahū huwa'l-samīʿu'l-baṣīr

"He who made His servant travel by night, from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed, so that We might show him some of Our signs — how exalted is He! Truly He is the Hearing, the Seeing."

Per the method (Method), a boundary has to be drawn in this verse before anything else, because this is one of the verses in the Qurʾān that carries the heaviest load of transmitted report.

What the verse says in its own wording is the following, and all of it can be verified from the text:

What the verse does not say must be recorded just as carefully: the verse says nothing of an ascent to heaven, does not use the word miʿrāj, does not state how the journey took place (in the body, or in sleep), does not say how many stages there were, and does not name who was met.

This matter was treated in detail in al-Najm, and this record was entered there: that sūra does not use the word "miʿrāj" and speaks of no journey; al-Isrāʾ 17/1 speaks of a journeying by night but says nothing of the Lote Tree, while al-Najm speaks of the Lote Tree but says nothing of a journeying. And it was noted there that the joining of the two sūras is done by way of the transmitted reports. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

The position taken in this commentary is this: it is reported that the classical sources hold a large body of transmitted material about this night, and that these reports differ from one another both in substance and in detail. I do not go into their details, because the verse does not. I treat the frame the verse itself gives.

The root: to travel by night, to journey by night. Arabic uses other verbs for travel by day; the night is already in the core of this root.

• Sarā / asrā — he journeyed by night, he travelled by night.
• Surān — a journey by night.
• The same root occurs at 26/52 (treated in al-Shuʿarāʾ) in the command given to Moses (Mūsā): an asri bi-ʿibādī — "lead My servants forth by night."

And there is a point of word order here that the lexicographers dwell on: the verb already means "to make travel by night", and yet the verse adds لَيْلًا (laylan — by night) as well.

I record this as an observation, and its support is that the word comes indefinite: laylan is indefinite, and in Arabic the indefinite can convey smallness and partitivity. From this the lexicographers draw the sense "during a part of the night" — that is, the span is not held long but shortened. If information already inside the verb is repeated, the repetition must be doing some work; the work here is to put weight on the span of time. This is an observation about the language, not a ruling.

The one made to travel is named not by his name but by an attribute: ʿabd — servant.

The centrality of the word ʿabd was treated in Maryam, and two verses were tabulated there: at 19/30 the first word of Jesus (ʿĪsā) was innī ʿabdu'llāh, and at 19/93 the same word was applied to everyone without exception (in kullu man fi's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi illā āti'l-raḥmāni ʿabdā). I rely on that treatment and do not analyse the root again.

The difference of the usage here must be recorded, and I give this as my own reading: in Maryam the word ʿabd came as an answer to a claim — against the one who said "al-Raḥmān has taken a child". Here it comes in the sentence that recounts the most extraordinary event of all.

That is: while recounting the greatest privilege a human being can recount, the sūra names the one privileged a servant. And this is the very structure recorded at 25/1 in al-Furqān: there too the Book was sent down upon a servant (ʿalā ʿabdihi), and immediately afterwards the ordinariness of that servant was made the subject of objection.

Three sūras attach three separate gifts to the same attribute. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

The root was analysed in detail at 67/1 in al-Mulk (the camel's kneeling down, settling in a place and staying fixed; baraka — lasting and increasing good, not "abundance") and was treated at 25/1 in al-Furqān under the form tabāraka. I do not repeat it here.

What is peculiar to the usage here must be recorded, and this is an observation about the structure: the verse speaks of blessing not for the mosque itself but for its surroundings — bāraknā ḥawlahu.

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the particle ḥawla: the blessing is attached not to a point but to a region. If the record at al-Mulk 67/1 is recalled — that blessing is permanence and increase — then a place whose surroundings are blessed is a place that gives something to its surroundings.

And the same expression is used of this region elsewhere in the Qurʾān as well (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/71, 21/81; at al-Aʿrāf 7/137 the phrase bāraknā fīhā occurs). The common point: the blessing is attached not to the soil itself but to what spreads out from it.

That the verse closes with two names is worth recording: al-Samīʿ and al-Baṣīr — the Hearing and the Seeing.

I record this as an observation, and its support is the sentence's own verb: the verse had said li-nuriyahu (so that We might show him). At the close it is stated that the one who shows is the Seeing. The act of showing thus comes from the one to whom seeing belongs.

And that the two names begin with hearing can be recorded as well: across the sūra (45-47, 90-93) what those addressed say will be reported one by one. The name samīʿ in the first verse states from the outset that those sentences are heard. I give this as my own reading; its support is the sūra's own structure.

Wa ātaynā Mūsa'l-kitāba wa jaʿalnāhu hudan li-banī Isrāʾīla allā tattakhidhū min dūnī wakīlā · Dhurriyyata man ḥamalnā maʿa Nūḥ, innahū kāna ʿabdan shakūrā

"We gave Moses the Book and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel: 'Take no trustee besides Me.' O offspring of those We carried with Noah (Nūḥ)! He was a deeply thankful servant."

Between the two verses there is a link that can be verified at the level of the words:

I record this as my own reading: immediately after a miracle the sūra moves on to a book. And in both verses the key word is the same: ʿabd. In the first verse Muhammad is ʿabd; in the third verse Noah is ʿabd.

That is: having recounted the extraordinary, the sūra turns back to the ordinary — to a book and to servanthood.

The content of the Book is summed up in a single sentence: "take no trustee besides Me."

The root و-ك-ل was treated at 39/41 in al-Zumar, at 25/43 in al-Furqān and at 28/56 in al-Qaṣaṣ — it was tabulated there as a limit of responsibility. The usage here is different, and the difference must be recorded: there wakīl was negated of the Prophet ("you are not a trustee over them"); here it is said whom the servant is to take as trustee.

The sense of the word: the one to whom an affair is committed, the one trusted and leaned upon. The verse thus gives the core of the Book as a matter of where one leans.

The address changes, and those addressed are given a new name: "the offspring of those We carried with Noah."

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the naming itself: those addressed are named not by the name of a people but by having been saved. Man ḥamalnā — "those We carried". Identity is thus attached not to an achievement but to having been carried.

And immediately after, the single attribute of Noah is named: kāna ʿabdan shakūrā — "he was a deeply thankful servant."

The detailed analysis of the root ش-ك-ر was made at 31/12 in Luqmān (ani'shkur li'llāh) and at 34/13 in Sabaʾ (wa qalīlun min ʿibādiya'l-shakūr). I do not repeat it here.

The choice of attribute is worth recording: a rescued lineage is addressed, and what is named is their forefather's thankfulness. The bond is thus built not as a bond of descent but as a bond of disposition. This will turn into an explicit rule in the seventh verse of the sūra.

Wa qaḍaynā ilā banī Isrāʾīla fi'l-kitābi la-tufsidunna fi'l-arḍi marratayni wa la-taʿlunna ʿuluwwan kabīrā · Fa-idhā jāʾa waʿdu ūlāhumā baʿathnā ʿalaykum ʿibādan lanā ulī baʾsin shadīdin fa-jāsū khilāla'l-diyāri wa kāna waʿdan mafʿūlā · Thumma radadnā lakumu'l-karrata ʿalayhim wa amdadnākum bi-amwālin wa banīna wa jaʿalnākum akthara nafīrā · In aḥsantum aḥsantum li-anfusikum wa in asaʾtum fa-lahā … ʿAsā rabbukum an yarḥamakum wa in ʿudtum ʿudnā wa jaʿalnā jahannama li'l-kāfirīna ḥaṣīrā

"We made this known to the Children of Israel in the Book: 'You will work corruption on the earth twice over, and you will rise up with great arrogance.' When the time of the first of the two came, We sent against you servants of Ours of great might; they went searching right in among the houses. This was a promise carried out. Then We gave you the turn back against them; We reinforced you with wealth and sons and made you the more numerous host. If you do good, you do good for yourselves; if you do evil, that too is your own… It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you; but if you return, We return. And We have made Hell an enclosure for those who deny."

These five verses are among the places in this commentary that must be handled with the greatest care, and three things must be recorded at the outset:

First: these verses do not issue a blanket ruling about a people. The record entered in al-Baqara at the head of the section on the Children of Israel holds here exactly, and I rely on it: there it was recorded that "the most widespread misreading" of such sections "is to suppose them to be about somebody else", the Qurʾān's own record was recalled ("They are not all alike" — Āl ʿImrān 3/113), and it was said that "attributes are being enumerated, not an identity". In these verses too the ruling is tied to an act, not to a name.

Second: the verse's own grammar already enters this record — it will be shown separately below. The seventh verse is a conditional sentence, and both arms of the condition are open.

Third: in this commentary these verses are not linked to any current political question. The rule of Method that "no side is taken in current politics" is applied here to the letter. What the verse recounts is two periods made known in the Book; who filled these two periods, when, and by what events, has been disputed in the classical commentaries, and there is no agreement on it.

The classical commentaries differ over which historical events these two periods correspond to, and I do not impose a preference:

Several of these explanations are transmitted together in the sources, and the reports that give names do not agree with one another. In this commentary no historical agent is named, because the verse names none — it says only ʿibādan lanā ulī baʾsin shadīd ("servants of Ours of great might").

And this refusal to name is worth recording. I give this as my own reading: the verse names the party that is sent as Our servants too. The victorious party is thus not praised for its victory; it is named as the manner in which a thing came to pass.

The root: to cut a matter through and finish it, to complete a decree. The way the word is construed here draws the lexicographers' attention: qaḍaynā ilā — normally the verb qaḍā comes with bi- or takes a direct object. Its coming with ilā is explained by the lexicographers as carrying the sense "we made known, we conveyed".

This distinction matters for the meaning and must be recorded: the sentence is read not as "We decreed that they should work corruption" but as "We made this known to them in the Book". The difference between the two readings is the difference between compelling and informing.

And the same root will occur at the head of a list of commands in the twenty-third verse (wa qaḍā rabbuka). It is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The root ج-و-س: to move about a place searching it, ransacking it. The lexicographers explain the root as "to go back and forth in order to search".

خِلَٰل — the spaces between, the gaps in between. Hence "they went in among the houses and moved through them."

I record this as an observation: the verse gives no description of a battle. The verb chosen states that what was entered was a house, and that the entering was done by searching. What is recounted therefore takes place not at a front line but inside the home.

"If you do good, you do good for yourselves; if you do evil, that too is your own."

This sentence is one of those that carry the whole sūra, and its word order deserves close examination.

First: both arms are in the conditional form — in aḥsantum / in asaʾtum. A conditional sentence ties the ruling to actual occurrence. That is, the ruling looks not at who the one addressed is but at what he does.

Second: the requital of both arms returns to themselves. Li-anfusikum — "for yourselves"; fa-lahā — "that too is to it (to the self)".

Third, and the point the lexicographers dwell on most: the second arm says لَهَا (lahā — "for it"), not ʿalayhā ("against it"). The expected usage would have been ʿalayhā.

The lexicographers explain this in several ways, and I transmit them:

I transmit the disagreement; I do not impose a preference. But all three explanations come to a single common result, and that result can be verified from the text: the requital of an act returns to the one who does it.

And this sentence does exactly the same work as the fifteenth verse of the sūra: mani'htadā fa-innamā yahtadī li-nafsih. Two verses, one addressed to a people and one to all human beings, state the same principle.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the structural identity of the two verses: eight verses later the sūra applies to everyone the rule it stated for one people. The second block is thus not a section of special rulings — it is the section in which a general rule is exemplified.

"It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you; but if you return, We return."

The close of the block is left open-ended, and this must be recorded.

عَسَىٰ — in Arabic a verb conveying hope and expectation. It conveys no certainty. The sentence thus sets down mercy not as a promise but as an open possibility.

وَإِنْ عُدتُّمْ عُدْنَا — "if you return, We return."

The construction of the sentence is worth recording, and this is an observation about the structure: the same verb (ʿāda — to return) is used on both sides. The condition and its answer are two inflections of one word.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the repetition of the verb: the sentence stands like a threat, but its structure is the structure of a rule. The door is left open in both directions: return is possible, and so is its requital. And that it opens with ʿasā shows that the order is mercy first.

The block opens with the name of a people and closes with a conditional sentence. This is a structure that can be verified from the text: what is named is a name; what is judged is an act.

Inna hādha'l-qurʾāna yahdī li'llatī hiya aqwamu wa yubashshiru'l-muʾminīna'lladhīna yaʿmalūna'l-ṣāliḥāti anna lahum ajran kabīrā · Wa anna'lladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi'l-ākhirati aʿtadnā lahum ʿadhāban alīmā

"This Qurʾān guides to that which stands most upright; it gives the believers who do righteous deeds the good news that a great reward is theirs. And it announces that for those who do not believe in the hereafter We have prepared a painful punishment."

The most striking feature of the sentence is that the qualified noun (the thing described) has been elided.

The verse does not say "to the most upright way"; it says "to that which is most upright". Allatī — a feminine relative pronoun; the noun it qualifies is not spoken.

The lexicographers try to supply the missing noun, and they differ:

All three supplements are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But the elision itself carries a meaning, and I record this as my own reading: because the noun is not spoken, the expression stays open. The sentence is not confined to "the most upright way"; it can be read as a claim to guide, in every field, to whatever is "most upright" there. The gap, that is, widens the scope.

The root was treated with the word qawām at 25/67 in al-Furqān — it was recorded there that the root ق-و-م is "standing upright, being in balance", and that qawām conveys the point between two extremes. And this measure was read there together with the root qaṣd (keeping to the middle way) at 31/19 in Luqmān. I rely on that treatment.

The difference of pattern here must be recorded: aqwam is the elative pattern — "standing more upright / most upright".

Three patterns, one root — and the third occurs within this same sūra, in the verse about the balance. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.

I record this as my own reading: the concrete picture of the root is standing upright. What stands upright is what does not fall and does not go crooked. With this picture, the Qurʾān's work is described as directing towards "that which can stand without bending".

The ninth verse gives the good news, the tenth the warning — and the subjects of the two sentences differ:

I record this as an observation about the structure: the good news is attached to the Book, the warning directly to the one speaking. The two are thus not built as two arms of one sentence.

Wa yadʿu'l-insānu bi'l-sharri duʿāʾahu bi'l-khayr, wa kāna'l-insānu ʿajūlā

"Man prays for evil as he prays for good. Man is exceedingly hasty."

