إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ زَيَّنَّا لَهُمْ أَعْمَٰلَهُمْ فَهُمْ يَعْمَهُونَ · أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ ٱلَّذِينَ لَهُمْ سُوٓءُ ٱلْعَذَابِ وَهُمْ فِى ٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ هُمُ ٱلْأَخْسَرُونَ · وَإِنَّكَ لَتُلَقَّى ٱلْقُرْءَانَ مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ عَلِيمٍ
inna'lladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi'l-ākhirati zayyannā lahum aʿmālahum fa-hum yaʿmahūn · ulāʾika'lladhīna lahum sūʾu'l-ʿadhābi wa hum fi'l-ākhirati humu'l-akhsarūn · wa innaka la-tulaqqa'l-qurʾāna min ladun ḥakīmin ʿalīm
"As for those who do not believe in the hereafter: We have made their deeds seem fair to them, and so they wander on in bewilderment. Theirs is the worst of the punishment, and in the hereafter they are the greatest losers. And you are receiving the Qurʾān from One who is wise and knowing."
The root ز-ي-ن: to adorn, to make something look fair. The pattern is Form II, and it conveys that the act is performed upon something.
The use of this root in the Qurʾān was recorded in al-Ḥadīd, and it applies directly here: the Qurʾān uses the act of "making deeds seem fair" in three distinct ways.
| Agent | Example | What it conveys |
|---|---|---|
| Satan | wa zayyana lahumu'sh-shayṭānu aʿmālahum — in this sūra, 27/24 | The agent is named |
| Passive | zuyyina lahum sūʾu ʿamalihim (Fāṭir 35/8) | The agent is not stated |
| God | zayyannā lahum aʿmālahum — in this sūra, 27/4 | As a settled way of acting (sunna) |
And both agents occur within this sūra itself: zayyannā in verse 4, zayyana lahumu'sh-shayṭān in verse 24. This is a pairing that can be verified within the sūra.
This question was treated in Muḥammad at 47/14, and the resolution recorded there was this: the two usages do not contradict each other — one names the one who does the act directly, the other the one who lays down the law under which it happens. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat the discussion.
And the verse's own qualification must not be missed: the sentence opens with a condition — alladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi'l-ākhira. The adorning is thus named as the consequence of not believing in the hereafter, not as its cause. I record this as an observation about the word order: in the sentence, the disbelief comes first and the adorning second.
The root ع-م-ه: to be unable to find one's way although the eye sees, to flounder about in bewilderment. The lexicographers compare the root with ع-م-ي (blindness) and record the difference: ʿamā is the eye's not seeing, whereas ʿamah is the loss not of sight but of direction.
The distinction works here, and I record this as my own reading: the verse does not call the man whose deeds have been made fair to him blind. It calls him one who sees and does not know where to go. The adorning does not damage his sight; it damages his bearing.
And the root comes once more, at verse 66 of the sūra, this time alongside the other one: bal hum minhā ʿamūn — ع-م-ي. Two roots in two separate places in the same sūra; I claim no derivational link between them: they are two distinct roots. What I record is only the nearness of meaning.
The root خ-س-ر: to diminish, to lose one's capital. Khusrān — the loss of the principal in trade. The word comes here on the afʿal pattern and with the article: al-akhsarūn — "those who lose most."
I record this as an observation about the word order: loss is given here as a degree, not as an absolute verdict. And a comparison is set up implicitly: everyone loses something; these are the ones who lose most.
The root ل-ق-ي, not in Form V but in the passive of Form II: tulaqqā — "it is being given to you, it is being conveyed to you."
This pattern was recorded in al-Muzzammil, and the root's branches — "to let go from the hand / to meet" — were worked out there. I rely on that treatment.
What belongs here is the tense of the verb, and it must be recorded: tulaqqā is imperfect (muḍāriʿ) — an act in progress. The sentence does not say "it was given to you"; it says "it is being given to you". I record this as an observation about the word order: the sūra speaks at a moment when the sending down is still going on.
مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ عَلِيمٍ — ladun means "from the presence of", and the lexicographers record that it conveys a more inward nearness than ʿinda.
The choice of the two names and their order is worth recording: Ḥakīm (the one who acts with wisdom) and ʿAlīm (the one who knows). And every narrative in the sūra will take place between these two names: knowledge given (15), a language taught (16), knowledge that exceeds (22), the one who brings out what is hidden (25), the knowing of the One who knows (65). The opening thus names the subject of the sūra in advance, with two names. I give this as my own reading; its ground is the ع-ل-م table above.