3. Sūrat Āl ʿImrān

200 verses. Medinan. It takes its name from a construct that occurs in verse 33: وَءَالَ عِمْرَٰنَ — wa āla ʿImrān, "and the family of ʿImrān". The construct occurs only once in the sūra; but from the place where it occurs the sūra stays inside that family for thirty verses: the wife of ʿImrān, Mary (Maryam), Zechariah (Zakariyyā), John (Yaḥyā), Jesus (ʿĪsā).

This has to be recorded at the outset, because it settles what is not repeated as one reads the sūra.

The table below is not interpretation but an inventory of facts verifiable from the two texts:

In the classical sources these two sūras are named together and called al-Zahrāwān — "the two radiant sūras". I record that this naming is widespread; I do not ascribe it word for word to any particular report.

And this has a concrete consequence in this commentary: the roots, concepts and narratives already analysed in al-Baqara will not be told again here. Taqwā, ribā, infāq, al-birr, the qibla, al-ḥurūf al-muqaṭṭaʿa, kun fa-yakūn, al-ʿurwa al-wuthqā, ummatan wasaṭan — all were treated in al-Baqara. Here only what Āl ʿImrān adds to them will be recorded.

The same holds for the passage on Mary and Jesus: in Maryam the prayer of Zechariah, Mary's withdrawal, the annunciation and the birth were treated in detail. The work to be done here is to show the difference between the two tellings — because the telling of the same account in two separate sūras in two separate ways is a datum belonging to the text itself.

The subject of the sūra cannot be said in a single word; but it can be shown from the text that it gathers around three questions:

1. How is the text to be read? — verse 7: muḥkam and mutashābih. 2. How is one to speak with the other? — verse 64: kalimatin sawāʾin baynanā wa baynakum. 3. How is defeat to be read? — 121-179: the Uḥud block.

And what the three have in common is worth recording — I give this as my own reading: in three separate fields the sūra takes aim at the same error. In reading the text, a person's making the text say his own inclination (7); in speaking with the other side, his failing to see what is shared (64); after a defeat, his looking for the cause outside himself (152-153, 165). In all three the problem is that a person does not see his own share.

The sūra hands that share back three times, in three separate places, explicitly:

Three sentences doing the same work in three separate fields. This is a weave that can be verified from the text.

The sūra can be divided into seven blocks. The block boundaries are marked either by a change of addressee or by a form of address (yā ahla'l-kitāb, yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū).

The table below is not interpretation but an inventory of repetitions verifiable from the text.

Looking at the ends of the two hundred verses, there is no single dominant sound pattern. The sūra moves in long and composite sentences; the verse-ends fall for the most part on the names of God or on plural verbs: al-ḥakīm, al-akhyār, al-mīʿād, ḥisāb, ʿalīm, baṣīr, shahīd, khabīr, taʿmalūn, tufliḥūn.

What is to be recorded is this, and it is a verifiable fact: verses ending in pairs of names are dense throughout the sūra (al-ʿazīzu'l-ḥakīm, samīʿun ʿalīm, ghafūrun raḥīm, raʾūfun bi'l-ʿibād), and these pairs are most often chosen to suit the subject of the verse. This is a feature shared by the long-versed Medinan sūras, and it was recorded in al-Baqara.

No claim about numbers or reckoning is being made.

That the sūra is Medinan is widely agreed among the sources. Two blocks within it rest plainly on a historical ground:

• Verses 121-179 speak of a battle and of the defeat that followed it. In the classical sources this is identified as Uḥud, and the text itself also refers back to an earlier one (in verse 13, fiʾatayni'ltaqatā).
• Verses 33-63 speak of a debate with the People of the Book that runs in particular through the position of Jesus; verse 61 (the mutual imprecation) is the most intense point of that debate.

Per the method (Method) I draw a boundary here, and I will keep it throughout the sūra:

One. In the discussions of Uḥud and of the mutual imprecation I do not go into the detail of the reports or into personal names. The verses themselves name no one anywhere — no commander, no tribe, no member of a delegation. This silence of the text will be preserved as a choice.

Two. The sūra contains both severe and laudatory statements about the People of the Book. Verse 113 (laysū sawāʾ — "they are not all alike") is the verse that places all these statements on record, and in this commentary every statement of the sūra concerning the People of the Book will be read together with that caveat. This is not a sensitivity brought in from outside; it is the caveat the sūra itself sets down.

Three. No blanket ruling will be issued about any religious or ethnic group. What the verses describe is attributes; whoever carries the attribute is the one the verse speaks of.