There are not two verbs but one verb and a comparison: yadʿū bi'l-sharri — he prays for evil; duʿāʾahu bi'l-khayr — as he prays for good.

The verse thus does not speak of two separate behaviours. It says that one behaviour runs in both directions with the same eagerness.

دُعَآءَهُۥ stands as an absolute object and conveys comparison: with the same insistence, in the same manner.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the comparison itself: the verse does not say that man asks for something evil — it says that he asks for it as he would ask for something good. The problem, then, is not intention but the failure to tell the two apart. Man does not see the end of what he asks for.

The root: to hurry, to want a thing to come before its time.

The root has occurred in several places in the index: at 27/46 in al-Naml (lima tastaʿjilūna bi'l-sayyiʾati qabla'l-ḥasana) in Form X; at 38/16 in Ṣād (ʿajjil lanā qiṭṭanā) in a sentence of mockery; at 29/53-54 in al-ʿAnkabūt as the demand that the punishment be hastened; and at 19/84 in Maryam (fa-lā taʿjal ʿalayhim) as a prohibition directed at the Prophet.

al-Anbiyāʾ at present covers only the range 21/1-9 in the index; the verse khuliqa'l-insānu min ʿajal at 21/37 has not yet been analysed. For that reason I take the root up here on its own, and point to that verse only as a comparison within the Qurʾān.

The pattern of ʿajūl (faʿūl) conveys the intensive in Arabic: one who does a thing much, whose disposition it is. The verse therefore does not say "man hurried"; it says "man's disposition is haste".

And two verses can be set side by side within the Qurʾān:

The two verses say the same thing in two different idioms. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text, and the verse in al-Anbiyāʾ will be analysed separately when its turn comes.

Where the verse stands is worth recording: the preceding verse had named the hereafter. The following verse will name night and day, that is, time.

I record this as an observation: haste is a defect that has to do with time — and the verse is set between two verses about time. The hereafter is far off, night and day are regular; the man in haste can wait for neither.

Wa jaʿalna'l-layla wa'l-nahāra āyatayni fa-maḥawnā āyata'l-layli wa jaʿalnā āyata'l-nahāri mubṣiratan li-tabtaghū faḍlan min rabbikum wa li-taʿlamū ʿadada'l-sinīna wa'l-ḥisāb, wa kulla shayʾin faṣṣalnāhu tafṣīlā

"We made the night and the day two signs. We effaced the sign of the night and made the sign of the day one that gives sight: so that you might seek a bounty from your Lord, and might know the number of the years and the reckoning. And We have set out everything in full detail."

The root م-ح-و: to wipe out, to erase the trace of (as writing is erased).

The choice of verb must be recorded, and this is an observation about the language: the verse does not say of the sign of the night "We made it dark" — it says "We effaced it". Darkness is thus described not as something put in place but as something taken away.

مُبْصِرَة — an active participle: that which shows, that which makes seeing possible. (Not what is seen, but what makes one see.)

This word occurs twice in the sūra: here and at 17/59 (wa ātaynā Thamūda'l-nāqata mubṣiratan). The subject of the two occurrences differs: one is the day, the other a miracle. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be taken up separately at the fifty-ninth verse.

The verse enumerates the reason for the order in three items:

I record this as an observation: all three grounds are things a human being does. The verse presents the order of night and day not as a beauty but as an infrastructure.

And the same order (jaʿala'l-layla wa'l-nahāra khilfatan) was treated at 25/62 in al-Furqān — the ground there was li-man arāda an yadhdhakkara aw arāda shukūrā (for whoever wishes to take heed or wishes to give thanks). The two verses give the same fact with two different grounds:

The same order, one for the inner world and one for the running of life. I rely on that treatment.

Wa kulla insānin alzamnāhu ṭāʾirahu fī ʿunuqih, wa nukhriju lahu yawma'l-qiyāmati kitāban yalqāhu manshūrā · Iqraʾ kitābak, kafā bi-nafsika'l-yawma ʿalayka ḥasībā

"We have fastened every man's bird about his neck. On the Day of Resurrection We bring forth for him a book that he will meet spread open: 'Read your book! This day your own self suffices as a reckoner against you.'"

The root: to fly. Ṭāʾir — the flying thing, a bird. The root has been analysed in several places in the index: at 36/19 in Yāsīn (ṭāʾirukum maʿakum), at 27/47 in al-Naml (ṭāʾirukum ʿinda'llāh), in al-Qamar, in al-Insān and in al-Mulk.

The record made in Yā Sīn and al-Naml is indispensable here, and I rely on it: the word comes from the Arab custom of drawing an omen, good or ill, by startling a bird into flight (ṭiyara). It was recorded in Yā Sīn that the other party had said taṭayyarnā bikum ("we take an ill omen from you" — the cause outside), and the messengers had answered ṭāʾirukum maʿakum ("your bird is with you" — the cause inside).

Three verses can now be set side by side, and the circle closes here:

Three verses put the same word in three different places: at his side, in the record, on his neck. This is a weave between sūras that can be verified.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is this threefold sequence: read together, the three verses show the belief in ill omen being dismantled step by step. First it is said "not outside, but with you"; then "in the record"; and here it is put in the most concrete place of all — the neck.

The root ل-ز-م: not to part from, to stay stuck fast. Form IV (alzama): to make inseparable.

عُنُق — the neck.

This construction was mentioned in al-Fatḥ, and it was recorded there that the same verb carries the idea of "inseparability". I rely on that treatment.

And the choice of the neck is itself worth recording. I give this as my own reading, and its support is the usage in Arabic: what is fastened to the neck is carried, is visible, and cannot be taken off. The Arabic idiom of an obligation being "hung on the neck" comes from this same picture.

And the sūra will use the same organ once more in the twenty-ninth verse: wa lā tajʿal yadaka maghlūlatan ilā ʿunuqik — "do not make your hand chained to your neck." The same word, once for the inseparability of the deed and once for the picture of miserliness. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The root ن-ش-ر: to spread, to open out (the unrolling of something that had been rolled up). The root was treated at 25/47 in al-Furqān (wa jaʿala'l-nahāra nushūrā) and at 81/10 in al-Takwīr (wa idha'l-ṣuḥufu nushirat).

The work the word does here must be recorded: the book is not handed over closed — it is handed over already spread open. No act of opening is required before reading; it arrives open.

This is one of the most shattering commands in the Qurʾān, and it shows best through a comparison.

At 45/29 in al-Jāthiya (hādhā kitābunā yanṭiqu ʿalaykum bi'l-ḥaqq) the book's speaking was treated — there the document came to speech of itself. And at 41/20-21 in Fuṣṣilat the same root (ن-ط-ق) was used, this time of the body.

Three scenes can now be set side by side:

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the verbal subjects of the three verses: in al-Jāthiya and in Fuṣṣilat the person is passive — he is spoken against. In al-Isrāʾ a command is given to the person himself, and the command asks for an act: read.

The three scenes thus give the same reckoning from three different positions. And the position in al-Isrāʾ closes off the possibility of objection from the outset: the one who reads cannot object to what he reads, because he is the one reading.

"This day your own self suffices as a reckoner against you."

The pattern must be recorded: kafā bi- — an emphatic construction in Arabic carrying the sense "it suffices". The same pattern occurs several times in the sūra: 17/17 (kafā bi-rabbika), 17/65 (kafā bi-rabbika wakīlā), 17/96 (kafā bi'llāhi shahīdā).

And because the subject of the pattern in this verse is your own self, there is a shift of position worth recording. I give this as my own reading: in the other three places in the sūra the one who "suffices" is God; here the one who "suffices" is the person himself.

حَسِيب — root ح-س-ب: to count, to reckon. Ḥasīb — the one who takes the reckoning.

In the scene of the reckoning, then, no prosecutor, no witness and no scribe is sought; the person himself suffices. And this is the natural premise of the principle lā taziru wāziratun in the following verse.

Mani'htadā fa-innamā yahtadī li-nafsih, wa man ḍalla fa-innamā yaḍillu ʿalayhā, wa lā taziru wāziratun wizra ukhrā, wa mā kunnā muʿadhdhibīna ḥattā nabʿatha rasūlā

"Whoever finds the right way finds it for himself; whoever goes astray goes astray against himself. No bearer of a burden bears the burden of another. And We do not punish until We have sent a messenger."

The verse sets down three separate principles one after another, and all three face the same way:

Together the three build a whole conception of responsibility: who receives the requital, who carries the burden, and when it begins.

This principle has been treated in five places in this commentary, and the root was analysed in detail at 53/38 in al-Najm (a weight carried on the back; wazīr is from the same root — the one who shares the load of a task). It was also recorded there: one can be helped in a task, but not in a reckoning. I do not repeat the root here.

The five links were these, and the sixth is now added:

And what is peculiar to the sixth link must be recorded: in the other five places the principle came on its own or inside a scene. Here it is set between two other principles — before it, the requital's return to the person; after it, the condition of the messenger.

I give this as my own reading: al-Isrāʾ does not expound the principle — it seats it inside a system. And it does so just eight verses after the two periods of a people have been recounted in the sūra's second block. The sūra thus closes off, with its own hand, the blanket ruling a reader of that account of a people might draw from it.

"We do not punish until We have sent a messenger."

This principle has been treated in two other places, and I rely on them:

It was recorded at 28/59 in al-Qaṣaṣ that those two verses "state the same principle from two directions"; al-Isrāʾ adds the third direction.

And the difference here is worth recording: in al-Qaṣaṣ the subject is destruction (collective annihilation in this world), here it is punishment — and the verb is kept broad. The same principle occurred at 25/36-40 in al-Furqān as well, in the form "to each of them We gave examples" (wa kullan ḍarabnā lahu'l-amthāl).

I record this as my own reading: the principle is repeated in four sūras with four different words. The common point is always the same: the ruling begins after the knowledge has arrived.

Wa idhā aradnā an nuhlika qaryatan amarnā mutrafīhā fa-fasaqū fīhā fa-ḥaqqa ʿalayha'l-qawlu fa-dammarnāhā tadmīrā · Wa kam ahlaknā mina'l-qurūni min baʿdi Nūḥ, wa kafā bi-rabbika bi-dhunūbi ʿibādihi khabīran baṣīrā

"When We will to destroy a town, We command those in it who live in ease; they transgress in it; so the word falls due against it, and We level it utterly. How many generations We have destroyed since Noah! Your Lord suffices as one aware of His servants' sins, and seeing them."

This is one of the most disputed expressions in the Qurʾān, and the disagreement is not to be concealed. The difference runs at two separate levels: at the level of the reading and at the level of the sense.

Differences of variant reading — what is transmitted:

These readings are transmitted in the sources; I do not go into the detail of which belongs to which authority, because it would not be right for me to make an attribution of which I am not certain.

The disagreement at the level of sense — taken on the widespread reading (amarnā):

All four are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But this record is common to all the readings and can be verified from the text: the subject of the verb of transgression in the sentence is they — fa-fasaqū. Whichever reading is taken, the party that does the deed does not change.

I record this as an observation about the structure, not as a ruling.

The word has been treated in three places in this commentary, and I rely on them:

And in the record in al-Wāqiʿa this verse (al-Isrāʾ 17/16) had already been named as an example; it had been quoted at 43/23 in al-Zukhruf as well. The circle closes here, in the word's own place.

The root ت-ر-ف: to grow soft amid abundance, to be raised in indulgence. Mutraf — a passive participle: one who has let ease spoil him. That the pattern is passive is worth recording: the person is not spoiling himself, he is being spoiled.

I record this as an observation about the language: the pattern says that ease works an effect upon the person. And this requires a record, per the method (Method): the verse issues no ruling about wealth, it describes a state. The same record was entered in al-Zukhruf.

"And so the word fell due against that town."

The order of the sentence must be recorded, and this is an observation about the structure: the destruction comes after the deed. The order is: will → command → transgression → the word falling due → ruin.

The verse thus does not break the condition of the fifteenth verse (ḥattā nabʿatha rasūlā) — it comes after it and is built upon it. That the two verses stand side by side is the sūra's own arrangement.

Man kāna yurīdu'l-ʿājilata ʿajjalnā lahu fīhā mā nashāʾu li-man nurīdu thumma jaʿalnā lahu jahannama yaṣlāhā madhmūman madḥūrā · Wa man arāda'l-ākhirata wa saʿā lahā saʿyahā wa huwa muʾminun fa-ulāʾika kāna saʿyuhum mashkūrā · Kullan numiddu hāʾulāʾi wa hāʾulāʾi min ʿaṭāʾi rabbik, wa mā kāna ʿaṭāʾu rabbika maḥẓūrā · Unẓur kayfa faḍḍalnā baʿḍahum ʿalā baʿḍ, wa la'l-ākhiratu akbaru darajātin wa akbaru tafḍīlā

"Whoever wants what comes at once, We hasten to him therein whatever We will, for whomever We will; then We assign him Hell, which he enters, blamed and cast out. And whoever wants the hereafter and strives for it with the striving it deserves, and is a believer — the striving of such as these is met with thanks. To all of them — to these and to those — We give of your Lord's bestowal; and your Lord's bestowal is withheld from no one. Look how We have favoured some of them over others! Yet the hereafter is greater in ranks and greater in favour."

The word is from the same root as ʿajūl in the eleventh verse (ع-ج-ل).

The same root, once a disposition and once a goal. This is a link that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as my own reading: the sūra first names the disposition, then shows what that disposition chooses.

The two sentences look symmetrical but are not, and the difference must be recorded:

In the first arm there is only wanting; in the second there is wanting + striving + faith.

And the two qualifications in the first arm are worth recording: mā nashāʾu (as much as We will) and li-man nurīd (to whomever We will). The requital of the immediate desire is thus guaranteed neither in amount nor in recipient. There is no such qualification in the second arm.

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the number of qualifications in the two sentences: the verse says that the short-term goal is the less certain of the two. A result the reverse of what one expects.

The root س-ع-ي was treated at 53/39 in al-Najm (wa an laysa li'l-insāni illā mā saʿā), and this verse was already named there: it was recorded there that the Qurʾān's ruling on saʿy comes in two parts — you have nothing but your striving (al-Najm 53/39), and where the striving goes matters (al-Isrāʾ 17/19). I rely on that treatment.

The construction here must be recorded: saʿā lahā saʿyahā — "he strove for it with the striving that befits it."

