وَإِذَآ أَرَدْنَآ أَن نُّهْلِكَ قَرْيَةً أَمَرْنَا مُتْرَفِيهَا فَفَسَقُوا۟ فِيهَا
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.
| Reading | Form | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Amarnā (أَمَرْنَا) | Form I | We commanded — the widespread reading |
| Ammarnā (أَمَّرْنَا) | Form II (with doubling) | We set them at the head, We gave them authority |
| Āmarnā (ءَامَرْنَا) | Form IV | We multiplied them |
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.
| Reading | What is commanded | Ground |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | We commanded obedience, and they refused | The object has been elided in the sentence; fa-fasaqū shows this |
| 2 | A command of the created order — that is, the working of the decree | The word amr is used in this sense in the Qurʾān as well |
| 3 | It carries the sense "We multiplied" | It rests on the sense "became many" of the verb amira |
| 4 | We set them at the head | Consistent with the second variant reading |
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.
| Place | Context | What was recorded |
|---|---|---|
| al-Wāqiʿa 56/45 | The worldly state of the people of the Fire | The word "stands in a context of destruction or of refusal nearly every time it occurs" |
| al-Zukhruf 43/23 | The party that offers the argument from the forefathers | "Wealth itself is not the offence; the offence is the state wealth brings on" |
| Sabaʾ 34/34 | The first to oppose every warner | The refusal and its ground are divided between two separate verses |
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.
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.