Four. No legal ruling will be issued; no entry will be made into present-day politics.

The basmala was treated in earlier sections; the verses are numbered without it.

Alif-lām-mīm · Allāhu lā ilāha illā huwa'l-ḥayyu'l-qayyūm

"Alif-lām-mīm. God — there is no god but He; al-Ḥayy, al-Qayyūm."

The note on the disconnected letters (al-ḥurūf al-muqaṭṭaʿa) was given in detail at 2/1 in al-Baqara: there is no certain knowledge; the views were tabulated there and no preference was imposed. I do not repeat it here.

And the construct al-Ḥayyu'l-Qayyūm was analysed at 2/255 in al-Baqara (the Verse of the Throne). In summary: ḥayy — living; qayyūm is an intensive form not from ك-و-م but from the root ق-و-م: the one who stands of Himself and holds up everything else.

Here I add what belongs to Āl ʿImrān alone — it is a difference of position, and it is verifiable:

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: in al-Baqara this sentence is a stopping place inside a long narration; in Āl ʿImrān it is the ground. Everything the sūra will speak of across two hundred verses — book, family, war, defeat — it builds on top of this sentence. And the third verse, immediately after this name, will name the Book.

Nazzala ʿalayka'l-kitāba bi'l-ḥaqqi muṣaddiqan limā bayna yadayhi wa anzala'l-Tawrāta wa'l-Injīl · Min qablu hudan li'n-nāsi wa anzala'l-furqān

"He has sent down the Book to you, confirming what was before it, with the truth. And the Torah and the Gospel too — before this, as guidance for people — He sent down. And He sent down the furqān."

Two different forms of the same root (ن-ز-ل), in the same sentence, for two different objects.

The distinction recorded in the classical sources is this: Form II conveys a gradual descent (piece by piece, at intervals), Form IV a descent all at once.

This distinction was treated at 47/20 in Muḥammad, and this caveat was entered there: the distinction is transmitted in the classical sources; but it has also been pointed out that it is not applied consistently everywhere in the Qurʾān. I rely on that treatment and keep the same caveat.

The usage here agrees with that distinction, and this is a verifiable fact: the Qurʾān was spread over twenty-three years; the Torah and the Gospel are named in the verse in the past tense, as completed. But I do not establish this as a rule.

The root ص-د-ق: to be true. The active participle of Form II: muṣaddiq — the one that confirms, that verifies.

And the construction must be recorded: limā bayna yadayh — "what is between his two hands". In Arabic this idiom conveys what stands in front, what is at hand. The sense "the earlier books" therefore comes from the idiom.

I record this as an observation: the verse places the newly come text not against the earlier one but on top of it. And this is the ground of the call to common ground that will be made in verse 64 of the sūra — because the word to be spoken there lies along the same line.

The root ف-ر-ق: to separate. Furqān is that which separates.

The word was treated in detail at 8/29 in al-Anfāl and in al-Furqān. I do not repeat it here; in summary: the word is used both for a text and for a capacity to distinguish.

And there is a question about the occurrence here, and the classical commentaries differ over it:

All three readings are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ ذُو ٱنتِقَامٍ — and the verse closes the matter of the Book with a pair of names. The word intiqām is used in the Qurʾān of God alone, and it means not personal anger but the exacting of what is due; the root ن-ق-م was treated in the series at 44/16 in al-Dukhān.

Inna'llāha lā yakhfā ʿalayhi shayʾun fi'l-arḍi wa lā fi's-samāʾ · Huwa'lladhī yuṣawwirukum fi'l-arḥāmi kayfa yashāʾ

"Truly from God nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden. · He it is who shapes you in the wombs as He wills."

The Qurʾān's usual order is al-samāwāt wa'l-arḍ — heaven first. Here it is reversed: fi'l-arḍi wa lā fi's-samāʾ.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and I build no firm ruling on it. In the classical commentaries it is said that this is connected with the following verse: the sixth verse speaks of the womb — that is, of the most hidden place on earth.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the order appears to be built on the degree of hiddenness. What is in heaven is far but visible; what is on earth is near but covered. And the verse puts the covered one first.

The root ص-و-ر: to give a thing its form, to draw a shape. Ṣūra — form. Form II (taṣwīr) conveys repetition and fineness of work.

The root was treated at 59/24 in al-Ḥashr (al-Bāriʾu'l-Muṣawwir) and at 64/3 in al-Taghābun. I do not repeat it here.