The pronoun (-hā) attaches to the striving: the hereafter's own striving. The verse thus makes a condition not of the amount of the striving but of its kind. I record this as an observation about the structure.

"To all of them — to these and to those — We give."

Having separated the two groups, the twentieth verse establishes something they share: the worldly bestowal is given to both sides.

مَحْظُورًا — root ح-ظ-ر: to fence round, to enclose, to forbid. Ḥaẓīra — a pen, an enclosed place. The word thus means "barred, fenced in".

I record this as an observation, and its support is the concrete sense of the word: the verse says that no fence is drawn round the bestowal. What is given in this world is thus not apportioned according to belief.

And the twenty-first verse enters a qualification on this shared thing: wa la'l-ākhiratu akbaru darajāt. Read together, the two verses say: in this world there is a difference, but the difference is not the measure.

Lā tajʿal maʿa'llāhi ilāhan ākhara fa-taqʿuda madhmūman makhdhūlā

"Do not set up another god alongside God; or you will be left sitting, blamed and forsaken."

The twenty-second verse is the threshold stone of the list of commands that will run to the thirty-ninth verse — and the end of the list will close with the same sentence:

The same prohibition at both ends of the list. This is a frame that can be verified within the sūra (in Arabic rhetoric it is called taṣdīr: the repetition at the end of the expression that opened the section).

I record this as my own reading: the list is made up of moral rules — but at both its ends stands tawḥīd. The moral items are thus given not on their own but inside a frame.

The choice of verb is striking, and the lexicographers dwell on it: qaʿada — to sit.

I record this as an observation about the language: in Arabic this verb is used figuratively for "to be left in a state, to settle into it". And its opposite is standing upright (ق-و-م) — that is, the root of aqwam in the ninth verse.

Two opposite postures, thirteen verses apart. I give this as my own reading; its support is the opposition of the two roots in Arabic.

مَخْذُولًا — root خ-ذ-ل: to cut off help, to leave alone at the very moment of need. The root was treated at 25/29 in al-Furqān (wa kāna'l-shayṭānu li'l-insāni khadhūlā). I do not repeat it here.

The difference here must be recorded: in al-Furqān khadhūl (the one who forsakes) was in the active pattern and was used of Satan. Here it is makhdhūl (the one forsaken) — the passive pattern, and used of the human being. The same root, at the two ends of the verb, in two sūras.

Wa qaḍā rabbuka allā taʿbudū illā iyyāhu wa bi'l-wālidayni iḥsānā, immā yablughanna ʿindaka'l-kibara aḥaduhumā aw kilāhumā fa-lā taqul lahumā uffin wa lā tanharhumā wa qul lahumā qawlan karīmā · Wa'khfiḍ lahumā janāḥa'l-dhulli mina'l-raḥmati wa qul rabbi'rḥamhumā kamā rabbayānī ṣaghīrā

"Your Lord has decreed that you serve none but Him, and that you show kindness to parents. If one of them, or both, reaches old age with you, do not say to them so much as 'ugh', do not rebuke them, and speak to them a gracious word. And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy, and say: 'My Lord! Have mercy on them, as they nurtured me when I was small.'"

The same root (ق-ض-ي) had been used in the fourth verse as well: wa qaḍaynā ilā banī Isrāʾīl.

The difference of particle between the two occurrences separates the senses. I record this as an observation about the structure.

After tawḥīd come the parents directly — not an act of worship.

This sequence was treated at 2/83 in al-Baqara, and the order of the seven-item covenant was drawn out there: service → parents → kin → the orphan → the poor → a good word to people → prayer and alms. It was also recorded there: "al-Isrāʾ 17/23 and what follows is the closest thing to it", and "the first concrete counterpart of service is not a ritual but the treatment of the one nearest to you." I rely on that treatment and close the circle here.

Setting the two lists side by side makes the overlap verifiable from the text:

Two sūras give the same sequence to two different communities.

The word is not a noun but a noun standing in for a verb (ism fiʿl): a sound conveying discomfort, weariness, annoyance. The lexicographers also explain the word by concrete equivalents such as "the dirt under a fingernail" or "dust blown off with a puff"; the common point is what is very small and of no account.

The word was treated at 46/17 in al-Aḥqāf, and this very verse was pointed to there: wa'lladhī qāla li-wālidayhi uffin lakumā — there it was spoken out of a person's own mouth. And it was recorded there: "the smallest utterance forbidden there comes here as the first sentence of a portrait."

The two verses can now be set opposite one another, and the circle closes:

The same word: in one place it is committed, in the other forbidden. And that the two sūras do this in a way that completes each other is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

And the threshold of the prohibition is worth recording. I give this as my own reading, and its support is the smallness of the word: the verse does not begin with "do not shout" or "do not insult". It begins with the smallest sound of annoyance. Then comes lā tanharhumā (do not rebuke), and then the positive command: qul lahumā qawlan karīmā.

There are thus three steps: forbidding even the sound → forbidding the behaviour → saying what is to be put in its place.

نَهَرَ — root ن-ه-ر: to drive off with a harsh shout, to rebuke. (The same root is connected with nahr — a river; the shared picture is flowing away with force.) The root was treated at 93/10 in al-Ḍuḥā (wa ammā'l-sāʾila fa-lā tanhar).

And the two verses can be set side by side: in al-Ḍuḥā it was the one who asks who was not to be rebuked; in al-Isrāʾ it is the parents. The same verb, for two different protected parties.

"Lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy."

It is one of the most densely visual idioms in the Qurʾān.

The idiom of janāḥ (wing) was treated at 28/32 in al-Qaṣaṣ, and it was recorded there: when the word is used of a human being it means "arm, side"; the lexicographers explain the idiom as a person's gathering himself, coming out of a shudder of fear, and rest it on the picture of a bird spreading its wings when startled and folding them when calm. I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded, and it is a difference of construction: in al-Qaṣaṣ the command was wa'ḍmum ilayka janāḥak ("draw your wing in to yourself") — inward. Here the command is wa'khfiḍ lahumā janāḥak ("lower your wing to them") — outward and downward.

The same limb, two different movements. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

And a counterpart of the same idiom is found in al-Shuʿarāʾ (wa'khfiḍ janāḥaka li-mani'ttabaʿaka mina'l-muʾminīn — 26/215); but since al-Shuʿarāʾ at present covers the range 26/1-82 in the index, that verse has not yet been analysed. The difference between the usage in al-Shuʿarāʾ and the one in al-Isrāʾ will be taken up when its turn comes: there those addressed are the believers, here the parents.

ٱلذُّلّ — root ذ-ل-ل: to bow the neck, to grow soft. The lexicographers separate two branches of the root, and this distinction is indispensable here:

In the verse dhull occurs inside a construct (the dispute over reading it with kasra rather than ḍamma is also transmitted), and immediately after, its source is named: mina'l-raḥma — "out of mercy".

This addition is worth recording, and I give it as my own reading: the verse specifies the source of the lowering. What is asked for is not a bending that comes of fear or of necessity, but a bending that comes of mercy. Had the qualification not been entered, the idiom could have been read otherwise.

"As they nurtured me when I was small."

The root ر-ب-و / ر-ب-ب: to raise, to nurture, to increase. The name Rabb is connected with this root as well — and this link was treated in al-Fātiḥa.

I record this as an observation about the language, and its support is the word itself: in the prayer, while the Lord is being addressed, a verb from the same root is used for what the parents did: rabbayānī. Within one sentence, that is, Rabb and rabbayā stand side by side.

And the structure of the prayer is worth recording: the child asks not for his own mercy but for God's mercy. The verse thus implicitly grants that the debt cannot be paid, and refers the request upward. I give this as my own reading; its support is the one to whom the prayer is addressed.

And the word ṣaghīrā (when I was small) sets up an opposition with al-kibar (old age) in the twenty-third verse:

Two verses mark the two ends of the same relationship with two words. This is a symmetry that can be verified within the sūra.

Rabbukum aʿlamu bimā fī nufūsikum, in takūnū ṣāliḥīna fa-innahū kāna li'l-awwābīna ghafūrā

"Your Lord knows best what is in your souls. If you are righteous — then truly He is forgiving to those who keep turning back."

The verse comes immediately after the command about parents, and this placement must be recorded.

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the position of the verse: conduct towards parents is a field that can be checked from outside — words, tone of voice, behaviour. Immediately after, the verse looks inward: bimā fī nufūsikum. The state behind the outward behaviour is thus named.

And a door of excuse is opened: in takūnū ṣāliḥīn — if the person is well-intentioned, shortcomings can be forgiven.

أَوَّاب — root أ-و-ب: to return, to come back. Awwāb is an intensive form: one who returns much, who keeps returning.

The root was treated in several places in Ṣād (innahu awwāb, of David (Dāwūd) and of Job (Ayyūb)) and occurred at 50/32 in Qāf (li-kulli awwābin ḥafīẓ). I do not repeat it here.

The choice of the word here is worth recording: the verse does not say tāʾibīn (those who repent), it says awwābīn. The intensive form states that the returning happens not once but again and again.

I record this as an observation: the relationship with parents is a relationship that lasts a lifetime, and it contains repeated failings. The word chosen makes room for a repeated return.

Wa āti dha'l-qurbā ḥaqqahu wa'l-miskīna wa'bna'l-sabīli wa lā tubadhdhir tabdhīrā · Inna'l-mubadhdhirīna kānū ikhwāna'l-shayāṭīn, wa kāna'l-shayṭānu li-rabbihi kafūrā

"Give the kinsman his due, and the poor and the wayfarer; and do not squander in squandering. For those who squander have become the brothers of the satans; and Satan is deeply ungrateful to his Lord."

The choice of word must be recorded, and this is an observation about the structure: the verse does not say "give to him", it says "give him his due".

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the word itself: the word ḥaqq makes what is given the property of the one who receives it. The giver is thus not making a donation — he is paying a debt. And this changes the moral tone of the act of giving entirely: what is described is a giving that produces no sense of obligation.

The same structure was treated at 70/24-25 in al-Maʿārij (wa'lladhīna fī amwālihim ḥaqqun maʿlūm) and at 51/19 in al-Dhāriyāt (wa fī amwālihim ḥaqqun li'l-sāʾili wa'l-maḥrūm). In all three places the same word is used.

The root: to scatter seed. Badhr — seed. Form II (badhdhara) conveys intensity: to spend by scattering, by strewing about.

I record this as an observation about the language, and its support is the concrete sense of the root: at the core of the word lies the scattering of seed on the soil. Seed, once sown, does not stay where it is put — it scatters. And the lexicographers tie the word's note of censure not to the seed's being scattered in its place but to its being scattered at random.

Now the difference from isrāf — this is a distinction the classical sources dwell on, and I transmit it:

The widespread explanation is this, and I give it as a transmitted distinction: isrāf is exceeding the measure in a lawful place; tabdhīr is spending in the wrong place even when the amount is small. I transmit this distinction as it is commonly stated in the classical sources; not as a settled ruling of linguistics.

And at 25/67 in al-Furqān (wa'lladhīna idhā anfaqū lam yusrifū wa lam yaqturū wa kāna bayna dhālika qawāmā) both extremes were rejected together — isrāf and iqtār (stinting). I rely on that treatment throughout.

And the way the two sūras set up the measure can be compared:

The two sūras set up the same measure, but al-Isrāʾ divides it between two separate verses and gives the second by way of an image. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

The construction looks harsh, and what it says must be recorded.

In Arabic the idiom "to be someone's brother" is used for sharing the same disposition. It conveys likeness, not lineage.

And the verse gives the ground immediately after: wa kāna'l-shayṭānu li-rabbihi kafūrā — "Satan is deeply ungrateful to his Lord."

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the ground itself: the common point is ingratitude. Squandering is placed in the verse not as a fault of budgeting but as a failure to know the worth of what has been given. The axis of the censure is thus not economy but recognition.

The "covering" core of the root ك-ف-ر was treated in al-Kāfirūn and in al-Muddaththir. I do not repeat it here.

Wa immā tuʿriḍanna ʿanhumu'btighāʾa raḥmatin min rabbika tarjūhā fa-qul lahum qawlan maysūrā · Wa lā tajʿal yadaka maghlūlatan ilā ʿunuqika wa lā tabsuṭhā kulla'l-basṭi fa-taqʿuda malūman maḥsūrā · Inna rabbaka yabsuṭu'l-rizqa li-man yashāʾu wa yaqdir, innahū kāna bi-ʿibādihi khabīran baṣīrā

"If you must turn away from them while awaiting a mercy from your Lord that you hope for, then at the least speak to them a gentle word. Do not make your hand chained to your neck, nor open it altogether — or you will be left sitting, blamed and stripped bare. Your Lord spreads provision wide for whom He will, and measures it out. He is aware of His servants, and He sees them."

That the verse exists at all is worth recording.

I give this as my own reading, and its support is where the verse stands: the twenty-sixth verse commanded giving. The twenty-eighth verse regulates the case in which there is nothing to give.

The list, that is, does not issue the command and pass on — it also regulates the state in which the command cannot be carried out. And even in that state an obligation is left: qawlan maysūrā.

مَّيْسُورًا — root ي-س-ر: ease. Maysūr — made easy, gentle.

And the two commands about speech can be compared:

The two adjectives differ, and the difference comes from the kind of relationship. I record this as an observation.

The verse gives the two extremes of conduct in two images, and both images are of the hand:

The root غ-ل-ل: a ring or a chain put round the neck or the wrist. Ghull — a yoke. The root was named at 69/30-32 in al-Ḥāqqa (thumma fī silsilatin) and in al-Insān.

And the word ʿunuq (neck) occurs for the second time in the sūra:

The same organ, once a carrier and once an obstruction. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

مَحْسُورًا — root ح-س-ر: to be laid open, to be stripped bare; and to be worn out until strength is gone. The lexicographers explain the word by "a mount broken down from travelling the road".

The root was treated with the sense of ḥasra (regret) at 39/56 in al-Zumar and at 35/8 in Fāṭir; it occurred as yawmu'l-ḥasra at 19/39 in Maryam. The branch here is a different one: weariness and depletion.

I record this as an observation about the language: both extremes arrive at the same result — fa-taqʿuda (you will be left sitting). And this verb is the very one used for setting up another god in the twenty-second verse. The sūra ends three separate faults with the same verb.

The thirtieth verse gives the two extremes of the twenty-ninth a ground: yabsuṭu'l-rizqa li-man yashāʾu wa yaqdir.

