23. Sūrat al-Muʾminūn

118 verses. It is widely reported that it was revealed during the Meccan period. It takes its name from the word ٱلْمُؤْمِنُون in its first verse.

The sūra opens with a verdict: qad aflaḥa'l-muʾminūn — "the believers have attained deliverance". And immediately after the opening comes a list of attributes that fixes to whom that verdict is given (2-9). The sūra closes in the hundred and seventeenth verse with the same root: innahū lā yufliḥu'l-kāfirūn — "the disbelievers do not attain deliverance". The sūra, that is, opens with the positive of a single root (ف-ل-ح) and ends with its negative.

Everything in between is set down between these two sentences: the forming of the human being, rain and plants, a sequence of messengers beginning with Noah (Nūḥ), Moses (Mūsā) and Aaron (Hārūn), the son of Mary (Maryam) and his mother, the community that broke apart, people misled by prosperity, hearing and sight and heart, the demand made at the moment of death, the blast on the trumpet and the scales.

The determining structural element of the sūra is its two lists of attributes. The first is at 1-11, the second at 57-61. Both are built on the same grammatical pattern (wa'lladhīna hum…), and both close with a concluding sentence. The first list enumerates acts that are seen from outside, the second states that are within. Below, the two are treated separately and then compared.

And the first list should be read together with the ʿibādu'l-raḥmān list at the end of Sūrat al-Furqān (25/63-77). That list was treated in detail in al-Furqān. The two lists will be compared in a table in this file: the shared items, those found in only one of them, and the position each list holds within its sūra.

The sūra consists of eight blocks. The block boundaries are for the most part drawn by the text's own repetitions.

What follows are facts that can be verified from the text. The claim that they establish a design is interpretation, and I offer it as an observation.

The last row must be recorded separately: in the hundred and ninth verse this prayer is in the mouth of a group that is mocked for it; in the hundred and eighteenth verse the same sentence is the content of the command given to the one addressed. The sūra, that is, makes the speech that was mocked its own last sentence. This is a weave that can be verified from the text.

qad aflaḥa'l-muʾminūn

"The believers have attained deliverance."

The root was worked out in al-Baqara and extended in the discussions of al-Shams 91/9 (qad aflaḥa man zakkāhā) and al-Aʿlā 87/14 (qad aflaḥa man tazakkā). I do not repeat it here. The picture established in al-Baqara is summed up as follows, and it has been used unchanged in the al-Mujādala, al-Ḥashr, al-Fatḥ and al-Taghābun sections:

The root is to split, to crack open. Fallāḥ — the farmer; he takes the name because he splits the soil. Falāḥ — to break through an obstacle and come out, to crack the husk, to come into a state of bearing fruit.

In al-Falaq, where the derivatives of the root were listed, this very verse was given as the example. I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this, and it is worth recording: the same pattern (qad aflaḥa) opens a sentence in three places in the Qurʾān, and in all three the agent is described differently:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the length of the third row: in the other two places the description of the agent is inside the sentence; here a name is set down and the description is spread across separate verses. The sūra, that is, sets about filling the word "believer" rather than leaving it empty.

The word order must be recorded: when qad comes at the head of a perfect verb it reports confirmation (taḥqīq). And the verb is in the past — whereas the attributes described (2-9) are given in imperfect and active participle patterns, that is, as ongoing states.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verdict is framed in the past tense, the condition in the ongoing tense. The lexicographers explain this kind of usage as "telling a thing as though it had happened, because its happening is certain"; I pass the explanation on as it is transmitted.

The root أ-م-ن — safety, security. Muʾmin is the active participle of Form IV: the one who brings to safety / the one who trusts. The root has occurred in many places across this series and was treated in Quraysh (wa āmanahum min khawf) and at al-Ḥashr 59/23 (al-Muʾmin).

And an entry must be placed here: throughout the sūra the verdict will be attached not to a group but to an attribute. Accordingly the negative counterpart in the hundred and seventeenth verse is likewise built not with a name but with the act of not believing. This is what the principle recorded in Method — that no blanket ruling is issued about a group — comes to in this sūra: the verse attaches deliverance not to a faction but to a whole set of states enumerated across nine verses.

alladhīna hum fī ṣalātihim khāshiʿūn

"They are those who are humble in their prayer."

The list consists of six items (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9), and all six are built on the same word order. This is a fact that can be counted from the text:

In all six of the six items the complement — the prepositional phrase — has been brought before its predicate. In Arabic fronting (taqdīm) reports specification and emphasis; the lexicographers record this consistently.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is this sixfold regularity: the sentences do not say "they are humble", "they turn away"; they say "in their prayer — they are humble", "from idle speech — they turn away". In each item, that is, the field is fixed first and the disposition within that field second. The list thereby becomes readable as a list not of dispositions but of fields.

And there is a second regularity: five of the six items are nouns (active participles), and only the last is a verb — yuḥāfiẓūn. This difference will be treated separately at the ninth verse.

The concrete sense of the root is given by the lexicographers as follows: to sink low, to subside, the lowering of the voice, the dropping of the eye. From the same root:

The use of the root for ground was treated at Fuṣṣilat 41/39 (ground subsided before the rain, then swelling afterwards), and khāshiʿa occurred in al-Nāziʿāt (79/9 — abṣārun yawmaʾidhin khāshiʿa).

Two sides of the root must be recorded, and this is the lexicographers' common description: khushūʿ is something that takes place both inside and outside. The lowering of the voice and the dropping of the gaze are the visible side; the bowing of the heart is the side that is not visible. The word answers to both at once.

Two details must be recorded:

One. The particle is fī — "inside". Khushūʿ is sought not beside the prayer but inside it. The adverbial phrase frames the prayer as a vessel.

Two. Ṣalāt is singular. In the ninth verse the same word will come in the plural (ṣalawātihim). This difference is too regular to be counted accidental, and it will be tabulated at the ninth verse.

I give this as my own reading, and its ground is the contrast of singular and plural: the second verse looks inside one prayer — the prayer being performed. The ninth verse will look at the whole of the prayers.

wa'lladhīna hum ʿani'l-laghwi muʿriḍūn

"They are those who turn away from idle speech."

The root was worked out in detail at al-Wāqiʿa 56/25 (lā yasmaʿūna fīhā laghwan wa lā taʾthīmā). I do not repeat it here. The description given there is this:

The description the lexicographers give: speech or action that is not reckoned, that goes for nothing. Laghwa'l-shayʾu — it became worthless, it did not count.

And in al-Wāqiʿa this very verse was cited to show the place of the word within the Qurʾān. I rely on that treatment. The links of the word across this series are the following, and the fifth is here:

The difference between al-Qaṣaṣ 28/55 and this verse is worth recording, since both use the same verb (أعرض):

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two patterns: al-Qaṣaṣ describes an answer given to speech that is heard; al-Muʾminūn reports an orientation. The active participle records not the recurrence of an event but the stance of the person.

The concrete sense of the root: to show the ʿarḍ of a thing, that is, its breadth, its side. Aʿraḍa ʿanhu — he turned away from it; the picture in the word is turning not the face but the side.

And this verb will occur once more in the sūra — but on the other side: in the seventy-first verse, fa-hum ʿan dhikrihim muʿriḍūn — "turning away from their own reminder". The same active participle, in the same pattern, over two different objects.

This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra. And I record this as my own reading: the verb is neither good nor bad in itself; what settles the verdict is what is being turned away from. Something like the same distinction was recorded for the verb fariḥa at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/75.

wa'lladhīna hum li'l-zakāti fāʿilūn

"They are those who carry out the zakāt."

The root was treated in detail at al-Shams 91/9 (qad aflaḥa man zakkāhā) and taken up again in ʿAbasa (laʿallahū yazzakkā). I do not repeat it here. The summary recorded there is this:

Beneath the root two senses stand together — purification and growth. Tazkiya is growth brought about by reduction.

And a detail of word order must be recorded here: the verse does not say yuʾtūna'l-zakāta (they give the zakāt) — which is the common counterpart of the word in other verses. The verb chosen here is فعل: "to do, to perform".

Two readings of the meaning of the word are transmitted:

The ground of the second reading must also be recorded: the institutional form of zakāt, fixed by amount and threshold, took shape, as it is transmitted, in the Medinan period; and this sūra is counted Meccan. This does not make the second reading necessary — the word zakāt occurs in Meccan verses too — but it shows the source of the dispute.

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. And I issue no legal ruling: the threshold, the rate and the categories of zakāt have been discussed in detail among the schools of law, and that is not the subject of this commentary.

On the choice of verb I give the following as my own reading: the word fāʿilūn is wider than giving. Fiʿl reports a work, an action. The item therefore stays wide enough to take in not only the moment of transfer but the work done towards purification.

wa'lladhīna hum li-furūjihim ḥāfiẓūn · illā ʿalā azwājihim aw mā malakat aymānuhum fa-innahum ghayru malūmīn · fa-mani'btaghā warāʾa dhālika fa-ulāʾika humu'l-ʿādūn

"They are those who guard their chastity — except with their spouses…; in that they are not blamed. Whoever seeks beyond that — those are the ones who transgress."

The concrete sense of the root: the opening, the cleft, the gap between two things. Faraj — an interval; infirāj — an opening out; and from here comes the sense of the opening up of distress (faraj — relief).

In this context the word is a figure used for the private parts, and the lexicographers record it as such. And there is a point worth recording: the same root is used in the Qurʾān for the sky as well — mā lahā min furūj (Qāf 50/6, "it has no cracks in it"). That verse was treated in Qāf. The same root: in one place the proof of an unbroken surface, in the other the area that is to be guarded. I record this as an observation about the language, and I build no connection of ruling between the two uses.

Ḥāfiẓ: guarding, watching over. The root ح-ف-ظ was treated at al-Burūj 85/22 (fī lawḥin maḥfūẓ) and at al-Ṭāriq 86/4 (laysa ʿalayhā ḥāfiẓ).

A detail of word order must be recorded, and the lexicographers dwell on it: in the fifth verse the particle is لِ (li-furūjihim), and in the exception in the sixth verse the particle turns to عَلَىٰ (illā ʿalā azwājihim).

Two approaches to explaining this change are transmitted:

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

The construction names an institution that in fact existed in the period the Qurʾān was revealed — slavery. Per the method (Method), I issue no legal ruling here and I do not go into the details of the historical institution. Two matters must be recorded, and both can be verified from the text:

One. The Qurʾān does not establish this institution; it names an arrangement it found already in place in the society into which it was revealed.

Two. Other verses of the Qurʾān in the same field set the release from slavery again and again as a good, an expiation and a goal: fakku raqaba (al-Balad 90/13 — treated in al-Balad), fa-taḥrīru raqaba (al-Nisāʾ 4/92, al-Māʾida 5/89, al-Mujādala 58/3 — treated in al-Mujādala), fa-kātibūhum (al-Nūr 24/33).

Beyond these two entries I draw no conclusion. The historical and legal frame of the matter cannot be settled under this verse, and no attempt is made to settle it.

The concrete sense of the root: to cross a boundary, to step over it. From the same root come ʿaduww (enemy — the one who tramples the boundary), ʿudwān (transgression), ʿadā (he ran, he crossed).

The choice of word is worth recording: the seventh verse does not say "sinners" or "fāsiqūn". The picture in the word is the crossing of a line — and the sixth verse had just drawn that line. The verdict, that is, is attached to the boundary that has been drawn.

wa'lladhīna hum li-amānātihim wa ʿahdihim rāʿūn

"They are those who watch over their trusts and their covenant."

A detail of word order must be recorded: amānāt has come in the plural, ʿahd in the singular.

The explanations the lexicographers give for this difference are transmitted:

The variant reading must be recorded here: the readings li-amānātihim (plural) and li-amānatihim (singular) are transmitted. It produces no radical change in meaning — one reports the trusts one by one, the other the kind "trust".

