al-Naml 27:38-40

qāla yā ayyuha'l-malaʾu ayyukum yaʾtīnī bi-ʿarshihā qabla an yaʾtūnī muslimīn · qāla ʿifrītun mina'l-jinni ana ātīka bihī qabla an taqūma min maqāmika wa innī ʿalayhi la-qawiyyun amīn · qāla'lladhī ʿindahū ʿilmun mina'l-kitābi ana ātīka bihī qabla an yartadda ilayka ṭarfuk · fa-lammā raʾāhu mustaqirran ʿindahū qāla hādhā min faḍli rabbī li-yabluwanī a-ashkuru am akfur, wa man shakara fa-innamā yashkuru li-nafsih, wa man kafara fa-inna rabbī ghaniyyun karīm

"He said: 'O chiefs! Which of you will bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?' An ʿifrīt of the jinn said: 'I will bring it to you before you rise from your place; for this I am strong, and I am trustworthy.' The one who had a knowledge from the Book said: 'I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you.' And when Solomon saw it settled before him he said: 'This is of my Lord's bounty, to test me — whether I give thanks or am ungrateful. Whoever gives thanks gives thanks only for his own sake; and whoever is ungrateful — my Lord is beyond all need, and generous.'"

The condition of the request must be recorded: the throne is asked for before they come in submission.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence asks for the task to be done within a limit of time. And the limit is itself the demand made in the letter at verse 31 (wa'tūnī muslimīn) — the sūra thus uses the same phrase twice, once as a demand and once as a measure of time.

Why the throne is asked for is not said in the verse. Different explanations of this are transmitted in the classical commentaries; there is no certain knowledge, and I do not impose a preference. The text does, however, give a ground of its own — at verse 41: nanẓur a-tahtadī am takūnu mina'lladhīna lā yahtadūn. The verse thus explains its own purpose three verses later.

As the lexical sense of the word the lexicographers record this: ʿifrīt — strong, agile, formidable; one who does his work soundly. In connection with the root, the sense to be covered in dust, to be rubbed into the ground (ʿafara) is also transmitted; it is reported that the word is used of one who throws his opponent to the ground.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān. I derive from it no classification of the kinds, ranks or nature of the jinn; the text says only ʿifrītun mina'l-jinn.

The two offers can be compared exactly, because both begin with the same sentence: ana ātīka bihī qabla an…

All four differences can be verified from the text.

And two of the differences must be recorded in particular.

First — the measures of time. The ʿifrīt's measure depends on a man's will (Solomon rises when he wills to rise); the second man's measure does not depend on the will — the blink of an eye is a movement not in a person's own hands. The second span is thus not merely shorter than the first; it is given by a measure of another kind. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the character of the two measures.

Second — the self-description. The ʿifrīt introduces himself with two attributes: qawiyyun amīn.

And these two attributes had occurred earlier in this series: they were treated in al-Qaṣaṣ at 28/26 — the measure a young woman in Midian named for Moses: inna khayra mani'staʾjarta'l-qawiyyu'l-amīn. The finding recorded there was this: one conveys competence, the other reliability, and neither on its own is enough.

The same two attributes, in two sūras, once about another and once about oneself. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the last column of the table above: in al-Qaṣaṣ the measure rested on observation — it was spoken by someone who had watched the scene. In al-Naml the same measure is a declaration about oneself. And the task is not given to the one who declares it of himself.

The Qurʾān does not give this man's name. More than one name is transmitted in the classical commentaries; none of them occurs in the Qurʾān, and there is no certain knowledge. No name is used in this commentary.

In the same way, what the phrase "a knowledge from the Book" refers to is not stated either:

I do not impose a preference, and I record that the basis of the third reading is weak.

There are two things that can be verified from the text, and both lie in the word order:

1. The word is indefinite: ʿilmun — "a knowledge", not al-ʿilm. What the man holds is thus not the whole of the Book but a share of it. 2. And the particle min reinforces this: mina'l-kitāb — [a part] from the Book.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse identifies the man not by the magnitude of his knowledge but by its source. The ʿifrīt had stated his strength as an attribute of his own; this man refers his knowledge to a source.

And the sūra's spine of knowledge gains one more link here: at verse 15 knowledge was given to David and Solomon; at verse 22 the bird encompassed what the king could not encompass; here a man who is not even named does what the ʿifrīt could not do. The sūra thus goes on distributing knowledge independently of rank. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the sequence of the three verses.

Solomon's response must be recorded, and it has two parts:

The root ب-ل-و: to try, to test a thing until it wears. The lexicographers record the sense "to wear out a garment": balā — to wear something down by using it. A test is thus not an idle question; it is a process of wearing.

And in al-Qaṣaṣ at 28/78 the exact opposite sentence was treated:

The two sentences are two different readings of the same situation (an unlooked-for capacity coming to pass). This is a contrast between the two sūras that can be verified.

And what is striking is this, and I record it as my own reading: the key word in Qārūn's sentence was knowledge; and the word that identifies the man in the throne scene is likewise knowledge. The difference lies in where the knowledge is referred: one says ʿindī ("with me"), the other says mina'l-kitāb ("from the Book"). The sūra thus draws its line not at knowledge but at the claiming of knowledge as one's own.

The root ش-ك-ر was treated in detail in Sabaʾ as the spine of that sūra, and it occurred in al-Mulk, al-Insān and al-Qamar. I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is the construction of the sentence, and I give it as an observation about the word order: li-nafsih — "for himself." The direction of thanksgiving is thus reversed: the one who gives thanks has done something not for the giver but for himself.

And the second half of the sentence completes this: wa man kafara fa-inna rabbī ghaniyyun karīm.

غَنِىّ — root غ-ن-ي: to have no need, to be sufficient in oneself. The root was treated in al-Ḥadīd at 57/24 and in Muḥammad at 47/38: al-Ghanī is more exact than "rich" — the one who has need of nothing.

كَرِيم — root ك-ر-م, treated in al-ʿAlaq at 96/3: to give abundantly, expecting no return and keeping no count. And this verse was already cited there. I do not repeat it here.

That the two names stand side by side is worth recording, and I give it as an observation about the word order:

The first name thus blocks one false conclusion (that thanksgiving is the paying of a debt); the second blocks another (that ingratitude stops the giving).