And the choice of verb must be recorded: yabsuṭu — the same root (ب-س-ط) as tabsuṭhā in the twenty-ninth verse.

The same verb, once a prohibition and once a statement. I record this as my own reading, and its support is the repetition of the verb: the "opening without limit" forbidden to man is named in the continuation of the verse as God's own act, and even there a qualification is entered — wa yaqdir (He measures it out). Opening without limit, that is, is nowhere without measure.

And the root ق-د-ر (measure) recorded at 25/2 in al-Furqān does the same work here.

Wa lā taqtulū awlādakum khashyata imlāq, naḥnu narzuquhum wa iyyākum, inna qatlahum kāna khiṭʾan kabīrā

"Do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Killing them is truly a great offence."

The verse comes immediately after the verses on squandering and miserliness — that is, inside the discussion of money.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the sequence: the verse places the killing of a child not as an item of morals but as the outcome of a calculation about money. The ground is already inside the verse: khashyata imlāq — the fear of poverty.

The choice of word must be recorded: khashya — fear, not something that has come to pass.

The verse thus does not speak of someone who has fallen into poverty; it speaks of someone who fears the possibility of falling into poverty.

إِمْلَٰق — root م-ل-ق: to be left with nothing in hand, to be used up entirely. The lexicographers also connect the root with "growing soft and melting away".

This subject was treated at 81/8-9 in al-Takwīr (wa idha'l-mawʾūdatu suʾilat · bi-ayyi dhanbin qutilat), and this verse was already pointed to there. The record entered there holds exactly, and I rely on it:

al-Isrāʾ 17/31 and al-Anʿām 6/151 say "your children" — they specify no sex. The Qurʾān appears to be distinguishing two separate phenomena: the killing of a child on account of poverty, and the killing of a girl on account of shame. The mawʾūda in al-Takwīr is feminine, and names the second.

The two verses can be set side by side:

And something else recorded there in al-Takwīr works here too: in al-Takwīr the question was put to the one killed (bi-ayyi dhanbin qutilat — "for what offence were you killed?"). Here the address is directly to the one who kills. The same phenomenon, addressed to two different parties in two sūras.

The word order of the sentence is striking, and the lexicographers dwell on it: first them, then you.

And the same ruling is ordered the other way round at al-Anʿām 6/151: naḥnu narzuqukum wa iyyāhum — "you, and them too".

It is transmitted that in the classical commentaries this difference is tied to the difference between the two situations: the person actually in poverty thinks first of his own livelihood, while the person who is afraid thinks of a burden that does not yet exist. I transmit this explanation as a transmitted account; but that the order of the two verses differs is a datum that can be verified from the text.

خِطْـًٔا — root خ-ط-أ: to miss the target, to err; and to commit an offence deliberately. The lexicographers record the difference between khiṭʾ and khaṭaʾ: the first involves intent, the second the absence of it.

That the pattern khiṭʾ is the one chosen in the verse is worth recording: the word takes the act out of the class of "erring" and names it an offence committed knowingly.

Wa lā taqrabu'l-zinā innahū kāna fāḥishatan wa sāʾa sabīlā

"Do not go near fornication. It is an indecency and an evil way."

This pattern was treated in three places in al-Baqara, and I rely on it. It was recorded there:

The prohibition is framed not as "do not eat" but as "do not go near". The limit, that is, begins not at the act itself but at the distance that leads to the act.

And three verses were placed in the same family there; the fourth is added here from within this sūra:

This verse (al-Isrāʾ 17/32) had already been named as an example at 2/187 in al-Baqara; the circle closes here, in the word's own place. And the fourth link comes two verses later in this same sūra: the orphan's property.

I record this as an observation about the structure: al-Isrāʾ is the only place that uses this pattern twice in succession — and the two subjects differ (the body and property). The pattern is thus not peculiar to a single field.

I draw no legal ruling from this verse. Rulings belonging to criminal law are taken up separately in other verses of the Qurʾān and in the literature of jurisprudence; no legal ruling is issued in this commentary. What is treated here is what the verse does at the level of language and word order.

And this too must be recorded: the verse issues no ruling about a person or a group — it speaks about an act and about the distance that leads to it. Per the method, this distinction is preserved.

The root ف-ح-ش: what is foul enough to exceed all measure, an ugliness that oversteps the limit. The root was treated at 53/32 in al-Najm (kabāʾira'l-ithmi wa'l-fawāḥish) and at 42/37 in al-Shūrā.

وَسَآءَ سَبِيلًا — "and an evil way."

I record this as an observation, and its support is the word itself: the verse issues two judgements — one on the quality of the act (fāḥisha), the other on its direction (sabīl — a way). The act is thus weighed not only as a point but as a course.

And the word sabīl occurs often in this sūra (9, 32, 42, 48, 72, 84, 110). In one of the last verses of the sūra the same word returns in a command: wa'btaghi bayna dhālika sabīlā (110). This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.

Wa lā taqtulu'l-nafsa'llatī ḥarrama'llāhu illā bi'l-ḥaqq, wa man qutila maẓlūman fa-qad jaʿalnā li-waliyyihi sulṭānan fa-lā yusrif fi'l-qatl, innahū kāna manṣūrā

"Do not kill the soul that God has made inviolable, save by right. And whoever is killed wrongfully — We have given his next of kin an authority; but let him not go to excess in killing. He has already been helped."

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the presence of the third sentence: immediately after granting an exception, the verse sets a limit on the exception itself.

The structure of the text is thus: prohibition → the case that is permitted → the limit on the permission too. And without the third step the second would have been left open-ended.

The root س-ل-ط: to prevail, to hold power and authority. Sulṭān — a proof, or an authority.

The word occurs several times in this sūra (33, 65, 80), and in the three occurrences in three different senses:

The same word, in three different roles. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.

The root س-ر-ف: to exceed the measure. The root was treated at 25/67 in al-Furqān (lam yusrifū wa lam yaqturū), and there it stood in the context of spending.

The usage here must be recorded, and the difference is large: in al-Furqān isrāf was in spending, here it is in retaliation. The same root, once for money and once for a life.

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the shared sense of the root: in both places what is forbidden is exceeding the measure. The verse thus sets a measure even for the one who has a right.

In the classical sources there has been dispute over what this "excess" covers (killing one who was not the perpetrator, killing more than one person, interfering with the corpse). No legal ruling is issued in this commentary; what the verse lays down in its own wording is that the permission is not without limit.

Wa lā taqrabū māla'l-yatīmi illā bi'llatī hiya aḥsanu ḥattā yablugha ashuddahu, wa awfū bi'l-ʿahd, inna'l-ʿahda kāna masʾūlā · Wa awfu'l-kayla idhā kiltum wa zinū bi'l-qisṭāsi'l-mustaqīm, dhālika khayrun wa aḥsanu taʾwīlā

"Do not go near the orphan's property, save in the way that is best, until he reaches his full strength. And fulfil the covenant; for the covenant will be asked about. Give full measure when you measure, and weigh with the true balance. That is better, and better in its outcome."

The thirty-fourth verse uses the same pattern as the thirty-second: lā taqrabū. And the exception here must be recorded: illā bi'llatī hiya aḥsan — "save in the way that is best".

I record this as an observation about the structure: the prohibition is not absolute; it is opened by a qualification. And the qualification is framed not as "what is permissible" but as "what is best" — that is, the highest threshold.

أَشُدّ — root ش-د-د: strength, soundness. The word was treated at 46/15 in al-Aḥqāf (the age at which the strength of body and of mind is complete) and it was recorded there that no ruling on an age limit is issued in this commentary. I rely on that treatment; the same record holds here.

The root و-ف-ي and the word ʿahd were treated at 2/40 in al-Baqara, and it was recorded there: the root is "to complete, to pay in full" (wafāʾ comes from it), and at the core of the root ʿahd lies "to look back again and again" — that is, a covenant is not a word given once and then forgotten but a bond that must be watched over continually. I rely on that treatment.

The addition here must be recorded: inna'l-ʿahda kāna masʾūlā — "the covenant will be asked about."

The lexicographers dwell on whom the word masʾūl refers to here, and two readings are transmitted:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The second reading belongs to the same family as the personification treated at 50/30 in Qāf, and it agrees with the thirteenth verse of this sūra as well: there too the deed was described as a portable object.

And the word masʾūl will come again two verses later: kullu ulāʾika kāna ʿanhu masʾūlā (36). The same word, once for the covenant and once for the senses. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

قِسْطَاس — the balance. That the word passed into Arabic from another language (from Greek dikastes or some similar root) has been discussed in the classical sources; I make no firm claim about its etymology. The word's kinship in sound with qisṭ (justice, a share) is also recorded.

ٱلْمُسْتَقِيم — root ق-و-م, the active participle of Form X: straightened, held upright.

And a weave of roots within the sūra is completed here — I tabulated it at the ninth verse:

The same root in three separate places in the sūra: the direction of the Book, the collapse of the human being, the uprightness of the balance. I record this as my own reading, and its support is the words of the three verses themselves.

The word occurs at 26/182 in al-Shuʿarāʾ as well (wa zinū bi'l-qisṭāsi'l-mustaqīm — as Shuʿayb's word to his people); but since al-Shuʿarāʾ at present covers the range 26/1-82 in the index, that verse has not yet been analysed. The comparison of the two places will be made when its turn comes; for now I record only this: the same sentence is in one place a prophet's word to his people, and here a general command.

And the matter of measure and weight was treated in detail in al-Muṭaffifīn (waylun li'l-muṭaffifīn). I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

The root أ-و-ل: to return, to come back to the origin. Taʾwīl — the place a thing arrives at, its outcome.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word here is not in the sense of "interpretation" but in the sense of "outcome, the place it comes back to". The verse thus places the requital of weighing truly not in the present but as something to be seen further on.

Wa lā taqfu mā laysa laka bihi ʿilm, inna'l-samʿa wa'l-baṣara wa'l-fuʾāda kullu ulāʾika kāna ʿanhu masʾūlā

"Do not fall in behind what you have no knowledge of. For hearing, sight and the heart — all of these are answerable for it."

The root: to fall in behind someone's nape (qafā), to follow his track, to go after him.

• Qafā — the nape, the back.
• Qāfiya — the end of a line in poetry; it means "what comes behind".
• Qaffā — to send one after another (at al-Baqara 2/87, wa qaffaynā min baʿdihi bi'l-rusul).

The concrete picture of the verb must be recorded, and I give this as an observation about the language: the word describes walking behind someone. The verse thus does not say "do not speak of what you do not know"; it says "do not fall in behind what you do not know".

And the difference matters: what is forbidden is not a speaking but a following. To fall in behind something involves accepting it, building a judgement on it, and acting by it.

The lexicographers dwell on the scope of the verb, and the explanations transmitted are these:

All four are transmitted and all four fit within the general sense of the verb; I do not impose a preference.

This trio has been treated in five places in this commentary, and the sixth is now added. But what must really be recorded is that the context here is different.

And I record the difference as my own reading; its support is the verbs of the six verses themselves:

In all five verses the trio occurs inside a statement that is being made — it was given, it was of no use, it was sealed, it bore witness. In al-Isrāʾ, by contrast, it occurs as the ground of a command instead. The sentence begins with inna and gives the reason for the prohibition just before it.

In five sūras, then, the senses were the thing described; in al-Isrāʾ they are the thing called to account.

And the "skin" difference recorded at 41/20 in Fuṣṣilat works here too: in Fuṣṣilat, in the scene of witness, the organ that touches the outside had been chosen; in al-Isrāʾ, in the scene of responsibility, the innermost organ (fuʾād) is kept.

أَفْـِٔدَة / فُؤَاد — root ف-ء-د: the burning of an ember. Fuʾād is the kindling, moving aspect of the heart. It was treated at 46/26 in al-Aḥqāf and in al-Wāqiʿa and al-Najm. I do not repeat it here.

The singularity here is worth recording, and this is an observation about the structure: all three words come in the singular (al-samʿ, al-baṣar, al-fuʾād) — not in the plural. In the other five verses at least one was plural. The singular is read in Arabic as a generic noun: hearing, seeing, grasping — faculties, not organs.

A grammatical point must be recorded, and the lexicographers dwell on it: the demonstrative ulāʾika is normally used in Arabic for rational beings.

Here it is used of three faculties. The lexicographers explain this in two ways, and I transmit them:

Both explanations are transmitted. But the first is consistent with the verse's own sentence, and I record this as an observation: all three are named masʾūl (responsible, asked about). And responsibility is a category belonging to rational beings.

The verse establishes an ethics of knowledge, and today this is extremely concrete.

I record this as my own reading: falling in behind an unverified report is the exact counterpart of the verse's verb (qafā — to follow a track). And the verse holds three faculties responsible: what you heard, what you saw, and what you accepted. All three are enumerated separately — that is, saying "I heard it" does not lift the responsibility.

Wa lā tamshi fi'l-arḍi maraḥā, innaka lan takhriqa'l-arḍa wa lan tablugha'l-jibāla ṭūlā · Kullu dhālika kāna sayyiʾuhu ʿinda rabbika makrūhā

"Do not walk upon the earth exultantly. You will not split the earth open, nor will you reach the mountains in height. The evil of all this is held loathsome in the sight of your Lord."

This sentence occurs at 31/18 in Luqmān in exactly the same wording: wa lā tamshi fi'l-arḍi maraḥā. It was treated there, and I rely on that treatment.

The difference between the two places must be recorded, and the difference comes from the context:

The same prohibition, one supported by a counsel and the other by a reminder of fact. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

And at 25/63 in al-Furqān the same field was given from the positive side: yamshūna ʿala'l-arḍi hawnā. Three sūras tie the manner of walking to a measure:

The root: overflowing joy, being carried out of oneself, swaying with self-importance. The lexicographers record the word both for joy spilling over and for a proud swagger.

The word stands as a circumstantial accusative (maraḥā): "exultantly" — that is, what is forbidden is not the walking but the manner of the walk.

The ground the verse gives is worth recording, and it is one of the most distinctive answers in the Qurʾān.

The verse does not censure pride as a moral fault. It says it is physically impossible for you:

The root خ-ر-ق: to rend, to bore through.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is that both sentences are physical: a proud walk is a claim in two directions at once — downward (the tread) and upward (the height). The verse meets both claims with a measure. And the measures chosen are not the man himself: the earth and the mountains.