The root أ-م-ن was treated at the first verse. What belongs here is this: amāna and īmān are from the same root. The name of the sūra and the name of this item, that is, come from one root. I record this as a datum of the language; I draw no ruling from it, but I give this much as an observation: the root derives being trustworthy and trusting from the same place.

The concrete sense of the root: to pasture an animal, to watch over it. Rāʿī — shepherd; raʿy — pasturing; riʿāya — watching over, tending.

The choice of word is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading, its ground being the pastoral sense of the root: ḥifẓ (the verb in the fifth verse) is to hold, to keep — it is static. Riʿāya is to keep the eye on a thing continually; the shepherd stands at the head of the flock, walks, counts. The two items use two different verbs: one for guarding, the other for watching over.

wa'lladhīna hum ʿalā ṣalawātihim yuḥāfiẓūn

"They keep watch over their prayers."

This is the clearest structural element of the sūra, and it can be counted directly from the text: the list consists of six items, and the first item and the sixth are on the same subject — the prayer.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the list's own arrangement: the four items in between are speech, property, the body and relationship — that is, the four fields in which a person comes into contact with others. The list takes these four fields between its two items on prayer. The frame is outside, life is inside.

And the lexicographers record this frame as well; but the meaning loaded onto the frame is interpretation, and I do not present the reading above as binding.

The differences between the two verses can be counted one by one, and all four are regular:

All four differences can be verified from the text. And the reading I build on them is the following, which I give as my own reading:

One. Singular and plural. The second verse looks inside a prayer being performed; the ninth looks at the whole of the prayers, that is, at the appointed times and the order.

Two. Fī – ʿalā. Fī reports the inside, ʿalā a watching from above. One tells of what is inside the prayer, the other of standing over the prayer.

Three. Noun and verb. In Arabic a nominal sentence reports fixity (thubūt), a verbal sentence renewal (tajaddud); this is a distinction the lexicographers record consistently. Khushūʿ is given as a settled state, keeping watch as a repeated work.

Four. Form III. The pattern ḥāfaẓa, unlike ḥafiẓa of Form I, reports continuity and reciprocal effort. The same root appeared in the fifth verse as ḥāfiẓūn (active participle, from Form I).

To draw it together — and this drawing together is my own reading: the list opens with the state inside the prayer and closes with the keeping up of the prayers. The difference between the two is the difference between one prayer and a lifetime of prayer. And the list places between the two all the fields in which a person makes contact.

ulāʾika humu'l-wārithūn · alladhīna yarithūna'l-firdawsa hum fīhā khālidūn

"Those are the heirs — who will inherit al-Firdaws; there they remain."

The word order must be recorded: the conditional clause that has run for nine verses is gathered up in the tenth by a demonstrative pronoun. Ulāʾika — "those are the ones". And it is reinforced by the pronoun of separation (hum): in Arabic this pronoun, coming between subject and predicate, reports specification.

The sentence, that is, is closer to "the ones who are heirs are precisely these" than to "they are heirs".

The sense of the root: the passing of a property or a standing from its owner to another. Wārith — the one who takes what passes; mīrāth — the thing that passes.

The choice of word is worth recording, and it has two sides:

One. An inheritance is not something earned by working for it — it passes from another. Two. But being an heir depends on a qualification — kinship, entitlement, standing.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being this double character of the word: after nine verses of enumerated acts, the outcome is given not with a word for earning but with a word for transfer. The outcome, that is, is named not as the price of the acts enumerated but as something that passes to those who carry them.

The same root was treated at al-Dukhān 44/28 (wa awrathnāhā qawman ākharīn) and in al-Shuʿarāʾ — there the inheritance was what a destroyed people left behind. The same word, in two different directions.

The word occurs in two places in the Qurʾān: here, and al-Kahf 18/107 (jannāti'l-firdaws).

The lexicographers differ over the origin of the word:

Both views are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The point at which the two views meet is worth recording: at the core of the word lies the idea of an enclosed, protected garden.

And the pronoun must be recorded: hum fīhā khālidūn — a feminine singular pronoun. Firdaws is counted masculine; the lexicographers record that the pronoun refers back to the word janna (at al-Kahf 18/107 the construction is jannāti'l-firdaws).

And a structural entry: the list closes with a place. This overlaps with the closing of the ʿibādu'l-raḥmān list treated in al-Furqān — there too the list closed with a place: ulāʾika yujzawna'l-ghurfata bimā ṣabarū (25/75). Two lists, in two separate sūras, both ending with the name of a dwelling. This is an overlap that can be verified from the two texts.

This comparison is required by this commentary, because the two lists do the same work in two separate sūras of the Qurʾān: they describe the one who will attain deliverance not by a name but by a series of attributes. In al-Furqān that list was treated item by item; here a comparison is made, the analysis is not repeated.

The difference in position is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading: the al-Muʾminūn list is not an answer to anything — the sūra begins with it, there is no objection in the middle. The al-Furqān list, as was shown in al-Furqān, is an indirect answer to the objection in the seventh verse of that sūra, and its first item (walking) is precisely the subject of that objection. One is framed as a description, then, the other as an answer.

What follows is my own reading and is not binding; its grounds are the table above.

One. The shared items are four: prayer, idle speech, property, chastity. And these four are fields present in the daily life of every human being. The two lists meet on common ground in these four fields.

Two. The item on laghw is in both lists, and in both the verb is "to pass by" or "to turn away" — in neither is it "to silence", "to prevent", "to answer". The two sūras propose the same bearing on this item: not removal but not making contact.

Three. The al-Furqān list is longer than the al-Muʾminūn list and contains more items about "relationship" — walking, the answer to the ignorant, the prayer for one's family, the request to lead. The al-Muʾminūn list contains more items about "obligation" — prayer, zakāt, chastity, trust.

Four. The item on trust and covenant is explicitly present only in al-Muʾminūn. And it stands immediately before the sixth item of the list, that is, right inside the frame.

Five. Both lists end with a dwelling — al-Firdaws and al-Ghurfa. And neither gives a name on its own: al-Muʾminūn says "they will inherit", al-Furqān says "they will be recompensed for their patience". In both places the outcome comes after a verb.

Six — and I record this separately: the two lists are neither copies of one another nor complements of one another. Each is bound to the work of its own sūra: al-Furqān is answering an objection, al-Muʾminūn is building a description. Two different structures come out of the same material — and this shows that reading the lists as a "sum of items" falls short.

wa laqad khalaqnā'l-insāna min sulālatin min ṭīn

"We created the human being, assuredly, from an extract of clay."

These verses belong to a field treated several times across this series, and the same limit was drawn each time. I set that limit here too, at the outset:

At Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/67: "the dictionary senses of the words nuṭfa and ʿalaqa are given by the lexicographers. I do not enter into equating these one-to-one with the terms of modern embryology; the work of the verse is to give a description of stages, and the proof lies in these stages not being in human hands."

At al-Zumar 39/6: "at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/67 the same staged formation was told in six steps, and the methodological limit was drawn there: one does not enter into equating these expressions one-to-one with the terms of modern embryology. I keep the same limit here."

At al-Sajda 32/7-9 the same field was treated; in al-ʿAlaq a section with five grounds was written on the word ʿalaq and the embryological claim was rejected; and in the al-Qiyāma, al-Ṭāriq, al-Mursalāt, al-Najm, Yāsīn and Nūḥ sections the same position was kept.

I keep the same limit here and do not repeat its grounds. In brief: the dictionary sense of the words is given and not cut short; but this is not presented as the claim of the verse and is not turned into a proof of miracle. What will be treated in these verses is the meanings of the words and the ordering of the verbs — not a table of development.

And one further entry, as it was written in al-Mursalāt: the argument of the verse sets out from something the one addressed knows. Birth, miscarriage, bone and flesh were things everyone saw. A proof cannot be built with something the one addressed does not know; for this reason dressing the verse in modern knowledge does not strengthen the argument but weakens it.

The root was worked out at al-Sajda 32/8 (thumma jaʿala naslahū min sulālatin min māʾin mahīn). I do not repeat it here. The summary given there:

The concrete sense of the root: to draw a thing slowly out of its sheath, stripping it clear. Salla'l-sayfa — he drew the sword from its scabbard. Sulāla — the extract drawn out of a thing. Salīl — lineage, offspring.

What belongs here is the difference between the two verses, and it must be recorded:

The difference is worth recording: in al-Sajda sulāla reports the source of the offspring, here the source of the human being. And read together the two verses complete each other: al-Sajda had said first that the beginning was from clay (badaʾa khalqa'l-insāni min ṭīn) and then that the offspring came from a fluid; al-Muʾminūn joins the two in a single construction — sulālatin min ṭīn.

طِين — clay: the mixture of earth and water. The word was treated at al-Sajda 32/7 and at al-Ṣāffāt 37/11 (min ṭīnin lāzib — sticky clay).

And the twofold repetition of the particle min must be recorded: min sulālatin min ṭīn. There are two steps: clay → the extract drawn from clay → the human being. The verse, that is, does not say "from clay" directly; it places an operation in between.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and its ground is the second min: an operation is set between the material and the product.

thumma jaʿalnāhu nuṭfatan fī qarārin makīn

"Then We made him a drop in a secure lodging."

Root ن-ط-ف: the core sense the lexicographers give is to drip, to trickle. Naṭafa'l-māʾ — the water dripped; nuṭfa — a small quantity of water, a drop. The word was treated at al-Qiyāma 75/37 (a-lam yaku nuṭfatan min maniyyin yumnā), at al-Insān 76/2 (min nuṭfatin amshāj) and at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/67. I do not repeat it here.

The methodological limit was set above; the meaning of the word consists of this, and no technical description is built upon it.

قَرَار — root ق-ر-ر: to stand in a place, to be fixed, to settle. From the same root come qarār (the place one stops), mustaqarr (a place of settlement), qurra (the cooling of the eye — the eye coming to rest in one place; treated at al-Furqān 25/74).

مَكِين — root م-ك-ن: to have a place, to become firm. Makān is from the same root. Makīn — firm in place, strong in standing. The word is used in the Qurʾān of a human being as well: innaka'l-yawma ladaynā makīnun amīn (Yūsuf 12/54).

The build of the construction must be recorded: qarārin makīn — "a firm resting place". Both words report fixity, and one comes as the adjective of the other. There is emphasis, that is.

And this construction will come back once more in the sūra: in the fiftieth verse the place in which the son of Mary and his mother are sheltered will be named rabwatin dhāti qarārin wa maʿīn. The same word: one the place at the beginning of the forming, the other a refuge. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as an observation: both places are sheltered, and both are named with the word qarār.

And here the real question of the block begins. In the twelfth verse the verb was khalaqnā; in the thirteenth it turns to jaʿalnā.

The distinction was recorded at al-Zukhruf 43/3 and holds here:

Jaʿala in Arabic reports the putting of a thing from one state into another — this is what separates it from khalaqa (to bring into being from nothing).

At the second step, that is, nothing new is brought into being; what exists is put from one state into another. This is the first link of the chain of verbs that will be tabulated at the fourteenth verse.

thumma khalaqnā'l-nuṭfata ʿalaqatan fa-khalaqnā'l-ʿalaqata muḍghatan fa-khalaqnā'l-muḍghata ʿiẓāman fa-kasawnā'l-ʿiẓāma laḥman thumma anshaʾnāhu khalqan ākhar, fa-tabāraka'llāhu aḥsanu'l-khāliqīn

"Then We made that drop an ʿalaqa, and made the ʿalaqa a morsel, and made the morsel bones, and clothed the bones with flesh. Then We built him up as another creation. How exalted is God, the best of creators!"

The limit set above holds for all three of these words.

The section written on the word ʿalaq in al-ʿAlaq holds here too, and I do not repeat it here. The conclusion there was this: the sense of the word — "hanging, holding on, clinging" — is given and not cut short; but it cannot be presented as the claim of the verse and cannot be turned into a proof of miracle.

