al-Muʾminūn 23:90-92

bal ataynāhum bi'l-ḥaqqi wa innahum la-kādhibūn · ma'ttakhadha'llāhu min waladin wa mā kāna maʿahū min ilāhin idhan la-dhahaba kullu ilāhin bimā khalaqa wa la-ʿalā baʿḍuhum ʿalā baʿḍ, subḥāna'llāhi ʿammā yaṣifūn · ʿālimi'l-ghaybi wa'l-shahādati fa-taʿālā ʿammā yushrikūn

"No — We brought them the truth, and they are liars. God has not taken a child, nor is there any god with Him. Had it been so, each god would have gone off with what he created, and some of them would have risen over others. God is far above what they describe. He knows the unseen and the seen; He is exalted above what they associate with Him."

The proof works in this way: more than one god is supposed, and then the consequence of that supposition itself is shown.

And the consequence is given in two sentences:

I record this as my own reading, its ground being the order of the two sentences: first division, then the attempt to set up a hierarchy. The two together mean the disappearance of an order.

And its pairing with the proof in the seventy-first verse must be recorded:

Two proofs, in the same sūra, on the same pattern. This is a pairing that can be verified within the sūra. And it was recorded at the seventy-first verse: the sūra builds two hypothetical proofs — one by way of hawā, the other by way of multiplicity.

The root ع-ل-و was treated at the forty-sixth verse, and its three occurrences were tabulated there (46, 91, 116). What belongs here is this: in the forty-sixth verse Pharaoh's company were qawman ʿālīn. Here the same verb is used of the supposed gods.

I record this as an observation: the same root, once for human beings rising over one another, once for supposed gods rising over one another. And in the hundred and sixteenth verse the same root will be used of God, as taʿālā.

Two sentences come one after the other, and their structures are the same: [a word of tanzīh] + ʿammā + [an imperfect verb].

The second sentence comes with fa — that is, as the consequence of the first. And the verbs differ: one is speech (describing), the other act (associating).

A counterpart of these two sentences was treated in al-Ṣāffāt (37/159 — subḥāna'llāhi ʿammā yaṣifūn; 37/180 — subḥāna rabbika rabbi'l-ʿizzati ʿammā yaṣifūn), where it was recorded that the second is an extension of the first. I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded: in al-Ṣāffāt both sentences ended with yaṣifūn; in al-Muʾminūn the second turns to yushrikūn. The move, that is, is from speech to act.

The construction occurs regularly in the Qurʾān: al-Anʿām 6/73, al-Tawba 9/94 and 9/105, al-Raʿd 13/9, al-Sajda 32/6 (it occurred in al-Sajda), al-Zumar 39/46 (it occurred in al-Zumar), al-Ḥashr 59/22 (treated in al-Ḥashr), al-Taghābun 64/18 (treated in al-Taghābun), al-Jumuʿa 62/8 (it occurred in al-Jumuʿa).

The root غ-ي-ب: to disappear from sight, to be veiled. The root ش-ه-د: to be present, to see, to bear witness.

And the work of the construction must be recorded, and I give this as my own reading, its ground being the opposition of the two words: the pair covers the whole of what is known. Knowledge, that is, is not confined to one field.

And the lexicographers differ over its parsing: if ʿālimi is read in the genitive it is an adjective to the name Allāh in the preceding verse; if in the nominative it is the predicate of a new sentence. Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The block from seventy-eight to ninety-two is a whole, and its order is worth recording:

I give this as my own reading: the block proceeds from what the one addressed accepts. In all three questions the answer is given from their own mouths (sa-yaqūlūna li'llāh). And the conclusion is drawn out of those answers. The proof, that is, brings in no knowledge from outside — it carries the addressee's own admission through to the end.