The answer, then, is not moral but proportional. The human being is answered not by his own greatness but by being set beside the things next to him.

The thirty-eighth verse gathers the list up: kullu dhālika — "all of this".

And the construction is striking: kāna sayyiʾuhu — "the evil of it".

The lexicographers dwell on this expression, because the list does not consist of prohibitions only — there are commands in it too (kindness to parents, giving the kinsman his due, keeping full measure). And the qualification "the evil of it" leaves these outside.

I record this as an observation about the structure: rather than qualifying the list as a whole, the verse sorts within it. The text itself, that is, distinguishes among the items of its own list.

مَكْرُوهًا — root ك-ر-ه: to find distasteful. The root was treated at 46/15 in al-Aḥqāf and at 2/216 and 2/256 in al-Baqara.

A record required by the method: this word is also used in jurisprudence as a technical term (makrūh). The usage in the verse is the lexical one, and I draw no ruling about a juristic category from it.

Dhālika mimmā awḥā ilayka rabbuka mina'l-ḥikma, wa lā tajʿal maʿa'llāhi ilāhan ākhara fa-tulqā fī jahannama malūman madḥūrā

"These are among the things your Lord has revealed to you of wisdom. Do not set up another god alongside God; or you will be cast into Hell, blamed and driven away."

The thirty-ninth verse gives a name to the sixteen-verse list, and the name must be recorded: ḥikma.

The root ح-ك-م: to hold back, to bridle. The lexicographers explain the concrete sense of the root by the bridle of an animal (ḥakama) — the device that keeps a horse from going the wrong way. From this come ḥukm (a binding decision) and ḥikma (the knowledge that holds one in the right place).

The root was treated at 31/12 in Luqmān (wa laqad ātaynā Luqmāna'l-ḥikma). I do not repeat it here.

And the choice of the name is worth recording. I give this as my own reading, and its support is both the sense of the root and the content of the list: most of the items in the list set a limit — do not say "ugh", do not squander, do not chain your hand, do not go near, do not go to excess, do not walk in exultation. The concrete picture of the root (the bridle) and the work of the list coincide.

And one further record: mimmā — "among the things". The list, that is, is not presented as the whole of wisdom; it is presented as a part of it. That the word conveys partitivity is a datum of the language.

I tabulated it at the twenty-second verse: the list opens with a prohibition and closes with the same prohibition.

The prohibition is exactly the same; the consequence and the attributes change.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the comparison of the two verses: in the opening the verb is sitting down of oneself (taqʿuda), in the close it is being cast (tulqā) — in one the person is the subject, in the other the object. And the second of the attributes hardens in the same direction: from being forsaken to being driven away.

In saying the same prohibition twice, that is, the sūra pushes the consequence a degree further the second time. This is a difference that can be verified from the text.

No legal ruling has been issued for any of the items enumerated in this section (17/22-39). At the disputed points the views were transmitted in tables and no preference was imposed. The juristic detail of the items — amounts, conditions, penal rulings — is the subject of the literature of jurisprudence and lies outside the scope of this commentary.

A-fa-aṣfākum rabbukum bi'l-banīna wa'ttakhadha mina'l-malāʾikati ināthā, innakum la-taqūlūna qawlan ʿaẓīmā · Wa laqad ṣarrafnā fī hādha'l-qurʾāni li-yadhdhakkarū wa mā yazīduhum illā nufūrā · Qul law kāna maʿahu ālihatun kamā yaqūlūna idhan la'btaghaw ilā dhi'l-ʿarshi sabīlā · Subḥānahu wa taʿālā ʿammā yaqūlūna ʿuluwwan kabīrā

"Has your Lord singled you out for sons, and taken for Himself daughters from among the angels? You are surely uttering a monstrous word. We have turned this Qurʾān about, over and over, that they might take heed; but it only increases their aversion. Say: 'Had there been other gods with Him, as they say, they would then have sought a way to the Lord of the Throne.' Glory to Him, and He is far exalted above what they say."

The root ص-ف-و: to be clear, to be free of sediment. Ṣafwa — the purest part of a thing. Form IV (aṣfā): to pick out the best and set it apart.

The choice of verb must be recorded, and this is an observation about the structure: the verse turns the claim back upon the logic of those who make it. In their understanding a son is superior and a daughter is not. The verse does not accept that valuation — it shows that the claim is inconsistent within itself.

The same objection was treated in detail at 53/21-22 in al-Najm (a-lakumu'l-dhakaru wa lahu'l-unthā · tilka idhan qismatun ḍīzā), and this verse (al-Isrāʾ 17/40) had already been named there. I rely on that treatment. And the same claim was taken up once more at 43/16-19 in al-Zukhruf.

A record required by the method: no value judgement about women and men is drawn from these verses. The verse reports the value-ranking of those addressed and uses that ranking to show a contradiction. The same record was entered in al-Najm.

The root ص-ر-ف: to turn, to change the direction of. Form II conveys repetition and variation. The root was treated at 46/27 in al-Aḥqāf (wa ṣarrafna'l-āyāt). I do not repeat it here.

The verb occurs twice in this sūra: 41 and 89. The end of both occurrences faces the same way:

The same verb, at the two ends of the sūra, with two different negative outcomes. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

نُفُور — root ن-ف-ر: to take fright and flee. The root was treated at 35/42 in Fāṭir, and it was recorded there: the warning does not fail to take effect; it takes effect in the opposite direction. And the same word occurred at 25/60 in al-Furqān (wa zādahum nufūrā). I rely on that treatment.

The verse builds an argument in logic, and the form of the argument is worth recording.

The sentence says this: if there were other gods, they would seek a way to the Lord of the Throne.

The lexicographers differ over what the sentence says, and two readings are transmitted:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But both readings arrive at the same conclusion, and this can be verified from the text: in either case the alleged gods are not the equals of the Lord of the Throne. In one they are rivals, in the other they are in need.

And a similar argument is found at 21/22 in al-Anbiyāʾ (law kāna fīhimā ālihatun illa'llāhu la-fasadatā); but in the index that sūra at present covers the range 21/1-9. The comparison will be made when its turn comes.

Tusabbiḥu lahu'l-samāwātu'l-sabʿu wa'l-arḍu wa man fīhinn, wa in min shayʾin illā yusabbiḥu bi-ḥamdihi wa lākin lā tafqahūna tasbīḥahum, innahū kāna ḥalīman ghafūrā

"The seven heavens and the earth and all that is in them glorify Him. There is not a thing that does not glorify Him with praise. But you do not grasp their glorification. He is forbearing, much forgiving."

This verse is one of those most often used in claims of "scientific miracle", and per the method a record must be entered at the outset.

In this commentary no conclusion about physics, acoustics, vibration or the motion of particles is drawn from this verse. The ground is the verse's own sentence, and it is the strongest textual datum against the claim: wa lākin lā tafqahūna tasbīḥahum — "you do not grasp their glorification."

The verse, that is, closes off with its own sentence any claim to knowledge about itself. If it has been stated that a thing is not grasped, then producing an explanation about that thing runs against the verse's own datum.

I record this as my own reading; its support is directly the last sentence of the verse.

The root: to understand a thing in depth, to grasp its inner face. What separates it from ʿilm in Arabic is the depth of the grasp.

The choice of verb must be recorded, and this is a datum of the language: the verse does not say lā tasmaʿūn (you do not hear), nor does it say lā taʿlamūn (you do not know). It says "you cannot grasp it in its depth".

I record this as an observation about the language: this choice of verb says that the matter is not one of perception but of the capacity to grasp.

The root س-ب-ح: to move by gliding through water or air, to flow along. The root was treated at 79/3 in al-Nāziʿāt (wa'l-sābiḥāti sabḥā) and at 36/40 in Yāsīn (kullun fī falakin yasbaḥūn). I do not repeat it here.

And the first word of the sūra was from the same root: subḥāna'lladhī asrā (1).

The root occurs in five places in the sūra and in five different mouths. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and I record this as my own reading: the sūra opens with a sentence of glorification, states the universality of glorification at its middle, and towards its end puts the same sentence into two different mouths.

The close of the verse is unexpected, and it is worth recording.

After it has been stated that everything glorifies Him, the expected close would be a name of majesty. The two names that come are ḥalīm and ghafūr.

The root ح-ل-م: not to hurry, not to grow angry, to grant respite. The root was named in al-Baqara (inna'llāha ghafūrun ḥalīm).

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the relation of the two names to the context: at the very place where it says that everything glorifies Him, the verse gives two names for those who do not glorify. The sentence thus says, by implication: within the whole of existence there is one exception, and towards that exception there is no haste.

Wa idhā qaraʾta'l-qurʾāna jaʿalnā baynaka wa bayna'lladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi'l-ākhirati ḥijāban mastūrā · Wa jaʿalnā ʿalā qulūbihim akinnatan an yafqahūhu wa fī ādhānihim waqrā … Naḥnu aʿlamu bimā yastamiʿūna bihi idh yastamiʿūna ilayka wa idh hum najwā idh yaqūlu'l-ẓālimūna in tattabiʿūna illā rajulan masḥūrā · Unẓur kayfa ḍarabū laka'l-amthāla fa-ḍallū fa-lā yastaṭīʿūna sabīlā

"When you recite the Qurʾān, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a veiled curtain. And over their hearts We place coverings that keep them from grasping it, and in their ears a heaviness… We know very well what they listen for when they listen to you, and what the wrongdoers say when they whisper among themselves: 'You are following none but a bewitched man.' Look what likenesses they have coined for you — and so they have gone astray and can find no way!"

The construction is a place the lexicographers dwell on: mastūr is a passive participle — "veiled". Can a curtain itself be veiled?

Two explanations are transmitted:

Both explanations are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But the second reading agrees with the context of the verse, and I record this as an observation: the barrier is not physical. Those addressed hear the Qurʾān — indeed the forty-seventh verse says explicitly that they listen. The barrier, then, is not in the hearing but in the grasping.

أَكِنَّة — root ك-ن-ن: to cover, to conceal. Kināna — a quiver for arrows. وَقْر — a heaviness in the ear, deafness.

The same two words occurred at 41/5 in Fuṣṣilat from the mouths of those addressed themselves: qulūbunā fī akinnatin mimmā tadʿūnā ilayhi wa fī ādhāninā waqr — "our hearts are under coverings, and in our ears is a heaviness." It was treated there, and it was recorded there that those addressed were declaring themselves deaf.

The two verses can now be set opposite one another, and the circle closes:

The same two words, in one place a claim and in the other a finding. I record this as my own reading, and its support is the verbal overlap of the two verses: the text takes the other party's own description of itself and confirms it.

And it was recorded that the same structure was treated at 41/44 in Fuṣṣilat as well; I rely on that treatment.

"When you mention your Lord alone in the Qurʾān, they turn their backs in aversion."

The qualification must be recorded: waḥdahu — "alone".

I record this as an observation, and its support is the word itself: what provokes the reaction is not that God is mentioned — but that He alone is mentioned. The verse marks the exact place of the objection.

And the same structure was treated at 39/45 in al-Zumar (wa idhā dhukira'llāhu waḥdahu'shmaʾazzat qulūbu'lladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi'l-ākhira). The two verses describe the same reaction with the same qualification — and in both the expression "those who do not believe in the hereafter" occurs. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

نَجْوَىٰ — root ن-ج-و: to whisper together, to speak in secret. The root was treated in detail in al-Mujādala. I do not repeat it here.

There is a point of word order in the verse: wa idh hum najwā — instead of "while they whisper together" the verbal noun itself is used. In Arabic this conveys intensification: as though they were whispering itself.

مَسْحُورًا — "bewitched".

The word occurs twice in this sūra, and the subject of the two occurrences differs:

The same accusation, at the two ends of the sūra, to two different messengers. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be taken up separately at verse 101.

I record this as my own reading: the sūra records the word the other party uses, and a hundred verses later shows a far older instance of the same word. The objection, that is, is not new.

"They have coined likenesses for you."

One such likeness had already been reported in the forty-seventh verse: rajulan masḥūrā. The Qurʾān records other labels of this kind elsewhere too (poet, soothsayer, madman — treated in al-Ṭūr, al-Ḥāqqa and al-Takwīr).

And the outcome of the verse must be recorded: fa-ḍallū fa-lā yastaṭīʿūna sabīlā — "they have gone astray, and can find no way."

This sentence occurs verbatim at 25/9 in al-Furqān (fa-ḍallū fa-lā yastaṭīʿūna sabīlā) and stands there in the same context: after the likenesses ascribed to the Prophet. I rely on that treatment.

The two sūras close the same section with the same sentence. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

I record this as an observation: what is recorded in both places is the same — the effort to label leads the labeller nowhere. Lā yastaṭīʿūna sabīlā: no way is found, for all the abundance of likenesses.

Wa qālū a-idhā kunnā ʿiẓāman wa rufātan a-innā la-mabʿūthūna khalqan jadīdā · Qul kūnū ḥijāratan aw ḥadīdā · Aw khalqan mimmā yakburu fī ṣudūrikum, fa-sayaqūlūna man yuʿīdunā, quli'lladhī faṭarakum awwala marra, fa-sayunghiḍūna ilayka ruʾūsahum wa yaqūlūna matā huwa, qul ʿasā an yakūna qarībā · Yawma yadʿūkum fa-tastajībūna bi-ḥamdihi wa taẓunnūna in labithtum illā qalīlā

"They said: 'When we have become bones and crumbled dust, are we then to be raised in a new creation?' Say: 'Be stones, or iron; or some other creature that looms greater in your minds!' They will say: 'Who will bring us back?' Say: 'He who brought you into being the first time.' Then they will shake their heads at you and say: 'When?' Say: 'Perhaps it is near. On the day He calls you, you will answer Him with praise, and you will think you tarried only a little.'"

رُفَات — root ر-ف-ت: to crumble, to grind to pieces. The word describes the state in which even the bones have fallen apart into dust.

I record this as an observation: the objection is built in two steps — first ʿiẓām (bones), then rufāt (dust). The objector, that is, picks the hardest case. And in its answer the verse will carry that choice further still.

The answer does not reject the claim — it enlarges it.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the command itself: to the one who says "if we become dust, how shall we be raised?", it is said "be stones, be iron". The difficulty is accepted and then increased.

And the third step goes further still: aw khalqan mimmā yakburu fī ṣudūrikum — "or some other creature that looms greater in your breasts (the hardest thing you can conceive)."