An addition on مُضْغَة: the word reports a measure — the amount taken into the mouth at one time. The picture in the word, that is, is of size, not of shape. I give this as an entry about the language.

The verse tells the forming with seven verbs, and the verbs are not the same. This is a fact that can be counted directly from the text:

Three regularities can be counted:

One. Thumma occurs three times, fa three times. In Arabic fa reports succession without a gap, thumma succession with a gap; this is the lexicographers' common entry.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being this distinction between the two particles: the three occurrences of thumma stand at three points — human being→drop, drop→ʿalaqa, and after the flesh has been put on→another creation. The text, that is, sets a gap at three places; the steps in between are given joined to one another with fa. Three thresholds, four adjoining steps.

Two. The verb is khalaqnā four times, then once kasawnā, then once anshaʾnā. That is, the verb changes in the last two steps.

Three. Each time, the object is the object of the preceding sentence, and it comes definite with the article alif-lām: al-nuṭfata → al-ʿalaqata → al-muḍghata → al-ʿiẓāma. The chain is built at the level of the words as well: each sentence makes the product of the one before it its own material. This is a form of takrīr that the lexicographers record.

The root ك-س-و is worked out here for the first time in this series. The concrete sense of the root: to clothe with a garment. Kiswa — clothing; kisāʾ — a wrap taken over oneself; iksāʾ — the act of clothing.

And the choice of verb must be recorded: the verse does not say khalaqnā here. While "We created" is said at five steps, at the sixth "We clothed" is said.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being this single change of verb: at the other steps one thing turned into another — the drop became an ʿalaqa, the ʿalaqa became a morsel. Here there is no turning: the bone remains bone, and something else is put over it. The verb carries this difference. To clothe does not require the disappearance of what is clothed.

And a link between words is worth recording: the same idea is used in the Qurʾān for a garment as well — wa jaʿalnā'l-layla libāsā (al-Nabaʾ 78/10; treated in al-Nabaʾ and at al-Furqān 25/47). The root is different (ل-ب-س / ك-س-و) and I build no derivational link between them; what is shared is the idea that a covering does not do away with what lies beneath it.

This sentence deserves separate and detailed treatment.

The root was worked out at al-Wāqiʿa 56/35 (innā anshaʾnāhunna inshāʾā) and at 56/62 (wa laqad ʿalimtumu'l-nashʾata'l-ūlā). I do not repeat it here. In summary, what was recorded there is this:

The verb is anshaʾnā — not "We created" but "We built up". The verse reports a rebuilding. And the same root is used at 56/62 for birth in this world: al-nashʾata'l-ūlā — "the first building up".

And the following point recorded in al-Wāqiʿa attaches directly here: al-Wāqiʿa used the verb it applies to the garden, twenty-seven verses later, for the forming in this world. al-Muʾminūn, for its part, uses the same verb for the last step of the forming in this world.

The other links of the root across this series: al-Mulk 67/23 (alladhī anshaʾakum), al-Wāqiʿa 56/72 (am naḥnu'l-munshiʾūn).

Three details must be recorded:

One. The particle is thumma — that is, a gap is set between this and what precedes. The largest gap among the seven steps is here, because after this thumma the verb changes as well.

Two. The object pronoun is هُ — "him". That is, the same being continues. The sentence does not say "We created something else"; it says "We built him up as another creation". The continuity of the subject is preserved by the pronoun.

Three. Khalqan ākhar — the lexicographers differ over its parsing:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. What is common to all three is this: what is new is not the material but the kind.

The verse does not say what it is. This is a silence of the text, and it must be recorded.

The explanations widely transmitted in the classical exegetical tradition are these:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference. And an entry, per the method (Method): since the verse gives no modality, no modality is produced here. The entry set for the construction min rūḥihī at al-Sajda 32/9 holds here as well.

The only thing I record as my own reading is this, and its ground is the change of verb: after steps that can be counted, the verse sets a step that cannot be counted. The preceding six steps change the object; the seventh changes the kind. And the text does not give the name of that kind. This silence can be read as a part of the structure of the verse: after the part that can be told has been told, a threshold is set.

تَبَارَكَ — the root ب-ر-ك was worked out at al-Mulk 67/1 and treated again at al-Furqān 25/1. I do not repeat it here. In summary: the core of the root is baraka — the kneeling of the camel, settling in a place and staying fixed; and from this, a good that lasts and increases.

And the word order must be recorded: the sentence begins with fa. The praise, that is, comes as the outcome of the process described — it is not an independent sentence.

أَحْسَنُ ٱلْخَٰلِقِين — "the best of creators". The lexicographers dwell on the construction, because the elative is built with a plural.

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. And I do not enter a theological dispute: no ruling about the existence of other creators is drawn from the construction — indeed the ninety-first verse of the sūra will establish exactly the opposite.

A link within the sūra must be recorded: this is the first of the five superlative constructions in the sūra. The others: khayru'l-munzilīn (29), khayru'l-rāziqīn (72), khayru'l-rāḥimīn (109 and 118). All five of the five constructions are built on the agent of a verb — creating, sending down, providing, showing mercy. This is a pattern that can be verified within the sūra.

thumma innakum baʿda dhālika la-mayyitūn · thumma innakum yawma'l-qiyāmati tubʿathūn

"Then, after that, you will surely die. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will be raised."

The word order must be recorded, and this is the most striking place in the block: what is told from the twelfth verse to the fourteenth is in the third person (al-insān, jaʿalnāhu, anshaʾnāhu). In the fifteenth verse the address turns to the second person: innakum — "you".

This is an operation called iltifāt (a shift in the direction of address) in Arabic rhetoric.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being that the change of pronoun falls exactly at this point: while the forming is being told, the one addressed is outside — what is told is a third party. When death and resurrection are named, the one addressed is brought inside. The process described thereby stops being a piece of information and becomes a piece of news.

The difference is worth recording: death is given as a state (with a noun), resurrection as a work (with a verb). And the verb of the resurrection is passive — the doer is not named, because it is being named throughout the sūra anyway.

مَيِّتُون — the lexicographers dwell on the pattern of the word: a distinction between mayyit and māʾit is transmitted; the first is one who has died, the second one who is going to die. Here the meaning is "those who are going to die", and the lexicographers record that the pattern mayyit is used in this sense as well.

And the logic of the block must be recorded: twelve to fourteen tell that the human being passes through a process that can be seen. Fifteen and sixteen add two further steps to the same sentence: death and resurrection.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being that the three occurrences of thumma stand in one and the same series: the text does not build a separate proof for the resurrection — it presents it as a link in the series it is already working through. The same method was treated at Yāsīn 36/77-79 and at al-Qiyāma 75/36-40. I rely on that treatment.

wa laqad khalaqnā fawqakum sabʿa ṭarāʾiqa wa mā kunnā ʿani'l-khalqi ghāfilīn

"We created above you seven paths, assuredly. And We have not been heedless of the creation."

The root was worked out in al-Ṭāriq. The description given there: the original sense of the root is to strike, to beat, to hit with something hard. I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is the second branch of the root, and the lexicographers record the two together:

The lexicographers differ over what the word reports in this verse:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference. The first reading has a ground within the sūra, and I record it: the eighty-sixth verse will say rabbu'l-samāwāti'l-sabʿ. The same sūra names the same number with two different words.

And a limit, per the method (Method): on the basis of this verse I do not enter into any matching with layers of the atmosphere, belts of celestial bodies or similar modern classifications. The grounds written in al-Ṭāriq for astronomical claims and in al-ʿAlaq for embryological claims hold here as well. The meaning of the word is given; nothing is built beyond it.

The sentence is worth recording, and it is the key to this block.

The root غ-ف-ل: to remain unaware of a thing, to let it slip from mind, to give it no attention. Ghafla — inattention; ghufl — bearing no mark upon it, unrecognised.

The word order must be recorded: mā kunnā — a negated perfect, "We have not been". That is, at no time. And ʿani'l-khalqi has been brought forward (taqdīm): "of the creation — We are not heedless."

I give this as my own reading, its ground being the place of the sentence in the verse: after the seven layers have been named, the sentence one expects is a statement of power. The sentence that comes is a statement of attention. The verse, that is, speaks not of greatness but of not having been left.

The same idea was recorded in al-Fātiḥa in the analysis of the name Rabb: "Rabb is the name of an order that is working; not of a clock wound up and abandoned." I rely on that treatment.

And the scope of the word al-khalq must be recorded: the word means both "the act of creating" and "the created things"; both parsings are transmitted. In either case the verdict comes out at the same place.

wa anzalnā mina'l-samāʾi māʾan bi-qadarin fa-askannāhu fi'l-arḍ, wa innā ʿalā dhahābin bihī la-qādirūn

"We sent down water from the sky by a measure and settled it in the earth. And We are certainly able to take it away."

The root ق-د-ر was worked out in detail in al-Qadr, and separately at al-Qamar 54/49 (innā kulla shayʾin khalaqnāhu bi-qadar), and treated again at al-Zumar 39/67 and al-Furqān 25/2. I do not repeat it here. In summary: the most basic sense of the root is to measure, to cut to size, to fix the amount of a thing.

Exactly this connection was made in al-Qadr: the verse "We created everything according to a measure (bi-qadar) (al-Qamar 54/49)" was adduced as the proof of the sense "measure" for the word qadr. I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this, and it is worth recording: al-Qamar 54/49 sets the measure as a general ruling for everything; this verse applies the same measure to a single phenomenon, rain.

And the particle must be recorded: bi-qadar — "with a measure". The bāʾ here reports accompaniment or instrument; the water comes down together with its measure.

The root س-ك-ن: the ceasing of motion, settling in a place. Sukūn — stillness; sakīna — inward stillness; maskan — the place settled in; sākin — motionless.

The root was treated at al-Furqān 25/45 (wa law shāʾa la-jaʿalahū sākinā — of the shadow) and at al-Rūm 30/21 (li-taskunū ilayhā).

And the same phenomenon — the water that comes down passing into the ground — was told with a different verb at al-Zumar 39/21. The two verses must be set side by side:

The two verbs are the opposite of one another: one to make travel, the other to bring to a stop. This is a contrast that can be verified from the two texts.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the continuing sentences of the two verses: in al-Zumar the movement of the water is told, because the proof there is the crop coming up and then drying — a cycle. In al-Muʾminūn the standing of the water is told, because the proof here is that the water is something held in hand. The same phenomenon, put to two different tasks in two sūras.

And the root salaka will occur in this sūra too: in the twenty-seventh verse, fa'sluk fīhā min kulli zawjayni'thnayn — "put into it two of every kind, a pair". The same root: one sends water into the ground, the other living things into the ship. I give this as an entry about the word and build no connection of meaning between them.

The build of the sentence must be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: the threat one expects would be "We cut off the rain". The verse does not say this: dhahābin bihī — "to take it away". It reports, that is, that the water that has come down and settled in the ground can be taken back.

My ground is the object of the verb: the pronoun bihī refers back to the water settled in the ground in the preceding sentence. The threat is aimed not at what will not come but at what is already in hand.

The same line is drawn at al-Mulk 67/30 as well (in aṣbaḥa māʾukum ghawran fa-man yaʾtīkum bi-māʾin maʿīn) — treated in al-Mulk. I rely on that treatment.

And a limit, per the method (Method): on the basis of this verse I build no claim of "foretelling" about underground water tables, aquifer structures or the hydrological cycle. What the verse describes is a phenomenon known by observation: the water that falls does not stay on the surface, it goes down into the ground; wells and springs come out of it; and in drought these recede. The one addressed needed no special knowledge to know this — and the force of the argument comes from exactly that. The same entry was made at al-Mursalāt 77/20-23.

fa-anshaʾnā lakum bihī jannātin min nakhīlin wa aʿnāb, lakum fīhā fawākihu kathīratun wa minhā taʾkulūn

"With it We brought into being for you gardens of date palms and vines. In them you have many fruits, and from them you eat."