The same method was treated at 25/13-14 in al-Furqān — there the cry was not forbidden but multiplied. I rely on that treatment: in both places the answer accepts the other party's proposal and gives it back increased.

And one further record: in the verse the construction mimmā yakburu fī ṣudūrikum gives nothing a name. It leaves a gap and opens it for the one addressed to fill with his own conception. I give this as an observation about the structure.

The root ف-ط-ر: to split open, to open for the first time. The root was analysed in detail in Fāṭir, in connection with the name of that sūra, and was treated in al-Infiṭār. I do not repeat it here.

The form of the argument is worth recording, and the same argument was tabulated at 19/9 and 19/67 in Maryam: khalaqnāhu min qablu wa lam yaku shayʾā. It was recorded there: the same argument, once against a glad tiding and once against an objection.

The difference in al-Isrāʾ must be recorded: in Maryam the argument took the form "We created him when he was nothing"; here it takes the form "He who created you the first time" (awwala marra). The stress falls not on nothingness but on priority: a work that has been done once already.

The root ن-غ-ض: to shake a thing, to move it about (especially the head, in mockery or in astonishment).

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

I record this as an observation: the verse records not a word but a gesture. The spoken objection had already been given in the forty-ninth verse; here the reaction given by the body is described. The places where the Qurʾān records the reaction of those addressed in this much detail are few.

"On the day He calls you, you will answer Him with praise."

The sentence is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading: the verse says that the answering will be with praise — including from those who objected.

The sūra thus states that the very mouth that objects in the forty-ninth verse will give praise in the fifty-second. The distance between them is three verses.

وَتَظُنُّونَ إِن لَّبِثْتُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا — "you will think you tarried only a little."

The same perception was treated at 30/55 in al-Rūm (yuqsimu'l-mujrimūna mā labithū ghayra sāʿa). I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation: the verse records not the measure of the time that has passed but the perception of it. The verb is taẓunnūna (you will think) — supposition, not knowledge.

Wa qul li-ʿibādī yaqūlu'llatī hiya aḥsan, inna'l-shayṭāna yanzaghu baynahum, inna'l-shayṭāna kāna li'l-insāni ʿaduwwan mubīnā · Rabbukum aʿlamu bikum, in yashaʾ yarḥamkum aw in yashaʾ yuʿadhdhibkum, wa mā arsalnāka ʿalayhim wakīlā · Wa rabbuka aʿlamu biman fi'l-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ, wa laqad faḍḍalnā baʿḍa'l-nabiyyīna ʿalā baʿḍ, wa ātaynā Dāwūda zabūrā

"And tell My servants to say what is best. For Satan sows discord among them. Satan is a manifest enemy to man. Your Lord knows you best; if He wills He will have mercy on you, and if He wills He will punish you. We have not sent you as a trustee over them. Your Lord knows best whoever is in the heavens and the earth. We have favoured some of the prophets over others, and We gave David the Zabūr."

The construction is on the same pattern as allatī hiya aqwam in the ninth verse: the qualified noun elided, the adjective an elative.

The same pattern in three separate places in the sūra and in three separate fields: direction, speech, conduct. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.

I record this as my own reading: each time, the pattern sets the highest threshold. Not "what is good" but "what is best". And because in all three the qualified noun is left unspoken, the measure stays open.

The root: to goad, to provoke, to come between and spoil. The lexicographers explain the root by the goading of an animal into movement.

The root was treated at 41/36 in Fuṣṣilat (wa immā yanzaghannaka mina'l-shayṭāni nazghun fa'staʿidh bi'llāh), and something similar was named at 19/83 in Maryam (taʾuzzuhum azzā). I rely on those treatments.

And the difference here must be recorded: in Fuṣṣilat the goading is directed at the person; in al-Isrāʾ at what lies between them — yanzaghu baynahum.

The same verb, once for the inward and once for a relationship. I record this as an observation: the verse sets the outcome of an evil word not as an individual sin but as the spoiling of a relationship.

The limit of responsibility is drawn once more. A cross-sūra table of this limit was given at 28/56 in al-Qaṣaṣ; 25/43 in al-Furqān and 39/41 in al-Zumar had been added to that table too. This verse is a link on the same line.

And its link within the sūra must be recorded: in the second verse it had been said allā tattakhidhū min dūnī wakīlā.

The word occurs in four places in the sūra and in four different roles. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and I record this as my own reading: the sūra narrows the place of reliance in four steps — the taking of one, the messenger's not being one, the Lord's sufficing, and no other being found.

The same pattern had been used of human beings in the twenty-first verse: faḍḍalnā baʿḍahum ʿalā baʿḍ.

The same verb, in two different fields. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

زَبُور — root ز-ب-ر: to write, to carve into stone. Zubra — a piece of iron; zabūr — that which is written. The word is used here as the name of a book.

Quli'dʿu'lladhīna zaʿamtum min dūnihi fa-lā yamlikūna kashfa'l-ḍurri ʿankum wa lā taḥwīlā · Ulāʾika'lladhīna yadʿūna yabtaghūna ilā rabbihimu'l-wasīlata ayyuhum aqrabu wa yarjūna raḥmatahu wa yakhāfūna ʿadhābah, inna ʿadhāba rabbika kāna maḥdhūrā

"Say: 'Call upon those you allege beside Him! They have no power to remove your affliction, nor to turn it aside.' Those they call upon are themselves seeking a way to their Lord — which of them shall be nearest — and they hope for His mercy and fear His punishment. Your Lord's punishment is a thing to be guarded against."

The root ز-ع-م: to assert without proof, to suppose so. In Arabic this verb puts a distance between the speaker and what is said.

I record this as an observation about the language: in reporting the claim the verse carries an assessment along with the word. Not "what you say", that is, but "what you allege".

The verse negates two separate powers, and the two differ:

I record this as an observation: the verse does not only say "they cannot lift it". It also says "they cannot pass it on to another" — that is, even the smallest possibility of intervention is closed off.

And the word taḥwīl will come once more in the sūra, at the seventy-seventh verse: wa lā tajidu li-sunnatinā taḥwīlā.

The same word, once for incapacity and once for unchangeability. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The verse describes the state of the party that is called upon, and this is a turn the Qurʾān repeats.

The same turn was treated at 25/17 in al-Furqān, and at 46/5-6 in al-Aḥqāf and 35/14 in Fāṭir: the party called upon ends by disowning them, or is itself in need. I rely on those treatments.

The difference here must be recorded, and it is a difference of time: in al-Furqān and in al-Aḥqāf the disowning happens on the day of resurrection. In al-Isrāʾ the present state is described: they too are seeking a way now.

وَسِيلَة — root و-س-ل: the road taken to reach something, the means of drawing near.

And the construction is worth recording: ayyuhum aqrab — "which of them shall be nearest". What is described, that is, is a contest: they too are seeking nearness.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is this construction: those counted as means of nearness are themselves seeking nearness. If the intermediary needs an intermediary, the claim of intermediacy runs out within itself.

The word qurbān (that by which nearness is sought) was treated in the same field at 46/28 in al-Aḥqāf. I rely on that treatment.

Wa in min qaryatin illā naḥnu muhlikūhā qabla yawmi'l-qiyāmati aw muʿadhdhibūhā ʿadhāban shadīdā, kāna dhālika fi'l-kitābi masṭūrā · Wa mā manaʿanā an nursila bi'l-āyāti illā an kadhdhaba biha'l-awwalūn, wa ātaynā Thamūda'l-nāqata mubṣiratan fa-ẓalamū bihā, wa mā nursilu bi'l-āyāti illā takhwīfā · Wa idh qulnā laka inna rabbaka aḥāṭa bi'l-nās, wa mā jaʿalna'l-ruʾya'llatī araynāka illā fitnatan li'l-nāsi wa'l-shajarata'l-malʿūnata fi'l-qurʾān, wa nukhawwifuhum fa-mā yazīduhum illā ṭughyānan kabīrā

"There is no town but that We shall destroy it before the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with a severe punishment. This stands written in the Book. Nothing kept Us from sending the signs but that the ancients denied them. We gave Thamūd the she-camel as a sign to be seen, and they did wrong by her. We send the signs only to put men in fear. And when We said to you, 'Your Lord encompasses mankind.' The vision We showed you We made only a trial for people, and likewise the accursed tree in the Qurʾān. We put them in fear; but it serves only to increase their great insolence."

The verse answers a demand repeated several times in the sūra (this demand will be set out in detail from the ninetieth verse onward).

And the form of the ground is worth recording: the demand is not rejected; an experience is shown. Illā an kadhdhaba biha'l-awwalūn — "the ancients denied them."

And a concrete example is given: the she-camel of Thamūd.

مُبْصِرَة — the word occurs for the second time in the sūra (the first at 17/12, of the day).

The same word, once for an order and once for a miracle. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and I record this as my own reading: the sūra gives the attribute "that which makes one see" first to the thing everyone sees every day, and then to the extraordinary thing that is demanded. Read together, the two verses bring an order into view.

وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِٱلْـَٔايَٰتِ إِلَّا تَخْوِيفًا — "We send the signs only to put men in fear."

The record must be entered, and this is an observation about the structure: the function of the miracle is given not as persuasion but as warning. The verse thus places the miracle less as an instrument of proof than as a notice of danger.

Both expressions have been disputed in the classical commentaries, and the disagreement is not to be concealed.

The explanations transmitted about ٱلرُّءْيَا:

The explanations transmitted about ٱلشَّجَرَة ٱلْمَلْعُونَة:

I transmit the explanations; I do not impose a preference and I do not pile up reports.

But one record can be verified from the text, and I give it: the verse qualifies both things with the same word — fitnatan li'l-nās (a trial for people). Both, that is, are named as things that cause division when they are shown.

The root ف-ت-ن was treated in detail at 29/2-10 in al-ʿAnkabūt (the testing of gold in fire) and its reciprocity was recorded at 25/20 in al-Furqān. I rely on those treatments.

And it was treated at 37/63 in al-Ṣāffāt that the tree of zaqqūm is named with the same word (fitnatan li'l-ẓālimīn). This is the in-text support for the first explanation, and I record it as a support, not as a preference.

وَنُخَوِّفُهُمْ فَمَا يَزِيدُهُمْ إِلَّا طُغْيَٰنًا كَبِيرًا — and the block arrives at the same result as the fifty-ninth verse: the putting in fear takes effect in the opposite direction.

The two verses build the same structure. I record this as an observation: the sūra records twice, and with two different words, that the methods remain without result.

Wa idh qulnā li'l-malāʾikati'sjudū li-Ādama fa-sajadū illā iblīs, qāla a-asjudu li-man khalaqta ṭīnā · Qāla a-raʾaytaka hādha'lladhī karramta ʿalayya la-in akhkhartani ilā yawmi'l-qiyāmati la-aḥtanikanna dhurriyyatahu illā qalīlā · Qāla'dhhab fa-man tabiʿaka minhum fa-inna jahannama jazāʾukum jazāʾan mawfūrā · Wa'stafziz mani'staṭaʿta minhum bi-ṣawtika wa ajlib ʿalayhim bi-khaylika wa rajilika wa shārikhum fi'l-amwāli wa'l-awlādi wa ʿidhum, wa mā yaʿiduhumu'l-shayṭānu illā ghurūrā · Inna ʿibādī laysa laka ʿalayhim sulṭān, wa kafā bi-rabbika wakīlā

"When We said to the angels, 'Prostrate to Adam (Ādam)', they prostrated — all but Iblīs. He said, 'Am I to prostrate to one You created out of clay?' He said: 'Do You see this one You have honoured above me? If You defer me to the Day of Resurrection, I will surely take his offspring in hand, all but a few.' He said: 'Go! Whoever of them follows you — Hell is the recompense of you all, a recompense in full. Stir up with your voice whomever of them you can; raise a din against them with your horsemen and your footmen; share with them in wealth and children; and make them promises.' Satan promises them nothing but delusion. Over My servants you have no mastery. Your Lord suffices as trustee."

The word in Iblīs's sentence must be recorded: hādha'lladhī karramta ʿalayya — "this one, whom You have honoured above me."

And the same root will return eight verses later, in the seventieth: wa laqad karramnā banī Ādam.

The same root, once an objection and once a finding. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and I record this as my own reading: the sūra takes the word of the objection and gives it back eight verses later as a sentence of judgement.

The same method was treated at 25/7 and 25/20 in al-Furqān (the words of the objection were repeated verbatim in the answer) — and it was recorded there: the answer does not reject the objection's description, it confirms it and makes it general. I rely on that treatment.

The root ك-ر-م: to be of worth, generous, noble. The root was treated at 49/13 in al-Ḥujurāt (inna akramakum ʿinda'llāhi atqākum), and I rely on it: it was recorded there that worth is tied not to lineage or to position but to a measure.

And the same root had occurred in a command in the twenty-third verse: qawlan karīmā (an honourable word to parents). The sūra uses the root in three separate places: a command, an objection, a judgement.

The root: the lower part of the mouth, under the jaw. Ḥanak — the palate, the jaw. Form VIII (iḥtanaka): to put a bit in an animal's jaw and steer it; and to root a thing out and finish it.

The lexicographers record both senses, and both are transmitted:

Both senses are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But the first sense coincides with the root of the word ḥikma in the thirty-ninth verse (the bridle), and I record this as an observation about the language: the picture of the bridle is used in two separate places in the sūra — one holding a person in the right place (ḥikma), the other dragging him off (iḥtināk). The same concrete picture, in two opposite directions.

The verse enumerates five instruments, and all five are worth recording:

اسْتَفْزِزْ — root ف-ز-ز: to dislodge, to make jump, to lighten a thing and tear it from its place. The word will occur twice more in the sūra (76: la-yastafizzūnaka mina'l-arḍ; 103: fa-arāda an yastafizzahum mina'l-arḍ).

The same verb, in three places in the sūra and with three different agents. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and I record this as my own reading: the sūra uses the verb "to tear from one's place" in a spiritual sense and in a geographical one alike.

أَجْلِبْ — root ج-ل-ب: to shout and clamour, to drive a herd along with cries. The word conveys the noise made in driving animals.

I record this as an observation: the first instrument and the second both have to do with sound. And the picture the verse builds is not visual but auditory: a voice, a clamour, the din of horse and foot.

The construction has been disputed in the classical commentaries, and the explanations are transmitted:

I transmit the explanations; I do not impose a preference and I do not pile up reports.

But one textual datum can be recorded, and I give this as an observation: the sūra names these two things (wealth and children) side by side elsewhere as well — in the sixth verse as a gift (wa amdadnākum bi-amwālin wa banīn), in the thirty-first as a cause of fear. In the sūra, that is, wealth and children are named in three separate places in three separate roles: gift, fear, partnership.

And the section closes with a limit.

The word must be recorded: ʿibādī — "My servants".

And a link with the sūra's first verse can be drawn. I give this as my own reading, and its support is the word itself: the sūra had opened with bi-ʿabdihi. In the sixty-fifth verse the same word comes in the plural and becomes the subject of a sentence of protection.

The word occurs in six places in the sūra, and in all six in a favourable position. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.

Rabbukumu'lladhī yuzjī lakumu'l-fulka fi'l-baḥri li-tabtaghū min faḍlih, innahū kāna bikum raḥīmā · Wa idhā massakumu'l-ḍurru fi'l-baḥri ḍalla man tadʿūna illā iyyāh, fa-lammā najjākum ila'l-barri aʿraḍtum, wa kāna'l-insānu kafūrā · A-fa-amintum an yakhsifa bikum jāniba'l-barri aw yursila ʿalaykum ḥāṣiban thumma lā tajidū lakum wakīlā · Am amintum an yuʿīdakum fīhi tāratan ukhrā fa-yursila ʿalaykum qāṣifan mina'l-rīḥi fa-yughriqakum bimā kafartum thumma lā tajidū lakum ʿalaynā bihi tabīʿā · Wa laqad karramnā banī Ādama wa ḥamalnāhum fi'l-barri wa'l-baḥri wa razaqnāhum mina'l-ṭayyibāti wa faḍḍalnāhum ʿalā kathīrin mimman khalaqnā tafḍīlā

"Your Lord is He who drives the ship along the sea for you, that you may seek of His bounty. He is ever merciful towards you. When affliction touches you at sea, those you call upon are lost from view — all but Him. And when He brings you safe to land, you turn away. Man is deeply ungrateful… We have honoured the children of Adam; We have carried them on land and sea, provided them with good things, and favoured them above many of those We created."

This scene is repeated several times in the Qurʾān and has been treated in the index: al-ʿAnkabūt 29/65 (fa-idhā rakibū fi'l-fulki daʿawu'llāha mukhliṣīna lahu'l-dīn) and Luqmān 31/32 (wa idhā ghashiyahum mawjun ka'l-ẓulal). I rely on those treatments.

And what the difference in al-Isrāʾ is must be recorded:

Three sūras give the same scene with three different details. This is a weave between sūras that can be verified.

And al-Isrāʾ's own distinctive word is worth recording: ḍalla — "it was lost, it strayed from the way."

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the choice of verb: the verse does not say "you forget them", it says "they are lost". The party that abandons is thus not the human being; it is they who go. The subject of the verb has changed.

And the same root (ض-ل-ل) occurs several times in the sūra (15, 48, 67, 72, 97) and here, unusually, it is used of the things worshipped.

The two verses ask about two separate dangers, and both begin with amintum (are you secure?):

I record this as an observation: the one rescued had come out on land; the verse says that the land too is not safe. And then, with the second question, it sends him back out to sea: an yuʿīdakum fīhi tāratan ukhrā.

قَاصِف — root ق-ص-ف: to break, to shatter with a crack. The word is used of the sound of thunder as well.

تَبِيعًا — root ت-ب-ع: to go after. Tabīʿ is explained by the lexicographers here as "one who pursues a claim, a prosecutor of a suit".

I record this as an observation about the language: the word is taken from a legal field. The verse does not say "you will find no helper" — it says "you will find no one to prosecute your case".

This verse is one of the most often cited sentences of the sūra, and it must be read with care.

The verse enumerates four things:

And the difference between two of the words must be recorded, because the verse uses them separately:

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the verse's own words: the first verb is unqualified, the second qualified. The honouring is given to the whole human race; the favouring stands inside a comparison and carries the qualification "above many".

The lexicographers dwell on the function of the word kathīr here, and two readings are transmitted:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

I tabulated it at the sixty-second verse: Iblīs had said karramta ʿalayya — "You set him above me and passed me over."

And the seventieth verse gives the same root back not as an objection but as a judgement. And something has happened in between: from the sixty-sixth verse to the sixty-ninth, man's ingratitude was described (wa kāna'l-insānu kafūrā).

I record this as my own reading, and its support is this sequence: the sūra states that man has been honoured immediately after describing his ingratitude. The honour, that is, is not tied to man's performance. The ingratitude has been recorded, and for all that the judgement has not changed.

And this requires a record, per the method: the verse speaks for all the children of Adam — banī Ādam. No community and no lineage is left out. In this commentary no conclusion that separates any group is drawn from this verse.

Yawma nadʿū kulla unāsin bi-imāmihim, fa-man ūtiya kitābahu bi-yamīnihi fa-ulāʾika yaqraʾūna kitābahum wa lā yuẓlamūna fatīlā · Wa man kāna fī hādhihi aʿmā fa-huwa fi'l-ākhirati aʿmā wa aḍallu sabīlā

"On the day We call every group of people with their leader — whoever is given his record in his right hand, those will read their record and will not be wronged by so much as a thread. And whoever is blind in this world is blind in the hereafter too, and further astray from the way."

The classical commentaries differ over what the word means here, and this is not to be concealed:

All three readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The in-text support for the second reading can be recorded, and I give it as a support, not as a preference: the rest of the sentence moves directly to the record (fa-man ūtiya kitābahu).

The word إمام was treated at 28/5 and 28/41 in al-Qaṣaṣ, and it was tabulated there that the same word is used in two opposite directions: the weak being made leaders / leaders who call to the Fire. And it occurred inside a prayer at 25/74 in al-Furqān. I rely on those treatments.

I record this as an observation: read together, the three sūras show that the word conveys no value of itself — this had been tabulated plainly in al-Qaṣaṣ. In al-Isrāʾ the word is used as a measure of classification: who stood behind whom.

The root ف-ت-ل: to twist, to twine. Fatīl is explained by the lexicographers as the fine thread in the groove of a date stone.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word is one of the measures Arabic uses for the smallest and least valuable thing. The verse measures the absence of wrong by this smallest of units.

The Qurʾān uses other words from the same family too, and the lexicographers name the three together: fatīl (the thread in the groove of the stone), naqīr (the little pit on the stone), qiṭmīr (the membrane of the stone). All three are taken from the date stone, and all three are used for "so little as to be nothing". I transmit this as a family the lexicographers have constructed.

The second of the word's two occurrences in the verse is what is dwelt on.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the last sentence of the verse: the verse does not equate the two blindnesses. It adds a third expression: wa aḍallu sabīlā — "and further astray from the way."

The second blindness, that is, is not the same as the first but a degree beyond it. And the comparison is made not by way of the blindness itself but by way of the road.

And the same expression (bal hum aḍallu sabīlā) occurred at 25/44 in al-Furqān — there the comparison was with animals, and it was recorded there: an animal has no road to stray from; the comparison looks at the non-use of what has been given. I rely on that treatment.

A record required by the method: the aʿmā here is not physical blindness; the verse itself states this — the contrast between fī hādhihi (in this world) and fi'l-ākhira (in the hereafter) describes a state that has to do with understanding. No ruling about any condition of disability is drawn from this verse.

Wa in kādū la-yaftinūnaka ʿani'lladhī awḥaynā ilayka li-taftariya ʿalaynā ghayrah, wa idhan la'ttakhadhūka khalīlā · Wa lawlā an thabbatnāka laqad kidta tarkanu ilayhim shayʾan qalīlā · Idhan la-adhaqnāka ḍiʿfa'l-ḥayāti wa ḍiʿfa'l-mamāti thumma lā tajidu laka ʿalaynā naṣīrā

"They came near to luring you away from what We revealed to you, so that you might invent something else against Us; and then they would have taken you as a friend. Had We not made you firm, you would have come near to leaning towards them a little. In that case We would have made you taste a double punishment in life and a double one in death; and then you would have found no helper for yourself against Us."

This verb was treated at 2/71 in al-Baqara, and it was recorded there: the verb kāda conveys "to come close, to all but happen". I rely on that treatment.

And the record of the usage here is indispensable: the verse does not describe something that happened. Kādū and kidta — both are the "all but" pattern. Both the pressure and the inclination, that is, are described as not having happened at all.

And the second verse gives the ground: wa lawlā an thabbatnāka — "had We not made you firm".

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the conditional structure of the sentence: the source of the resistance is tied not to the person himself but to a support that comes from outside. And the same verb (ث-ب-ت) occurred at 25/32 in al-Furqān: li-nuthabbita bihi fuʾādak — there the instrument was the Qurʾān's coming down piece by piece.

And al-Isrāʾ will name the same instrument in the hundred and sixth verse: wa qurʾānan faraqnāhu li-taqraʾahu ʿala'l-nāsi ʿalā mukth. Read together, the two verses show the sūra giving an answer within itself. I give this as my own reading.

The root: to lean on something, to prop oneself against it. Rukn — the corner of a building, its support.

I record this as an observation about the language, and its support is the concrete sense of the root: the verse does not say "you would have joined them" or "you would have followed them". It says "you would have leaned on them" — that is, you would have seen them as a side to draw support from.

And the qualification must be recorded: shayʾan qalīlā — "a little". What is in question, that is, is not a full turning but a small inclination.

The requital is worth recording, and I give this as an observation about the structure: for "a small inclination" the verse states a doubled punishment. The disproportion is in the sentence itself.

The lexicographers explain this by the way position makes responsibility heavier — indeed a similar measure was treated at 33/30 in al-Aḥzāb. I transmit this explanation; the verse gives no ground.

And these verses require a record, per the method: the verse is addressed to the Prophet and its content is a warning. To read the verse as though it recounted an event that took place runs against the text; the patterns kāda and lawlā close that off.

Wa in kādū la-yastafizzūnaka mina'l-arḍi li-yukhrijūka minhā wa idhan lā yalbathūna khilāfaka illā qalīlā · Sunnata man qad arsalnā qablaka min rusulinā, wa lā tajidu li-sunnatinā taḥwīlā

"They came near to tearing you out of this land, to drive you from it; and then they would have remained after you only a little. Such is the way with the messengers We sent before you; and you will find no turning aside of Our way."

The same verb occurred in the sixty-fourth verse (wa'stafziz mani'staṭaʿta minhum) and will come once more in the hundred and third (of Pharaoh). The three-way table was given at the sixty-fourth verse.

The difference here must be recorded: mina'l-arḍ is added to the verb — that is, not a metaphor but a geographical expulsion.

The root: to make a thing flow smoothly, to open a way. Sunna — the way that is kept to, the manner of working.

The root was treated at 48/23 in al-Fatḥ (sunnata'llāhi'llatī qad khalat min qabl) and at 35/43 in Fāṭir (fa-lan tajida li-sunnati'llāhi tabdīlā). I rely on those treatments.

And the difference of word between the two verses is worth recording:

At Fāṭir 35/43 taḥwīl is negated as well; al-Isrāʾ uses only the second.

I record this as an observation about the language: tabdīl is replacement, while taḥwīl is turning the same thing in another direction. The word al-Isrāʾ chooses is the very one used of the things worshipped in the fifty-sixth verse.

The same word, in two places in the sūra, and negated in both. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

Aqimi'l-ṣalāta li-dulūki'l-shamsi ilā ghasaqi'l-layli wa qurʾāna'l-fajr, inna qurʾāna'l-fajri kāna mashhūdā · Wa mina'l-layli fa-tahajjad bihi nāfilatan lak, ʿasā an yabʿathaka rabbuka maqāman maḥmūdā

"Perform the prayer from the sun's declining to the darkening of the night, and the recitation of dawn; for the recitation of dawn is witnessed. And in part of the night keep vigil with it, as an added observance for you alone. It may be that your Lord will raise you to a praised station."

دُلُوك — root د-ل-ك: to slip, to incline; and to rub. There is disagreement over what the word conveys here:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

غَسَق — root غ-س-ق: the thickening of darkness, its flowing in. The root was treated at 113/3 in al-Falaq (wa min sharri ghāsiqin idhā waqab). I do not repeat it here.

A record required by the method: in the classical works of jurisprudence this verse is used as a support in fixing the times of prayer, and there are differences of detail among the schools. No legal ruling is issued in this commentary; what the verse does in its own wording is to tie the act of worship to the movement of the sun.

And I record this as an observation: the verse gives no hour. The measure is the sky itself. This agrees with the frame set up in the twelfth verse (li-taʿlamū ʿadada'l-sinīna wa'l-ḥisāb) — the sūra had shown there the instrument for measuring time; here that instrument is tied to an act of worship.

The use of the word here is worth recording: qurʾān here is not the name of the Book but a verbal noun meaning "reciting".

The root ق-ر-أ was analysed in detail at 96/1 in al-ʿAlaq. I do not repeat it here.

And the sūra uses this root in several places: 14 (iqraʾ kitābak), 45 (wa idhā qaraʾta'l-qurʾān), 71 (yaqraʾūna kitābahum), 78 (qurʾāna'l-fajr), 93 (kitāban naqraʾuh), 106 (li-taqraʾahu ʿala'l-nās).

Six occurrences, and what is read differs every time: the record of deeds, the Qurʾān, the register, the prayer, the book demanded, the proclaiming. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and I record this as my own reading: the act of reading is a recurring action in the fabric of the sūra.

مَشْهُودًا — "witnessed, attested". In the classical commentaries explanations are transmitted as to whose witnessing this is; I do not go into the detail and I do not pile up reports. The verse's literal record is this: the recitation of that hour is an hour with witnesses.

نَافِلَة — root ن-ف-ل: an excess added on top of what is basic. Nafal — spoils (given over and above the basic share).

And the qualification must be recorded: laka — "for you alone". The lexicographers explain this qualification as meaning that the ruling belongs to the Prophet; a difference over this is transmitted in the classical sources too. I draw no juristic conclusion.

تَهَجَّدْ — root ه-ج-د: according to what the lexicographers record, the root can mean both to sleep and to leave off sleep (one of the roots with contrary senses). Form V conveys here "to leave sleep and rise".

Rising at night was treated in detail at 73/1-6 in al-Muzzammil. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

مَقَامًا مَّحْمُودًا — "a praised station."