The root was treated at the fourteenth verse. What belongs here is its distribution across the sūra, and this is a fact that can be counted from the text:

All five of the five occurrences report not "bringing into being from nothing" but setting up, standing upright — this is the sense of the root worked out in al-Wāqiʿa. And all five stand in separate blocks of the sūra. I record this as an observation about the structure: the sūra names the human being, the plant, the generations and the organs with the same verb.

Date palms and vines. The two plants are regularly named together in the Qurʾān — al-Baqara 2/266, al-Anʿām 6/99, al-Raʿd 13/4, al-Naḥl 16/11 and 16/67, al-Isrāʾ 17/91, al-Kahf 18/32, Yā-Sīn 36/34.

This pair was treated at Yāsīn 36/34. I rely on that treatment.

And a detail worth recording: both are crops that depend on water in a dry climate, and both can be stored (dried dates, raisins). Two staple products of the daily life of the one addressed are chosen.

The root ف-ك-ه: to take pleasure, to enjoy. Fākiha — fruit; fukāha — pleasant talk, jesting. The root was treated at al-Wāqiʿa 56/20 and 56/32, and at ʿAbasa 80/31.

And the build of the sentence must be recorded: lakum fīhā fawākihu kathīratun wa minhā taʾkulūn — two separate things are being said.

The lexicographers record this distinction: fākiha is what is eaten for pleasure, not out of necessity; akl is nourishment. The sentence, that is, names first the surplus and then the food itself.

I give this as an observation: the verse counts two needs separately — what feeds and what pleases. The same distinction was recorded in al-Wāqiʿa for the table of the garden.

wa shajaratan takhruju min ṭūri saynāʾa tanbutu bi'l-duhni wa ṣibghin li'l-ākilīn

"And a tree that comes out of Mount Sinai: it brings forth oil, and a relish for those who eat."

The verse does not give the name of the tree. In the classical exegetical tradition it is widely said to be the olive tree, and two grounds are given for this:

This oath was treated in al-Tīn, where it was recorded that Sinai is the mountain on which Moses received revelation, and that the fig and the olive may stand for a region. I rely on that treatment.

I pass on the explanation that the tree is the olive as it is transmitted; since the verse gives no name, I do not present it as a settled ruling.

طُور — mountain. The word was treated in al-Ṭūr on the occasion of that sūra's name. I do not repeat it here.

سَيْنَآء — there is a variant reading in the pronunciation of the word: saynāʾ and sīnāʾ. It does not change the meaning; both readings point to the same place.

The lexicographers differ over the origin of the word — whether it is an Arabic adjective (rocky/wooded) or a place name. I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference.

And an entry on context: the sūra will name Moses twenty-five verses after this one (45). The name Sinai occurs, before the narrative, in a passage about a plant. I record this as an observation and build no claim upon it.

This construction is the most disputed place in the verse.

The variant reading:

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

The lexicographers also differ over the work of the bāʾ:

All three explanations are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. In all three the outcome is close: the tree is a tree whose produce is oil.

The root ص-ب-غ: to dye, to dip a thing into a liquid. Ṣibgha — dye, colour (al-Baqara 2/138 — ṣibghata'llāh).

The lexicographers give the meaning of the word here as follows: the thing bread is dipped into, a relish. The "dipping" sense of the root, that is, is applied to an act at the table.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word names the way olive oil is used at the table — not the produce but the work done with the produce. And the qualification li'l-ākilīn reinforces this: "for those who eat".

wa inna lakum fi'l-anʿāmi la-ʿibrah, nusqīkum mimmā fī buṭūnihā wa lakum fīhā manāfiʿu kathīratun wa minhā taʾkulūn · wa ʿalayhā wa ʿalā'l-fulki tuḥmalūn

"In the grazing animals too there is a lesson for you: We give you to drink of what is in their bellies; in them you have many benefits, and from them you eat. On them and on the ship you are carried."

The root was worked out at al-Nāziʿāt 79/26 and at al-Ḥashr 59/2 (fa'tabirū yā ulī'l-abṣār). I do not repeat it here. The summary given there:

The concrete sense of the root: to pass from one side of a thing to the other. ʿUbūr — crossing over; maʿbar — a crossing place; ʿibāra — the speech that carries a meaning from one mind to another; taʿbīr — the carrying of a dream from image to meaning; ʿabra — the tear that spills over from the eye.

What belongs here is this, and I give it as my own reading: the picture in the word is passing from one place to another. A "lesson" (ʿibra), that is, is not the watching of what is seen — it is the crossing from what is seen to what is not seen. And the verse shows at once where this crossing runs from and to: from the drink that comes out of the animal's belly, to the order that brings it out.

The sentence is worth recording: the verse does not say "milk". Mimmā fī buṭūnihā — "of what is in their bellies".

I record this as an observation about the word order: instead of a name, a place is reported. And this fits the logic of the word "lesson" itself: the attention is drawn not to the product but to the place the product comes out of.

The same phenomenon is told in more detail at al-Naḥl 16/66 (min bayni farthin wa damin labanan khāliṣan). This verse keeps it short.

The root س-ق-ي: to give to drink. The pattern is Form IV (asqā), and the lexicographers record a nuance between saqā and asqā: the first is giving a drink once, the second providing a standing source of water. I pass the explanation on as it is transmitted.

The root ن-ف-ع: benefit. The word comes in the plural and with an adjective: manāfiʿu kathīra — "many benefits". The verse does not enumerate them.

The same expression occurs at al-Naḥl 16/5 (lakum fīhā difʾun wa manāfiʿu wa minhā taʾkulūn) and at al-Ḥajj 22/33.

فُلْك — the root ف-ل-ك was worked out at al-Zukhruf 43/12. I do not repeat it here. The summary given there: the core the lexicographers give is roundness and turning; falak — an orbit; falka — the round weight at the head of a spindle. Its use for a ship is explained by way of the ship's hull, or of its going by rocking on the water.

And the word order must be recorded: ʿalayhā (on them) and ʿalā'l-fulk (on the ship) are joined by the same particle and by a single verb: tuḥmalūn — "you are carried", passive.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being the passive of the verb: the sentence does not say "you ride" — "you are carried." The agent of the verb, that is, is not you. Land and sea are joined in a single verb of carrying.

The same pair was treated at al-Zukhruf 43/12 (wa jaʿala lakum mina'l-fulki wa'l-anʿāmi mā tarkabūn). The difference here must be recorded: in al-Zukhruf the verb is tarkabūn (you ride) — active; here it is tuḥmalūn (you are carried) — passive.

The same phenomenon, in two sūras, in two different voices. And this fits the block as a whole: in everything told since the twelfth verse, the agent of the verb is not the human being.

Twelve to twenty-two is a single series, and its order is worth recording:

The direction of the series must be recorded, and I give this as my own reading: it goes from the innermost (the human being's own body) out to the outermost (the heavens) and back in again (what he eats, drinks and rides). And throughout the series the agent of the verbs is one. The same method was treated at al-Wāqiʿa 56/58-72 — there too the seed, the water and the fire were enumerated in turn and at each the question "did you make it?" was put. I rely on that treatment. I record the difference: al-Wāqiʿa asks a question, al-Muʾminūn gives news.

wa laqad arsalnā nūḥan ilā qawmihī fa-qāla yā qawmi'budū'llāha mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh, a-fa-lā tattaqūn

"We sent Noah to his people, assuredly. He said: 'My people, serve God; you have no god other than Him. Will you not guard yourselves?'"

How a sequence of prophets is built was treated in detail in al-Ṣāffāt: there each narrative ended with the same seal of three or four sentences (wa taraknā ʿalayhi fi'l-ākhirīn, salāmun ʿalā…, innā kadhālika najzi'l-muḥsinīn). I rely on that treatment.

The sequence of al-Muʾminūn uses a different pattern, and its difference must be recorded:

This is a difference that can be verified from the two texts, and I interpret it as my own reading: the al-Ṣāffāt sequence showed the repetition of deliverance; the al-Muʾminūn sequence shows the repetition of the objection. Indeed the same sentence of objection (mā hādhā illā basharun mithlukum) will be repeated for three separate peoples.

The sentence will be repeated word for word in the thirty-second verse — there in the mouth of a messenger who is not named. There is not one word of difference between the two calls.

And the word order must be recorded: mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh — the negation is reinforced with the redundant min. In Arabic, when min enters upon an indefinite noun in a negative sentence it reports istighrāq (none at all, never); the lexicographers record this consistently. Not "you have no other god", that is, but "you have not any other god at all."

أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ — "will you not guard yourselves?" The call ends with a question, not with a threat.

And this question will return five times in the sūra, in three different patterns: a-fa-lā tattaqūn (23, 32), a-fa-lā taʿqilūn (80), a-fa-lā tadhakkarūn (85), a-fa-lā tattaqūn (87). All the questions of the sūra are in this pattern.

fa-qāla'l-malaʾu'lladhīna kafarū min qawmihī mā hādhā illā basharun mithlukum yurīdu an yatafaḍḍala ʿalaykum, wa law shāʾa'llāhu la-anzala malāʾikah, mā samiʿnā bi-hādhā fī ābāʾinā'l-awwalīn · in huwa illā rajulun bihī jinnatun fa-tarabbaṣū bihī ḥattā ḥīn

"The notables of his people who disbelieved said: 'This is nothing but a human being like yourselves; he wants to set himself above you. Had God willed, He would have sent down angels. We never heard of this among our forefathers. He is nothing but a man possessed; wait and watch him for a time.'"

The concrete sense of the root: to fill. Malaʾa'l-INāʾa — he filled the vessel; milʾ — a fill of something.

And al-malaʾ is described by the lexicographers as follows: the leading men of a community, its notables. Two explanations are transmitted for the naming:

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

And the distribution of the word across the sūra must be recorded: al-malaʾ occurs at 24 among Noah's people, at 33 among the next people, at 46 alongside Pharaoh. Three peoples, the same class.

I record this as an observation: each time it is not the common people but the leading men who voice the objection. This can be verified from the text in all three verses.

This objection was treated in detail at al-Furqān 25/7. The sentence there was: mā li-hādhā'l-rasūli yaʾkulu'l-ṭaʿāma wa yamshī fi'l-aswāq. And this was recorded there:

The logic of the objection must be recorded: the one who is a messenger ought to be free of human needs. What is expected is that the messenger should possess a visible privilege.

I rely on that treatment. What belongs here is the comparison of the two sentences:

The two objections come out of the same place, and this can be verified from the two texts: in both the sending down of an angel is demanded, and in both the messenger's humanity is counted a defect.

And at al-Furqān 25/20 the answer given to this objection was treated: wa mā arsalnā qablaka mina'l-mursalīna illā innahum la-yaʾkulūna'l-ṭaʿāma wa yamshūna fi'l-aswāq — the objection is not rejected, it is generalised.

The answer of al-Muʾminūn lies elsewhere, and it is one of the most striking structural elements of this sūra: the fifty-first verse. There, addressing all the messengers, it will be said kulū mina'l-ṭayyibāti wa'ʿmalū ṣāliḥā — "eat of the good things and do righteous deeds". The very act that was the subject of the objection (eating), that is, becomes the content of a command. This will be treated separately at the fifty-first verse.

The root ف-ض-ل: to increase, to be in excess, to be superior. Faḍl — surplus, bounty; tafaḍḍul — to claim superiority, to strive to stand above (Form V, reflexive).

And the form of the accusation is worth recording: the claim is aimed not at what the messenger says but at his intention. Yurīdu — "he wants".

I give this as my own reading, its ground being that this is the verb used: the other side is not disputing the content of the call; it is describing the purpose behind the call. The same point was recorded at al-Furqān 25/4-8: "not one of the objections looks at what the text says." I rely on that treatment.

And the meaning of Form V must be recorded: the pattern tafaḍḍul reports that superiority is being sought by one's own effort. The charge, that is, is not "superior" but "trying to make himself superior".

The argument from the forefathers. And this expression will be turned about in the sixty-eighth verse of the sūra:

The same construction (ābāʾ + al-awwalīn), once as a ground and once as a question. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

I record this as my own reading: the other side counted novelty a defect; the sixty-eighth verse takes the same point and asks "has anything new come, then?" The assumption the objection rests on — that this had not been heard before — is thereby put in question.

The root ج-ن-ن: to cover, to conceal. Janna — a garden (the trees cover the ground); jinn — the unseen; janīn — the one covered in the womb; junna — a shield; junūn — the covering over of the mind. The root was treated in al-Qamar and in al-Jinn. I do not repeat it here.

And this charge will occur once more in the sūra, in the seventieth verse:

The very same construction (bihī jinna), in two different ages. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as an observation: the sūra answers the charge levelled at those it addresses by showing that it was levelled at Noah as well. The same method was recorded at al-Furqān 25/31 and at Fāṭir 35/4: the situation is not removed, it is set in a series.

The root ر-ب-ص: to wait, to watch, to keep a lookout for something to happen. Tarabbuṣ — Form V: to wait and watch.

And the expression will occur once more in the sūra — but on the other side:

The same two words (ḥattā ḥīn), in two different mouths. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the exact sameness of the expression: the other side says "wait a while, it will pass"; the fifty-fourth verse sets the same span for them. In neither sentence is the length of the span stated — ḥīn is an indefinite stretch of time.

qāla rabbi'nṣurnī bimā kadhdhabūn

"He said: 'My Lord, help me, for they have denied me.'"

The sentence is three words, and it will be repeated word for word in the thirty-ninth verse of the sūra — there in the mouth of a messenger who is not named.

The word order must be recorded: bimā kadhdhabūn — the bāʾ here reports cause ("because they denied me"). Another parsing is also transmitted: mā is counted maṣdariyya and the sense given is "in return for their denial". Both parsings come out at the same place.

And the addressee of the complaint must be recorded: the prayer is directed to the Lord, not to the people. The same point was treated at al-Furqān 25/30 (inna qawmi'ttakhadhū hādhā'l-qurʾāna mahjūrā), and it was recorded there: while the objections are voiced openly, the answer is directed upward as a complaint. I rely on that treatment.

One further entry: the prayer does not say "destroy them." Unṣurnī — "help me". What is being asked for is not specified. I give this as an observation about the word order.

fa-awḥaynā ilayhi ani'ṣnaʿi'l-fulka bi-aʿyuninā wa waḥyinā, fa-idhā jāʾa amrunā wa fāra'l-tannūru fa'sluk fīhā min kullin zawjayni'thnayni wa ahlaka illā man sabaqa ʿalayhi'l-qawlu minhum, wa lā tukhāṭibnī fi'lladhīna ẓalamū, innahum mughraqūn

"We revealed to him: 'Build the ship under Our eyes and by Our revelation. When Our command comes and the oven boils over, put into it two of every kind, and your family — except those of them against whom the word has already gone forth. And do not address Me concerning those who have done wrong; they are to be drowned.'"

The construction was treated at al-Qamar 54/14 (tajrī bi-aʿyuninā) and occurred at al-Ṭūr 52/48 (fa-innaka bi-aʿyuninā). I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is the difference between the two verses, and it must be recorded:

The same construction, once for the voyage and once for the building. This is an overlap that can be verified from the two texts.

And bi-aʿyuninā + wa waḥyinā must be recorded together: two things are given at once — oversight and instruction. The ship, that is, is built both under watch and by description. I give this as an observation about the word order.

An entry, per the method (Method): no modality is produced about the construction aʿyun (eyes). The lexicographers and the exegetes generally explain the construction as watching over and protection; I pass the explanation on as it is transmitted and go no further.

The root ف-و-ر: to boil, to gush, to overflow. Fāra'l-qidr — the pot boiled; fawr — at once, the moment it comes to the boil (min fawrihim — Āl ʿImrān 3/125).

تَنُّور — an oven, a baking pit. The word was cited in this connection in al-Mulk (Hūd 11/40 — wa fāra'l-tannūr). The word occurs in only two places in the Qurʾān: Hūd 11/40 and this verse.

The exegetes differ over what the expression "the oven boiled over" reports:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference. And I do not repeat the place names that are transmitted, since I am not certain of their source. Per the method (Method), I do not add to the narrative a detail the Qurʾān does not give.

The root س-ل-ك was cited at the eighteenth verse: to send into a path, to make pass. The same root is used there for making water pass into the ground, here for putting living things into the ship.

A variant reading must be recorded: the readings min kullin zawjayni'thnayn (with tanwīn) and min kulli zawjayni'thnayn (as a genitive construction) are transmitted.

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The outcome is close in both.

The word زَوْج must be recorded: in Arabic zawj is one member of a pair — not both together, as English "pair" is. For this reason the construction zawjayni'thnayn means "two spouses, that is, two of them". The lexicographers record this nicety consistently.

The exception must be recorded: part of the family is left outside. And the ground for being left outside is not a kinship but a word that has already gone forth: sabaqa ʿalayhi'l-qawl.

I record this as an observation: in the language of the verse, deliverance is settled not by lineage but by a decree. Who is meant is not said here; at Hūd 11/42-46 a son is spoken of. This verse itself gives no name, and I add none.

The root خ-ط-ب: to speak, to address. Khiṭāb — speech exchanged; khuṭba — an address; khiṭba — a proposal of marriage (the giving of one's word).

The scope of the prohibition is worth recording: lā tukhāṭibnī — "do not address Me", that is, do not raise the matter. The verse does not say "do not pray" or "do not ask"; it forbids the addressing itself.

I give this as an observation about the word order and go no further.

fa-idhā'stawayta anta wa man maʿaka ʿalā'l-fulki fa-quli'l-ḥamdu li'llāhi'lladhī najjānā mina'l-qawmi'l-ẓālimīn · wa qul rabbi anzilnī munzalan mubārakan wa anta khayru'l-munzilīn

"When you and those with you are settled on the ship, say: 'Praise belongs to God, who delivered us from the wrongdoing people.' And say: 'My Lord, bring me down at a blessed landing; You are the best of those who bring down.'"

The word order must be recorded, and this is the most striking place in the two verses: one looks backward, the other forward.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the tense of the two verbs: at the moment of boarding, something is said both about the place departed from and about the place still to be reached. And both prayers are commanded in the middle of the voyage, when nothing has yet ended.

And an entry on context: the second prayer is for the landing. The ship has not yet moved; but the prayer already speaks of coming down.

There is a variant reading in the pronunciation of the word, and it bears on the meaning:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. On both, the prayer asks for the same thing: that the place reached be blessed.

مُّبَارَكًا — the root ب-ر-ك was cited at the fourteenth verse; it was worked out at al-Mulk 67/1. I do not repeat it here.

And the construction is worth recording: what is asked for is not a large, a spacious or a safe place — but a blessed one. The core of the root is lasting and increase. The prayer, that is, asks not for the quality of the place but for the continuance of what will happen there. I give this as my own reading.

وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ ٱلْمُنزِلِين — the second of the five superlative constructions in the sūra (14, 29, 72, 109, 118). And the word order must be recorded: the construction is inside the prayer, not a separate sentence. The one who asks, that is, names the source of what he asks for even as he asks.

inna fī dhālika la-āyātin wa in kunnā la-mubtalīn

"In this there are surely signs. And We were surely putting to the test."

The word order must be recorded: āyāt is plural. In the Qurʾān this pattern most often comes in the singular (inna fī dhālika la-āyatan). Here it comes in the plural.

I record this as an observation: the narrative told is not a single event — the call, the objection, the ship, the deliverance, the drowning. The plural fits the number of steps in the narrative.

The lexicographers dwell on the word order: in here is the lightened form of the heavy inna (mukhaffafa mina'l-thaqīla), and the lām is the distinguishing lām that marks it off. The sentence, that is, is not a negation but an emphatic assertion: "We were surely putting to the test."

The root ب-ل-و / ب-ل-ي: to try, to test; and to wear out, to wear down. Ibtilāʾ — testing. The root was treated at al-Mulk 67/2 (li-yabluwakum ayyukum aḥsanu ʿamalā) and at al-ʿAnkabūt 29/2-3. I do not repeat it here.

And the place of the sentence must be recorded: at the close of the narrative comes the word testing. What is told, that is, is sealed not as a report of destruction but as an instance of a testing.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being this position of the sentence. And the same frame was treated at al-Furqān 25/20 (wa jaʿalnā baʿḍakum li-baʿḍin fitnatan a-taṣbirūn) — where it was recorded that the testing comes by the hand of other people. I rely on that treatment.

thumma anshaʾnā min baʿdihim qarnan ākharīn · fa-arsalnā fīhim rasūlan minhum ani'budū'llāha mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh, a-fa-lā tattaqūn

"Then after them We brought into being another generation. And We sent among them a messenger from among themselves: 'Serve God; you have no god other than Him. Will you not guard yourselves?'"

The concrete sense of the root: to bring two things together, to join them. Qarana — he joined; qarīn — companion, consort; qurūn — horns (the two that stand side by side on the head).

And qarn is recorded by the lexicographers in two senses:

I do not repeat the figures given for the span, since I am not certain of their sources. The usage here is in the first sense — indeed ākharīn (a plural adjective) comes for a community.

A detail of word order must be recorded: qarnan is singular, its adjective ākharīn plural. The lexicographers record this and explain it by qarn being plural in sense (a community).

And this is a fact that must be recorded: the sūra does not say the name of this people. Noah was named; from here on the sequence runs without names.

The exegetes differ over who this people is:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference. And the third view has a ground in the text, which I record: the forty-second verse says qurūnan ākharīn (plural), carrying the sequence on with an unspecified number of peoples. The sūra, that is, is telling not individual peoples but a repeating pattern.

It was tabulated at the nineteenth verse. What belongs here is the one-word difference between the thirty-first verse and the forty-second:

The rest of the sentences is word for word the same. This is a fact that can be verified from the text.

I record this as my own reading: the sequence is first set out in detail with one people (31-41), and then shortened by being put in the plural (42-44). The telling, that is, moves from the example to the rule.

The qualification must be recorded: minhum — "from among themselves". The messenger does not come from outside. And this is exactly the point on which the objection in the twenty-fourth verse rests (basharun mithlukum).

The text, that is, itself sets down as a qualification the very matter the objection is about. I give this as an observation. The same line was treated at al-Aḥqāf 46/9 (mā kuntu bidʿan mina'l-rusul).

And the sentence of the call is word for word the same as the twenty-third verse — the only difference being that Noah's vocative yā qawmi is absent here.

wa qāla'l-malaʾu min qawmihi'lladhīna kafarū wa kadhdhabū bi-liqāʾi'l-ākhirati wa atrafnāhum fi'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā mā hādhā illā basharun mithlukum yaʾkulu mimmā taʾkulūna minhu wa yashrabu mimmā tashrabūn · wa la-in aṭaʿtum basharan mithlakum innakum idhan la-khāsirūn

"The notables of his people who disbelieved, who denied the meeting of the hereafter, and on whom We had bestowed prosperity in the life of this world, said: 'This is nothing but a human being like yourselves: he eats of what you eat and drinks of what you drink. If you obey a human being like yourselves, then you will surely be the losers.'"

The word order must be recorded, and this is the most striking place in the verse: the speaking party is introduced by three qualifications:

The third stands apart from the others, and this is a fact that must be recorded: the agent of the first two qualifications is they themselves (kafarū, kadhdhabū); the agent of the third is the text — atrafnāhum, "We gave them prosperity".

I record this as my own reading, its ground being this change of voice in the verb: in describing the condition of the objectors, what they themselves did and what was done to them are set side by side. And prosperity is counted not as a crime but as an attribute.