What this construction points to has been disputed in the classical commentaries, and the explanations are transmitted. I do not go into the detail and issue no firm ruling — the same position was adopted at 19/57 in Maryam (wa rafaʿnāhu makānan ʿaliyyā); I rely on that.

But one textual datum can be recorded: it comes with the verb ʿasā — that is, the same pattern as ʿasā rabbukum an yarḥamakum in the eighth verse. The sūra uses this verb of hope in two places: one for a people, the other for the Prophet.

Wa qul rabbi adkhilnī mudkhala ṣidqin wa akhrijnī mukhraja ṣidqin wa'jʿal lī min ladunka sulṭānan naṣīrā · Wa qul jāʾa'l-ḥaqqu wa zahaqa'l-bāṭil, inna'l-bāṭila kāna zahūqā

"Say: 'My Lord! Make me enter by an entrance of truthfulness, and bring me out by an exit of truthfulness, and give me from Your presence a helping power.' And say: 'The truth has come, and falsehood has perished. Falsehood is bound to perish.'"

The prayer is built with two words, and both carry the same qualifier: ṣidq.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the verse asks for the entering and the coming out separately, and sets the same measure on both. The same truthfulness, that is, is asked for at the beginning of a task and at its end.

And the words mudkhal / mukhraj can be read either as nouns of place or as verbal nouns; the lexicographers record this double possibility. Both readings are transmitted.

In the classical commentaries explanations are transmitted as to which event this prayer concerns (the emigration, the return to Mecca, death and resurrection, and the like). I do not elaborate the explanations and I do not pile up reports. The literal structure of the verse can be read independently of all of them, and it keeps its generality.

The root ز-ه-ق: the going out of the life, being spent and coming to nothing. In Arabic zahaqati'l-nafs — the life went out.

I record this as an observation about the language, and its support is the concrete sense of the root: the verb describes not a thing's being defeated but its life going out of it. Falsehood, that is, is pictured not as a rival that is beaten but as something that goes out of itself.

And the second sentence of the verse says this plainly: inna'l-bāṭila kāna zahūqā — in the intensive form, "prone to perish, quick to go out".

I give this as my own reading: the sentence sets the perishing of falsehood not as an event but as a nature. Kāna zahūqā — "it has always been so."

And the same root occurs in al-Anbiyāʾ (21/18: fa-yadmaghuhu fa-idhā huwa zāhiq); but that verse has not yet been analysed in the index.

Wa nunazzilu mina'l-qurʾāni mā huwa shifāʾun wa raḥmatun li'l-muʾminīn, wa lā yazīdu'l-ẓālimīna illā khasārā

"We send down of the Qurʾān what is a healing and a mercy for the believers. For the wrongdoers it increases nothing but loss."

This verse repeats the principle treated at 2/26 in al-Baqara, and it was recorded there:

The text is one. The outcomes are two. What produces the difference between them is not the text but the reader's way of approaching it.

I rely on that treatment.

And the choice of word in al-Isrāʾ must be recorded: shifāʾ.

The root ش-ف-ي: to recover from illness; and to come to the edge of a thing (shafā — the edge of a cliff). The lexicographers record both branches: to be healed is to arrive at a threshold.

I record this as an observation about the language: the choice of the word places the one addressed as sick — not as ignorant or uninformed. A healing is not the completing of something missing but the setting right of something that has gone wrong.

A record required by the method: no medical conclusion is drawn from this verse. The verse speaks of the relation between a text and the one who reads it; the figurative use of the word is widespread in Arabic.

This pattern comes for the fourth time in the sūra:

The same pattern (mā/lā yazīdu … illā) four times in the sūra. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.

And the difference in the eighty-second verse must be recorded: here the subject is ẓālimīn — that is, an attribute. Per the method this record matters: the ruling is tied not to a group but to an attribute.

Wa idhā anʿamnā ʿala'l-insāni aʿraḍa wa naʾā bi-jānibih, wa idhā massahu'l-sharru kāna yaʾūsā · Qul kullun yaʿmalu ʿalā shākilatihi fa-rabbukum aʿlamu biman huwa ahdā sabīlā

"When We bestow favour on man, he turns away and draws his side aside; and when evil touches him, he falls into despair. Say: 'Each acts after his own fashion. Your Lord knows best who is better guided on the way.'"

The root ن-أ-ي: to go far off. Jānib — the side, the flank.

The concrete picture of the idiom must be recorded: "he removed his side" — that is, he turned his shoulder, he turned his back. In Arabic this describes a going away in pride.

The same idiom occurs at 41/51 in Fuṣṣilat (wa idhā anʿamnā ʿala'l-insāni aʿraḍa wa naʾā bi-jānibih) — the two verses are word for word the same. It was treated there, and I rely on that treatment.

And the continuations of the two verses differ:

The same opening, two different continuations. I record this as an observation: the two verses record two different reactions of the same human being — one a pleading, the other a cutting off of hope. Both at a moment of hardship.

يَـُٔوس — root ي-أ-س: to cut off hope. An intensive form.

And the forbidding of despair was treated at 39/53 in al-Zumar (lā taqnaṭū min raḥmati'llāh). I rely on that treatment: the state described here is the state forbidden there.

The root ش-ك-ل: to resemble; and to tie (shikāl — the hobble put on an animal's leg). Shākila is explained by the lexicographers in two ways:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

But what the two readings share can be recorded, and I give this as an observation: the word speaks of something that belongs to the person himself. And the continuation of the verse does not make this into a sentence of judgement — it leaves the knowing to God: fa-rabbukum aʿlamu biman huwa ahdā sabīlā.

This is a link on the line of responsibility tabulated in the backbone of the sūra. And it must be recorded, per the method: the verse does not leave to man the knowledge of who is on the right way. This is a sentence that closes off judging about another.

Wa yasʾalūnaka ʿani'l-rūḥ, quli'l-rūḥu min amri rabbī wa mā ūtītum mina'l-ʿilmi illā qalīlā

"They ask you about the spirit. Say: 'The spirit is of my Lord's command. And you have been given only a little of knowledge.'"

Per the method a record must be entered at the very outset of this verse, and the record comes out of the verse's own sentence:

The verse answers a question, and the content of the answer is not a description but a statement of source: min amri rabbī. And immediately after, a limit on knowledge is set: wa mā ūtītum mina'l-ʿilmi illā qalīlā.

The verse itself, that is, says that the knowledge given on this matter is little. In this commentary there is no speculation about what the rūḥ is. The table below is a list of the views transmitted in the classical sources; none of them is preferred and none is presented as certain knowledge.

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

That the word al-rūḥ is named separately was treated at 78/38 in al-Nabaʾ, and it was recorded there: the Qurʾān names Gabriel separately. And the root was analysed in detail at 42/52 in al-Shūrā (wa kadhālika awḥaynā ilayka rūḥan min amrinā), and a "line of the limit of knowledge" was tabulated there. I rely on those treatments.

The root was analysed in al-Aḥzāb, al-Raḥmān, al-Ḥāqqa and at 56/89 in al-Wāqiʿa. It was recorded there: the shared core of the root is air in motion, and under it lie rūḥ (life), rīḥ (wind), rawḥ (relief) and rāʾiḥa (scent). I do not repeat it here.

The form of the answer must be recorded, and this is an observation about the structure: the verse does not say "the spirit is such and such". It places it in a category: amr.

أ-م-ر — the root here points to a field the Qurʾān uses often: the distinction between ʿālam al-amr and ʿālam al-khalq has been debated in classical theology. This distinction is itself an interpretive frame, and I transmit it as a transmitted frame; the wording of the verse sets up no such distinction.

The scope of the sentence is worth recording.

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the generality of the sentence: the verse does not say "you have little knowledge on this matter". It enters a general record: mina'l-ʿilmi — of knowledge.

And the word qalīlā must be recorded: little has been given — not that nothing has been given. The sentence, that is, does not devalue knowledge; it states its proportion.

This can be read together with the thirty-sixth verse (wa lā taqfu mā laysa laka bihi ʿilm), and I record this as my own reading: first the sūra forbids falling in behind what is not known, then it says that what is known is little. Together the two verses build the two faces of an ethics of knowledge: to be aware of the limit, and not to carry judgements beyond it.

Wa la-in shiʾnā la-nadhhabanna bi'lladhī awḥaynā ilayka thumma lā tajidu laka bihi ʿalaynā wakīlā · Illā raḥmatan min rabbik, inna faḍlahu kāna ʿalayka kabīrā

"Had We willed, We would surely have taken away what We revealed to you; and then you would have found no trustee for yourself against Us in the matter. Except as a mercy from your Lord (We did not do so). His bounty towards you is truly great."

The verse comes immediately after the limit on knowledge in the eighty-fifth verse, and this placement must be recorded.

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the sequence: the preceding verse had said that the knowledge given to man is little. This verse says that what has been given can be taken back. Revelation too, that is, is a thing given — not a thing earned.

And the word wakīl occurs for the fifth time in the sūra (2, 54, 65, 68, 86). Its table was given at the fifty-fourth verse.

The usage here is different, and the difference must be recorded: in the other occurrences wakīl was named as a place of support. Here it is said that even the closest of all could find no trustee.

The form of the exception is worth recording, and this is an observation about the structure: the sentence is built like a threat, and is then turned around by a single word: illā raḥmatan.

I give this as my own reading: the verse ties the continuance of revelation not to a right but to a mercy. And the eighty-seventh verse says it once again: inna faḍlahu kāna ʿalayka kabīrā.

Qul la-ini'jtamaʿati'l-insu wa'l-jinnu ʿalā an yaʾtū bi-mithli hādha'l-qurʾāni lā yaʾtūna bi-mithlihi wa law kāna baʿḍuhum li-baʿḍin ẓahīrā

"Say: 'If mankind and jinn were to gather together to bring the like of this Qurʾān, they could not bring the like of it, even if they backed one another.'"

The construction of the sentence must be recorded, and there are three stages:

I record this as an observation about the structure: the verse grants the other side every possibility — number, unity and mutual support. And it states the denial only after the possibilities have been granted.

The challenge was treated in detail at 2/23-24 in al-Baqara (fa'tū bi-sūratin min mithlih). I rely on that treatment.

And the difference of scale between the two verses is worth recording:

The two verses build the same claim at two different scales. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

The root: the back. Ẓahīr — one who backs, who lends support.

The word was treated at 25/55 in al-Furqān, and two readings were tabulated there: the denier's backing against his Lord, or ẓahīr carrying the sense "cast behind the back, disregarded". No preference was imposed there; I rely on that treatment.

The usage here, however, is plain and not disputed: baʿḍuhum li-baʿḍin ẓahīrā — backing one another.

The same word, disputed in one place and plain in the other. I record this as an observation: the usage in al-Isrāʾ supplies a datum as to which is the word's lexical sense — because here the construction leaves no ambiguity.

Wa laqad ṣarrafnā li'l-nāsi fī hādha'l-qurʾāni min kulli mathalin fa-abā aktharu'l-nāsi illā kufūrā · Wa qālū lan nuʾmina laka ḥattā tafjura lanā mina'l-arḍi yanbūʿā · Aw takūna laka jannatun min nakhīlin wa ʿinabin fa-tufajjira'l-anhāra khilālahā tafjīrā · Aw tusqiṭa'l-samāʾa kamā zaʿamta ʿalaynā kisafan aw taʾtiya bi'llāhi wa'l-malāʾikati qabīlā · Aw yakūna laka baytun min zukhrufin aw tarqā fi'l-samāʾ, wa lan nuʾmina li-ruqiyyika ḥattā tunazzila ʿalaynā kitāban naqraʾuh, qul subḥāna rabbī hal kuntu illā basharan rasūlā

"We have turned about, over and over, every kind of likeness for people in this Qurʾān; but most people persisted in ingratitude. They said: 'We will never believe you until you make a spring gush forth for us from the earth. Or until you have a garden of date palms and vines and make rivers run gushing through it. Or until you make the sky fall on us in pieces, as you have claimed, or bring God and the angels before us. Or until you have a house of gold, or you ascend into the sky — and we will never believe in your ascent until you bring down to us a book we can read.' Say: 'Glory to my Lord! Am I anything but a mortal, a messenger?'"

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the order of the demands: the demands begin with a material need (water) and swell towards what is impossible (bringing God). And the last demand asks once more for the very thing that has been given — a book.

At the end of the list, that is, what is asked for is what they already hold. This is an observation that can be verified from the text: those addressed are asking for a kitāb, and what is recited to them is a book.

Demands of the same kind were treated at 25/7-8 and 25/21 in al-Furqān (an angel, a treasure, a garden; then aw narā rabbanā) and it was recorded there: the demand moves from rejecting the intermediary to making the absence of an intermediary a condition. I rely on that treatment.

The two sūras can be compared:

I give this as my own reading: the list in al-Isrāʾ goes a step beyond the demand in al-Furqān — not to see, but to have Him brought.

There is a qualification in the third demand: kamā zaʿamta — "as you have claimed".

I record this as an observation: those who make the demand derive their demand from the text's own expressions. The falling of pieces from the sky, that is, had been named earlier as a warning (nusqiṭ ʿalayhim kisafan mina'l-samāʾ was treated at 34/9 in Sabaʾ). Those addressed take that warning and turn it into a demand.

And the verb zaʿamta had occurred in the fifty-sixth verse too (alladhīna zaʿamtum min dūnih) — there in the mouth of the text, here in the mouth of those addressed. The same verb, on both sides. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The answer must be recorded, and it is in two parts:

And the construction is worth recording: basharan rasūlā — "a mortal who is a messenger". Two words side by side; bashar first, rasūl after.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the order of the words: the answer does not reject the messengership — it puts the humanity first. The things demanded are not things a human being can do; and this is exactly what the answer says.

And the same structure was treated at 25/20 in al-Furqān (wa mā arsalnā qablaka mina'l-mursalīna illā innahum la-yaʾkulūna'l-ṭaʿām) — it was recorded there: the answer does not reject the objection's description; it confirms it and makes it general. I rely on that treatment.

And a link with the sūra's first verse can be drawn. I give this as my own reading, and its support is the first words of the two verses: the sūra had opened with subḥāna'lladhī asrā bi-ʿabdihi — the most extraordinary event, with the attribute of servant. In the ninety-third verse the same word (subḥāna) comes this time in the Prophet's mouth, and again with a statement of limit: basharan rasūlā.