The root ت-ر-ف: to live in abundance, to grow giddy with plenty. Tarafa — he lived in abundance; mutraf — spoiled by prosperity. The root was treated at Sabaʾ 34/34 and at al-Wāqiʿa 56/45 (innahum kānū qabla dhālika mutrafīn). I do not repeat it here.

And the root will come back once more in the sūra: in the sixty-fourth verse, ḥattā idhā akhadhnā mutrafīhim bi'l-ʿadhāb.

The same root, once in the giving and once in the taking. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The objection goes one step further than the one in the twenty-fourth verse, and this must be recorded:

Three objections, three separate peoples, the same core: basharun mithlukum. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And the two verbs of the thirty-third verse — eating and drinking — are in exactly the same field as the objection at al-Furqān 25/7 (yaʾkulu'l-ṭaʿām). I rely on that treatment.

And the answer to this objection will come in the fifty-first verse: yā ayyuha'l-rusulu kulū mina'l-ṭayyibāt. The act of eating, that is, having been the subject of the objection, becomes the subject of a command. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be treated separately at the fifty-first verse.

The word order must be recorded: the sentence begins with the lām of the oath (la-in), and its apodosis is reinforced with innakum … la-khāsirūn. The other side, that is, speaks in the pattern of an oath.

The root خ-س-ر: to diminish, to lose; to give short measure. The root was treated at al-ʿAṣr 103/2 (inna'l-insāna la-fī khusr) and in al-Muṭaffifīn. I do not repeat it here.

And the fate of the word must be recorded: the same root will return in the hundred and third verse of the sūra — ulāʾika'lladhīna khasirū anfusahum. The other side says that those who obey will come to loss; the sūra takes the word and turns it back on them. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as an observation.

a-yaʿidukum annakum idhā mittum wa kuntum turāban wa ʿiẓāman annakum mukhrajūn · hayhāta hayhāta limā tūʿadūn · in hiya illā ḥayātuna'l-dunyā namūtu wa naḥyā wa mā naḥnu bi-mabʿūthīn · in huwa illā rajulun'ftarā ʿalā'llāhi kadhiban wa mā naḥnu lahū bi-muʾminīn

"'Does he promise you that when you have died and become dust and bones you will be brought out? Far, far off is what you are promised! There is no life but our life in this world: we die and we live, and we are not to be raised. He is nothing but a man who has invented a lie against God, and we are not going to believe him.'"

The word is not a noun but an ism fiʿl — a word that carries the meaning of a verb but is not inflected like a verb. Its meaning: "how far off!"

A variant reading is transmitted in the vowel at the end of the word (hayhāta / hayhāti / hayhātu); it does not change the meaning.

And the word order must be recorded: the word is repeated twice. In Arabic such repetition reports emphasis. What is rejected, that is, is counted not far but "very far".

I record this as an observation: the other side does not say that the resurrection is impossible — it says that it is far off. And the particle lām (limā tūʿadūn) must be recorded: the lexicographers record that limā here does not mean "for", but shows to whom the distance belongs.

The lexicographers differ over the sentence, and the disagreement changes the meaning:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference. What is common to all three is this: the sentence confines life to this world.

And the same objection will return word for word in the eighty-second verse of the sūra: a-idhā mitnā wa kunnā turāban wa ʿiẓāman a-innā la-mabʿūthūn. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and the eighty-first verse will name it openly: bal qālū mithla mā qāla'l-awwalūn — "they said the same as those before them said."

The sūra, that is, repeats in the eighty-second verse, in the mouths of those it addresses, the sentence it placed in the mouth of a people in the thirty-fifth, and it records this as a finding. This weave can be verified from the wording of the two verses.

The root ف-ر-ي: to split, to cut a hide; and to invent. Iftirāʾ — Form VIII: to invent, to fasten upon someone. The root was treated at al-Furqān 25/4 (in hādhā illā ifkun'ftarāh).

And its difference from the counterpart charge in al-Furqān must be recorded:

Two charges from the same root, in two different directions.

qāla rabbi'nṣurnī bimā kadhdhabūn · qāla ʿammā qalīlin la-yuṣbiḥunna nādimīn · fa-akhadhathumu'l-ṣayḥatu bi'l-ḥaqqi fa-jaʿalnāhum ghuthāʾan, fa-buʿdan li'l-qawmi'l-ẓālimīn

"He said: 'My Lord, help me, for they have denied me.' He said: 'In a little while they will be full of regret.' Then the cry seized them in truth, and We made them scum. Away with the wrongdoing people!"

It is the same as the twenty-sixth verse without the difference of a single letter. Two messengers, two peoples, the same prayer. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And the answer the two prayers receive is different, and this must be recorded:

The same prayer, two different responses. I record this as an observation: in the first a preparation is asked of the messenger; in the second nothing is asked of him.

The construction: ʿan + mā (redundant) + qalīl. The lexicographers record that the mā here is redundant and reinforcing. The sense: "after a little while."

نَادِمِين — the root ن-د-م: regret. The lexicographers also record the branch of the root meaning "to come after a thing" (nadīm — a table companion).

And the form of the news is worth recording: what is reported is not the punishment itself but the state of the other side — nādimīn. What is promised, that is, is not a punishment but a regret.

The root ص-ي-ح: to cry out loudly. Ṣayḥa — a cry, a din. The root was treated at Yāsīn 36/29, 36/49 and 36/53, and in al-Qamar.

بِٱلْحَقِّ — this must be recorded: the seizing is qualified with truth. The punishment, that is, is named not as an arbitrary display of power but as a deserved outcome.

The root غ-ث-و / غ-ث-ي: the debris a torrent carries down, the frothy refuse that gathers on the water.

The word was worked out at al-Aʿlā 87/5 (fa-jaʿalahū ghuthāʾan aḥwā) — and this very verse was cited there as the word's other occurrence. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is the difference between the two verses:

The same word, once for a plant and once for a community. And at al-Zumar 39/21 and al-Wāqiʿa 56/65 the same idea was given with a different word (ḥuṭām — crumbled fragments).

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the picture in the word: ghuthāʾ is not a thing that has ceased to exist — it is a thing that stands on the water but is not held. The same finding recorded for habāʾ (dust) at al-Furqān 25/23 holds here too: not annihilation, but not remaining in hand.

The pattern: an absolute object with its verb elided. Buʿdan — "(let there be) distance". In Arabic it is a pattern of imprecation.

And the pattern will come once more in the forty-fourth verse, with a difference of one word:

Two differences must be recorded: the first is definite (al-qawm), the second indefinite (qawmin); the first is qualified by wrongdoing, the second by not believing. At the end of the sequence, that is, the verdict passes from a people to an attribute. This is a difference that can be verified from the text, and it is what the principle recorded in Method — that a verdict is attached to an attribute and not to a group — comes to in this sūra.

thumma anshaʾnā min baʿdihim qurūnan ākharīn · mā tasbiqu min ummatin ajalahā wa mā yastaʾkhirūn · thumma arsalnā rusulanā tatrā, kullamā jāʾa ummatan rasūluhā kadhdhabūh, fa-atbaʿnā baʿḍahum baʿḍan wa jaʿalnāhum aḥādīth, fa-buʿdan li-qawmin lā yuʾminūn

"Then after them We brought into being other generations. No community outruns its term, nor can they put it back. Then We sent Our messengers one after another. Whenever its messenger came to a community, they denied him. So We made them follow one after another, and We made them tales. Away with a people who do not believe!"

The original of the word is watrā; the initial wāw has turned into a tāʾ — the lexicographers record this change consistently.

The concrete sense of the root: witr — odd, not even. And from this arises the sense of coming one after another.

And the lexicographers' principal entry here is this: tatrā means to come in succession but not adjoining. Muwātara — coming after another, with an interval in between. The word, that is, carries both continuity and interval at once.

I give this as an entry about the language and rely on the lexicographers' description. And the choice of this word in this verse is worth recording: the messengers are named not as an unbroken chain but as a series repeated at intervals.

A variant reading: tatrā (with alif, a diptote) and tatran (with tanwīn). It does not change the meaning.

The word order must be recorded: kullamā — "whenever". The conditional particle reports that there is no exception.

And the agreement of the pronoun must be recorded: ummatan is singular, kadhdhabūhu plural. The lexicographers explain this by umma being plural in sense (a community).

This construction was worked out at Sabaʾ 34/19. I do not repeat it here. A summary of what was recorded there:

The original sense of the root ح-د-ث is "to be new, to come about afterwards". Aḥādīth means the things that go on being told. And the build of the sentence is this: a community is turned into a narration. At the core of the root lies being new; a people's turning into a "ḥadīth" is its losing its actual existence and becoming something reconstituted afresh at each telling.

And the following finding recorded in Sabaʾ attaches directly here: "the measure of a community is, in the end, what is told about it. The verse names this as a punishment."

What belongs here is the difference of setting between the two verses:

The same punishment, in two different frames.

The root ت-ب-ع: to go after, to follow. Form IV (atbaʿa): to make follow after.

And the word order is worth recording: tatrā (the messengers one after another) and atbaʿnā baʿḍahum baʿḍan (the peoples one after another) give the same idea with two different roots.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being that the two expressions stand in the same verse: the verse builds two parallel series — the series of messengers arriving and the series of peoples departing. And the two stand side by side in one sentence.

The narrowing direction of the block must be recorded, and I give this as my own reading: the telling goes from detail to summary — an eight-verse narrative, then an eleven-verse narrative, then a two-verse rule, then a one-verse gathering. And the gathering sentence is attached to an attribute: li-qawmin lā yuʾminūn.

thumma arsalnā mūsā wa akhāhu hārūna bi-āyātinā wa sulṭānin mubīn · ilā firʿawna wa malaʾihī fa'stakbarū wa kānū qawman ʿālīn

"Then We sent Moses and his brother Aaron (Hārūn) with Our signs and a clear warrant: to Pharaoh and his notables. They grew arrogant; they were a people who held themselves high."

The word order must be recorded: Aaron is named not by his name first but by the description brother — akhāhu hārūn.

I give this as an observation: in this sūra most of the prophets are unnamed; Aaron's name is given, but a relation is placed in front of it. And this relation will find its counterpart in the language of the objection in the forty-seventh verse: a-nuʾminu li-basharayni mithlinā — in the dual. The other side addresses the two of them together.

The root س-ل-ط: to get on top of a thing, to have mastery, to hold power. Sulṭān — it means both power and proof; the lexicographers explain the second sense as "the argument that silences its opponent and prevails".

And āyāt and sulṭān must be recorded together: two separate things are named. The lexicographers explain this in two ways:

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

The root ع-ل-و: to rise, to be above.

And the word order must be recorded: the sentence is built with kānū (a perfect, reporting continuity). The arrogance, that is, is not a reaction that began with the coming of the messengers — it is a state that existed beforehand.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being the order of the two verbs: first fa'stakbarū (they grew arrogant — the reaction to the call), then wa kānū qawman ʿālīn (they were already a people who held themselves high — the prior state). After telling the reaction, the sentence lays down the ground of the reaction.

And the root will return twice more in the sūra:

The same root, with three different subjects. This is a distribution that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as an observation: the verb of rising shifts place across the sūra and is at last attached to a single place.

fa-qālū a-nuʾminu li-basharayni mithlinā wa qawmuhumā lanā ʿābidūn · fa-kadhdhabūhumā fa-kānū mina'l-muhlakīn · wa laqad ātaynā mūsā'l-kitāba laʿallahum yahtadūn

"They said: 'Are we to believe two human beings like ourselves, while their people are servants to us?' They denied them, and became of those destroyed. We gave Moses the Book, assuredly — that they might be guided."

This is the third basharun mithlukum objection in the sūra, and it is set apart from the earlier ones by one difference: a social ground is added here.

The third is worth recording: here the objection rests not on the kind but on the social order of rank.

And the particle must be recorded: nuʾminu li-basharayn. In Arabic there is a nuance between āmana bi- (to believe in a thing) and āmana li- (to trust someone, to accept his word), and the lexicographers record it. The particle here is lām: what is at issue is accepting the word of two men.

The root ع-ب-د has a particular feature here, and it must be recorded.

The concrete sense of the root is given by the lexicographers as follows: ṭarīqun muʿabbad — a road levelled and made smooth by being trodden. From this comes the sense of submitting, serving.

And the word is used here not for a service directed to God but for one directed to human beings: lanā ʿābidūn. The word, that is, is not confined to the sense of worship; it is used for service and subordination as well. The lexicographers record this.

I record this as an observation about the language: the other side builds its own standing by looking at who serves whom. And this stands in contrast with the description of the muʾminūn in the first verse of the sūra: there identity is settled by a list of attributes, here by a hierarchy. I record this contrast as my own reading.

The brevity of the narrative is worth recording: the narrative of Moses is one of the longest accounts in the Qurʾān; here it ends in three verses, and none of the events is told — no staff, no sea, no exodus.

I give this as an observation, its ground being the block as a whole: the sūra lines up the narratives not in order to tell them but in order to show the repeating pattern. Here too, accordingly, there are only three elements: the sending, the objection, the outcome.

And the verb must be recorded: kānū mina'l-muhlakīn — "they became of those destroyed". A passive participle pattern. Entry into a group is reported, that is — the group formed by the peoples named before.

The word order must be recorded: the forty-eighth verse had reported the destruction; the forty-ninth turns back and names the giving of the Book.

And the pronoun must be recorded: laʿallahum yahtadūn — who are "they"? The lexicographers differ:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference.

wa jaʿalnā'bna maryama wa ummahū āyatan wa āwaynāhumā ilā rabwatin dhāti qarārin wa maʿīn

"We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign, and We gave the two of them shelter on a height with a place to settle and with running water."

The word order must be recorded, and this is the most striking place in the verse: two persons are named (ibna maryama wa ummahū), but āya comes in the singular — āyatan, not the plural.

The lexicographers give several explanations for this singular:

I pass the explanations on; I do not impose a preference. The first explanation is the closest to the text, and I record it as an observation, its ground being that the pronoun is dual: the continuation of the sentence has āwaynāhumā (the two of them). The sentence, that is, keeps the duality in number and unites it in the attribute.

The distinction between jaʿala and khalaqa was recorded at al-Zukhruf 43/3 and cited at the thirteenth verse: jaʿala reports the putting of a thing from one state into another.

I give this as an observation about the word order: the verse speaks not of the creation of the two persons but of what they were made into. The two are set into the condition of a sign.

The concrete sense of the root: to take refuge in a place, to be sheltered. Maʾwā — a shelter; īwāʾ — the giving of shelter. The root was treated at al-Najm 53/15 (jannatu'l-maʾwā) and at al-Nāziʿāt 79/39. And the verb īwāʾ occurs regularly in the Qurʾān in the setting of being taken into protection (al-Ḍuḥā 93/6 — a-lam yajidka yatīman fa-āwā; treated in al-Ḍuḥā).

I record this as an observation: the verb reports not a move but a sheltering.

The root ر-ب-و: to increase, to rise, to swell. The root was worked out at al-Baqara 2/275 (ribā) and treated again at al-Rūm 30/39 and at Fuṣṣilat 41/39 (ihtazzat wa rabat). I do not repeat it here.

Rabwa — a high place, a height. The word occurs at al-Baqara 2/265 as well (ka-mathali jannatin bi-rabwatin).

A variant reading: rabwa / rubwa / ribwa. It does not change the meaning.

قَرَار — the root ق-ر-ر was treated at the thirteenth verse. And a link within the sūra is built here, and it must be recorded:

The same word, once the place where the body is formed, once the place where two people are sheltered. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the core sense of the word: qarār is the place where one stops, where one comes to rest. Both verses describe a place of protection — one unseen, the other geographical.

مَعِين — the lexicographers differ over the origin of the word:

Both views are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The outcome is the same on both: running, reachable water. The word occurred at al-Wāqiʿa 56/18 (kaʾsin min maʿīn) and at al-Mulk 67/30 (bi-māʾin maʿīn).

And the pairing of the two adjectives is worth recording: qarār reports standing still, maʿīn flowing. The place is fixed, the water runs. I record this as an observation about the language.

The verse does not say where the height is. A few place names are transmitted in the classical commentaries; I do not pass them on, since I am not certain of their sources. Per the method (Method), I do not add to the narrative a detail the Qurʾān does not give.

yā ayyuha'l-rusulu kulū mina'l-ṭayyibāti wa'ʿmalū ṣāliḥā, innī bimā taʿmalūna ʿalīm

"Messengers! Eat of the good things and do righteous deeds. I know what you do."

The sentence addresses a plural: yā ayyuha'l-rusul — "messengers". And this is the only address in the Qurʾān directed to the messengers collectively.

The exegetes differ over who is addressed:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference.

And this is the most striking place in the verse.

The word order must be recorded: kulū (eat) comes first, wa'ʿmalū ṣāliḥā (do righteous deeds) second.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the sūra's own text: in the thirty-third verse the expression the other side used in objecting to the messenger was exactly this — yaʾkulu mimmā taʾkulūna minh. The act of eating was counted a defect there.

Eighteen verses later the same verb becomes the first word of a command directed at all the messengers.

This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.

And the same method was treated between al-Furqān 25/7 and 25/20. What was recorded there holds here too:

The answer does not reject the description in the objection — it confirms it and generalises it. Not "it is not so", that is, but "it always was so".

I compare the method of the two sūras:

The difference is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading: al-Furqān meets the objection with a report — "the messengers were always like this". al-Muʾminūn turns the same verb into a command — "eat". One is a defence, then, the other an order.

The root ط-ي-ب: to be pleasant, to be clean, to be good. Ṭayyib — pleasant, clean, lawful. The root was treated at al-Baqara 2/168 and 2/172 (kulū min ṭayyibāti mā razaqnākum).

And there is an overlap that must be recorded: al-Baqara 2/172 directs the same command to those who believe; this verse directs the same command to the messengers.

The same command, to two different addressees. This is an overlap that can be verified from the two texts, and I record it as an observation: on this item no difference is set between the messenger and the believer.

Ṣāliḥ — root ص-ل-ح: to be unspoiled, to be sound and serviceable. Iṣlāḥ — putting right; ṣulḥ — the repairing of what is broken. The word has occurred in many places across this series.

And the word order must be recorded: ṣāliḥan is indefinite — "a righteous (deed)". Not definite. The command, that is, does not give a list.

إِنِّى بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ عَلِيمٌ — the close of the sentence is attached to the deed, not to the eating. And bimā taʿmalūna has been brought forward (taqdīm): "what you do — I know."

wa inna hādhihī ummatukum ummatan wāḥidatan wa ana rabbukum fa'ttaqūn

"This community of yours is one single community, and I am your Lord. So guard yourselves against Me."

Three readings are transmitted for the particle at the head of the sentence, and the difference bears on the meaning:

All three readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. It produces no radical change in the ruling.

The concrete sense of the root: to turn towards, to aim at; and origin, mother. Amma — he turned towards; imām — the one who goes in front, the one turned towards; umm — mother; umma — a community gathered towards a common direction.

The word was treated at al-Shūrā 42/13 and at al-Baqara 2/213.

And the parsing of the word here must be recorded: ummatan wāḥidatan is in the accusative — the lexicographers count it a circumstantial accusative. The sentence, that is, is closer to "your community — as one single community — is your community" than to "your community is one community". I pass the explanation on as it is transmitted.

This sentence occurs once more in the Qurʾān, almost word for word: al-Anbiyāʾ 21/92. The only difference between the two verses is in the last word:

This verse was treated at al-Anbiyāʾ 21/92-93; I rely on that treatment. And the following verse of the two sūras overlaps as well — al-Anbiyāʾ 21/93: wa taqaṭṭaʿū amrahum baynahum kullun ilaynā rājiʿūn; al-Muʾminūn 23/53: fa-taqaṭṭaʿū amrahum baynahum zuburā. In both sūras, that is, the sentence of unity is followed by the same sentence of breaking apart. This is an overlap that can be verified from the wording of the two texts.

And the choice of word here has a ground within the sūra, which must be recorded: the question a-fa-lā tattaqūn has occurred twice in this sūra, from the mouths of two messengers (23, 32). The fifty-second verse brings the same root in the imperative. The sūra, that is, repeats the messengers' question as its own verdict.

The fifty-second verse reports unity; the fifty-third reports the breaking apart. The passage between them is the very question treated at al-Baqara 2/213 and al-Shūrā 42/13-14.

It was recorded at al-Baqara 2/213:

The cause of the division, that is, is not given as ignorance. The text says it plainly: min baʿdi mā jāʾathumu'l-bayyināt — after the clear proofs had come. The cause is given not as a lack of knowledge but as a disposition held against one another.

At al-Shūrā 42/14 the same ruling was repeated in almost the same words: wa mā tafarraqū illā min baʿdi mā jāʾahumu'l-ʿilmu baghyan baynahum.

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here. The three sūras build the same order:

In all three the order is the same: unity → knowledge → division. This is an overlap that can be verified from the three texts.

And the difference in al-Muʾminūn must be recorded: al-Baqara and al-Shūrā name the cause of the division (baghy — envious rivalry). al-Muʾminūn gives no cause; in its place it describes the form of the division: zuburan and kullu ḥizbin bimā ladayhim fariḥūn. One tells why, that is, the other how.

fa-taqaṭṭaʿū amrahum baynahum zuburā, kullu ḥizbin bimā ladayhim fariḥūn

"But they cut their affair apart among themselves into pieces. Every party rejoices in what it has."

The root ق-ط-ع: to cut, to sever. The pattern is Form V (taqaṭṭaʿa), and the lexicographers record that this pattern reports two things at once here: takalluf (doing it with their own hands) and muṭāwaʿa (being broken apart).

And the word order must be recorded: the verb is transitive — taqaṭṭaʿū amrahum. What is cut apart, that is, is not they but their affair. They are not being broken apart; they are breaking apart the one affair in their hands.

I give this as an observation about the word order, and its ground is the presence of the object. And the qualification baynahum (among themselves) shows that the breaking apart took the form of a division of shares.

The root was worked out at al-Qamar 54/43 and 54/52. I do not repeat it here. A summary of what was recorded there:

The root ز-ب-ر: to incise on a hard surface; and a mass of iron, a well lined with stone. Zubur — the plural of zabūr or of zibr: written pages, books. And in al-Qamar the difference between ز-ب-ر and س-ط-ر was tabulated: ز-ب-ر is incising, and it reports permanence — not being erased.

And in al-Qamar it was shown that the root builds a question-and-answer link within that sūra (a question at 54/43, an answer at 54/52). I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is the meaning of the word in this verse, and the lexicographers differ:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference.

There is a variant reading as well: the readings zuburan (زُبُرًا — with ḍamma on the bāʾ, the plural of zabūr/zibr) and zubara (زُبَرًا — with fatḥa on the bāʾ, the plural of zubra) are transmitted. This variant reading bears directly on the disagreement above: the fatḥa reading supports the second sense, the ḍamma reading the first.

And the lexicographers differ over its parsing as well: is zuburan a circumstantial accusative (in pieces), or a substitute for amr? Both parsings are transmitted.

I record this much as my own reading, its ground being the analysis of the root in al-Qamar: at the core of the root is incising on a hard surface. Whichever sense is taken, the word reports something that cannot easily be undone — whether an incised text or a broken-off piece of iron. And set beside the verb (taqaṭṭaʿū), the permanence of what has been done comes to the fore. This is a reading, and it is not binding.

The sentence occurs once more in the Qurʾān, in exactly the same wording: al-Rūm 30/32. It was treated at al-Rūm 30/32 (mina'lladhīna farraqū dīnahum wa kānū shiyaʿan, kullu ḥizbin bimā ladayhim fariḥūn). I rely on that treatment.

The two verses can be compared:

The same concluding sentence, after two different verbs. This is an overlap that can be verified from the two texts.

حِزْب — the root ح-ز-ب: to gather together; and a definite portion of a thing. Ḥizb — a band, a party; and a section of a book. The lexicographers also record the branch of the root meaning "distress, hardship" (ḥazabahu'l-amr).

The distinction between the roots was worked out at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/75. I do not repeat it here. What was given there:

And the finding recorded in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) was this:

Rejoicing is not condemned in itself — rejoicing without warrant is condemned. The second verb, by contrast, comes without qualification, because the word maraḥ already carries excess within it.

I rely on that treatment. And what belongs here is this: in this verse it is not maraḥ but fariḥ that is used — so what is condemned is not joy itself. Indeed at al-Rūm 30/1-5 the same root was used of the believers: wa yawmaʾidhin yafraḥu'l-muʾminūn.

This distinction was tabulated in al-Rūm, where the root's three occurrences (30/4, 30/32, 30/36) were gathered under the heading "joy changing according to what it is attached to". I rely on that treatment.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the qualification in the sentence: what is condemned is not faraḥ but bimā ladayhim fariḥūn — rejoicing "in what they have". And the word ladayhim (what is beside them) must be recorded: joy is being measured by what is held in hand. The verse points at the object of the joy.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being the order of the two sentences: the verse first tells the breaking apart (taqaṭṭaʿū), then tells that the breaking apart continues (fariḥūn — an active participle, an ongoing state). And the second sentence explains why the first is not being repaired: each party is content with what it has. The breaking apart, that is, is not experienced as a loss.

fa-dharhum fī ghamratihim ḥattā ḥīn

"So leave them in their own flood until a time."

The concrete sense of the root: water's covering a thing completely, closing over it and taking it in. Ghamara'l-māʾu — the water covered it; ghamr — abundant water, a deep place; ghimr — rancour (what covers the heart); mughāmara — throwing oneself into a thing.

The root is worked out here for the first time in this series.

The picture in the word is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading: ghamra is a state one is inside of and from which the outside cannot be seen. The word, that is, names not an error but a being surrounded.

And the word will return once more in the sūra, nine verses later:

The same word, twice, nine verses apart. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And the difference must be recorded: in the fifty-fourth verse what is surrounded is the persons; in the sixty-third it is their hearts. The second occurrence, that is, narrows the location of the first.

These two words occurred in the twenty-fifth verse in the mouth of the other side: fa-tarabbaṣū bihī ḥattā ḥīn — "wait and watch him for a time".

The same two words, on two different sides. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as an observation: the command to wait changes direction twenty-nine verses later.

حِين — an indefinite stretch of time. The lexicographers record that the word reports no fixed span. In neither verse is the span stated.

The root و-ذ-ر: to leave, to abandon. The lexicographers record that the perfect of this verb is not used — only the imperfect and the imperative are current.

And the scope of the command must be recorded, and I give this as my own reading: the command is not "do not trouble yourself with them" but "leave them inside their own state". The qualification fī ghamratihim shows this: the place they are left in is their own condition.

The same line was treated at al-Furqān 25/43 (a-fa-anta takūnu ʿalayhi wakīlā) and in the limit of responsibility tabulated at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/56. This verse is a link in that line.

a-yaḥsabūna annamā numidduhum bihī min mālin wa banīn · nusāriʿu lahum fi'l-khayrāt, bal lā yashʿurūn

"Do they suppose that, in the wealth and sons with which We supply them, We are hurrying good things to them? No — they do not perceive."

The concrete sense of the root: to extend, to draw out, to feed continuously. Madd — extending; midād — ink (what flows steadily to the pen); imdād — supplying without interruption.

The pattern is Form IV, and the lexicographers record a distinction between madda and amadda: amadda is used mostly for good and support, madda for extending a term and granting respite. I pass the explanation on as it is transmitted; there are exceptions to this distinction in the Qurʾān as well.

And the verb's coming in the imperfect must be recorded: numidduhum — an ongoing giving.

The two words occur together regularly in the Qurʾān: al-Kahf 18/46 (al-mālu wa'l-banūna zīnatu'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā), Sabaʾ 34/35 (naḥnu aktharu amwālan wa awlādan; treated in Sabaʾ), Nūḥ 71/12 (treated in Nūḥ), al-Qalam 68/14 (treated in al-Qalam).

And the whole of this question was treated at Sabaʾ 34/35-37: the answer given to counting wealth and children a measure of nearness. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is how the question is built.

The word order must be recorded, and this is the most striking place in the two verses: the fifty-fifth and fifty-sixth verses are a single sentence; the verse boundary does not divide the sentence.

The skeleton of the sentence is this: a-yaḥsabūna anna… nusāriʿu lahum fi'l-khayrāt. The question, that is, is not about "We are giving wealth"; it is about the assumption that "to give wealth is to hurry good things to them".

I give this as an observation about the word order, its ground being that the predicate of anna is in the second verse. And the lexicographers differ over the parsing: whether annamā is joined (kāffa) or separate (anna + relative mā); both parsings are transmitted. In either case the ruling of the sentence comes out at the same place.

And one of the most striking verbal weaves of the sūra is built here.

The root س-ر-ع: to be swift. The pattern is Form III (sāraʿa): to hurry, to hasten as though racing.

The same verb will occur once more, five verses later:

The same verb, with the same construction (fi'l-khayrāt), twice, five verses apart. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra and is read from the wording of the text.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being this word-for-word repetition: in the fifty-sixth verse the one hurrying to the good things is the giver, and the place hurried to is in front of them; in the sixty-first the ones hurrying to the good things are the servants. Five verses after describing a delusion, that is, the sūra shows the right subject of the same expression.

And the difference is precisely a difference of subject: one supposes that something is being hurried to him, the other is himself hurrying.

The particle bal was treated at al-Furqān 25/11: it drops what has just been said and brings the real cause. I rely on that treatment.

The root ش-ع-ر: to notice something fine, to sense it. Shaʿr — hair (from its fineness); shāʿir — the one who notices what is fine; mashʿar — a place marked and known; shuʿūr — perception.

And the choice of verb must be recorded: the verse does not say lā yaʿlamūn (they do not know) — lā yashʿurūn (they do not perceive). The picture in the root is the noticing of something fine.

I give this as my own reading, its ground being this sense of the root: what is lacking is not knowledge but noticing. They see that wealth and children are being given; they do not perceive what the giving means.

The section from the fifty-first verse to the fifty-sixth is a whole, and its order is worth recording:

I give this as my own reading: the block descends from unity to breaking apart, from breaking apart to contentment, from contentment to delusion. And at every step the other side holds a good opinion: rejoicing in what it has (53), counting prosperity a favour (55-56). What the block describes, that is, is not a punishment but a misreading.

inna'lladhīna hum min khashyati rabbihim mushfiqūn · wa'lladhīna hum bi-āyāti rabbihim yuʾminūn · wa'lladhīna hum bi-rabbihim lā yushrikūn

"Those who tremble in awe of their Lord; those who believe in the signs of their Lord; those who associate nothing with their Lord…"

The pattern of the sūra's first eleven verses returns here unchanged: alladhīna hum + fronted complement + predicate.

The two lists must be set out in a table:

I record one difference separately: the sixtieth verse is the one item of the list that does not carry the pronoun hum — wa'lladhīna yuʾtūna mā ātaw. This is a detail that can be verified from the text, and it will be taken up at the sixtieth verse.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the table above: the first list enumerates the works done, the second what is inside while the works are done. And the first list ends with an arrival (an inheritance), the second with a running (a race). One names the outcome, that is, the other the movement.

خَشْيَة — root خ-ش-ي: the description the lexicographers give is a holding back that is felt knowingly. Khashya has to do with knowing the greatness of what is feared; thus at Fāṭir 35/28 it is said innamā yakhsha'llāha min ʿibādihi'l-ʿulamāʾ. The root was treated at Fāṭir 35/28 and at al-Mulk 67/12 (yakhshawna rabbahum bi'l-ghayb).

And a note of caution must be entered here: the root of this word (خ-ش-ي) and the root of the word khāshiʿūn in the second verse (خ-ش-ع) are separate roots. Their sounds are close and their senses are neighbours; but I build no derivational link between them.

The same note of caution was entered in ʿAbasa and in al-Muṭaffifīn for roots close to one another in sound: "closeness of sound is not identity of root." I rely on that treatment.

مُشْفِقُون — root ش-ف-ق: the core sense the lexicographers give is thinness. Shafaq — the thin light between day and night; shafaqa — the thinness of a thing. And ishfāq is described by the lexicographers as follows: a fear with love in it, or a love with fear in it. The root was treated at al-Inshiqāq 84/16 (fa-lā uqsimu bi'l-shafaq).

The build of the construction must be recorded: min khashyati rabbihim mushfiqūn — the source of the fear (khashya) and the state that is felt (ishfāq) are named separately.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being that both words have at their core not "shuddering" but "thinness / knowing": the verse is not speaking of terror. Both words are words that describe a sharpening of attention.

And the word order must be recorded: bi-āyāti rabbihim has been brought forward. Not "they believe", that is, but "in the signs of their Lord — they believe".

And a contrast will be built with the sixty-sixth verse: qad kānat āyātī tutlā ʿalaykum fa-kuntum ʿalā aʿqābikum tankiṣūn. The same word (āyāt), with two different bearings.

And the repetition of the word rabb must be recorded: in all four of the four items, rabbihim occurs — khashyati rabbihim, āyāti rabbihim, bi-rabbihim, ilā rabbihim (60).

This is a fact that can be counted from the text, and it has no counterpart in the first list: the word rabb does not occur in a single one of the six items of the first list.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being this count: the second list builds its items by attaching them to one addressed. The first list enumerates the acts on their own. The difference between the two lists shows here as well.

wa'lladhīna yuʾtūna mā ātaw wa qulūbuhum wajilatun annahum ilā rabbihim rājiʿūn

"Those who give what they give with their hearts trembling because they are returning to their Lord…"

The variant reading transmitted in this verse bears directly on the meaning:

The second reading is transmitted in the sources, and on that reading the verse describes not spending but deeds in general. Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And what the two readings have in common must be recorded: on both, the real question is not the act itself but the state of the heart that accompanies the act.

The root و-ج-ل: to tremble with fear, to shudder. Wajal — the trembling in the heart.

The word occurs regularly in the Qurʾān together with the heart: al-Anfāl 8/2 (wajilat qulūbuhum), al-Ḥijr 15/52 and 15/53, al-Ḥajj 22/35, al-Zumar 39/23 (treated in al-Zumar).

And the striking place in the verse is this, and I record it as my own reading: the sentence describes a fear felt while doing a good work. Not while committing a sin.

My ground is the build of the sentence: yuʾtūna mā ātaw (they give) and qulūbuhum wajila (their hearts tremble) take place at the same time — the second is a circumstantial clause.

And the ground of the fear is given in the verse: annahum ilā rabbihim rājiʿūn — "that they are returning to their Lord."

The lexicographers differ over the parsing of the construction, and the difference bears on the meaning:

I pass the disagreement on; I do not impose a preference.

The third reading is worth recording, because its outcome differs: on the first reading what is feared is that the deed will not be enough, on the third the return itself.

And the line recorded at Fāṭir 35/28 and al-Mulk 67/12 holds here too: in the Qurʾān khashya is named together with knowledge, wajal with the expectation of a meeting.

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the arrangement of the list: the first three of the four items reported states (trembling, faith, not associating partners). The fourth brings a deed (yuʾtūna) and places a state beside the deed.

The list, that is, in descending from states to a deed, sets the state inside the deed. And this is the reverse of the first list: there the acts were enumerated and their fields fixed; here the states are enumerated and at the end attached to a deed.