The caveat here is worth recording: kayfa yashāʾ — "as He wills". That is, the verse takes as its subject not the source of the form but the disposal of it.

And its position matters — I give this as my own reading: at the thirty-fifth verse the sūra will enter an account that opens with a woman vowing what is in her womb, and that woman will give birth to other than what she expected. The sixth verse thus lays down the ruling of that account forty verses in advance: the form in the womb is not in the hands of the one who wants it.

I record explicitly that this is not being read as a "scientific sign". The verse is not describing embryology; it is saying in whose hands the disposal lies.

Huwa'lladhī anzala ʿalayka'l-kitāba minhu āyātun muḥkamātun hunna ummu'l-kitābi wa ukharu mutashābihāt; fa-ammā'lladhīna fī qulūbihim zayghun fa-yattabiʿūna mā tashābaha minhu'btighāʾa'l-fitnati wa'btighāʾa taʾwīlih; wa mā yaʿlamu taʾwīlahu illa'llāh; wa'r-rāsikhūna fi'l-ʿilmi yaqūlūna āmannā bihī kullun min ʿindi rabbinā; wa mā yadhdhakkaru illā ūlu'l-albāb

"He it is who sent down the Book to you. Part of it is muḥkam verses — they are the mother of the Book; the others are mutashābih. Those in whose hearts is a crookedness pursue what is mutashābih in it, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation. No one but God knows its interpretation. Those firmly rooted in knowledge say: 'We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.' And none but those who possess the kernel takes heed."

This verse is one of the most important verses of this commentary in point of method. For here the text speaks about how it is itself to be read. And what it says is not a method but a diagnosis: the same text does two different pieces of work in two different hearts.

I shall analyse the verse under six headings: muḥkam, mutashābih, ummu'l-kitāb, zaygh, taʾwīl, and last the question of the pause — that is, where the sentence stops.

The concrete sense of the root has been recorded many times in the series (al-Dukhān, al-Dhāriyāt, al-Ḥajj, al-Baqara 2/269): ح-ك-م — to prevent, to rein in, to hold in place. And the picture of the root is a tool: حَكَمَة (ḥakama) — the bit put in a horse's mouth. What keeps the animal from swerving.

Hence muḥkam: what has no slack, what cannot be moved, what cannot be slid about.

At 47/20 in Muḥammad the same word was treated as the attribute of a sūra (sūratun muḥkamatun), and this was recorded there:

"An ambiguous word allows everyone to interpret it as he pleases; a muḥkam word does not."

I rely on that treatment.

And at 11/1 in Hūd the same root occurred as a verb: kitābun uḥkimat āyātuhū thumma fuṣṣilat — "a Book whose verses have been made firm, then set out in detail." What was recorded there can be carried over here: iḥkām is the attribute of the Book as a whole; tafṣīl is its being reachable.

And this at once raises a question: if Hūd 11/1 says uḥkimat of the whole Book, why does Āl ʿImrān 3/7 divide the Book in two? I shall take this question up shortly in a table — because the same question arises for mutashābih as well, and there it is sharper.

The root ش-ب-ه: to resemble. Shibh — a likeness. Form VI (tafāʿul): tashābaha — to resemble one another, to resemble so closely as to be confused.

The idea at the centre of the root is not "obscurity" but indistinguishability. Two things resemble each other so closely that which is which cannot be picked out.

And this can be verified from another use of the word in the Qurʾān: at al-Baqara 2/70, in the account of the cow, inna'l-baqara tashābaha ʿalaynā — "the cattle seem alike to us", that is, we cannot tell them apart.

Now the real matter. Mutashābih is used in the Qurʾān of the whole of the Book as well, and this was treated in this commentary.

At 39/23 in al-Zumar this was recorded:

"مُتَشَابِه — root ش-ب-ه: to resemble. Its use here differs from the distinction muḥkam / mutashābih: there the verses whose meaning is closed were meant; here the whole of the Book is named with this adjective. The lexicographers give the sense here as 'its parts holding together, consistent in style and in content'."

I rely on that treatment and separate the two uses in a table. This table is the most important table of this section:

And the conclusion that follows from the table must be recorded, because it heads off a frequent error: it cannot be said that "the Qurʾān speaks inconsistently about itself" merely because the same word occurs in two places. The sense of the root is the same in both — resemblance. What changes is what resembles what: in al-Zumar the parts resemble one another (harmony); in Āl ʿImrān the senses resemble one another (indistinguishability).

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the same root describes in one place the inner consistency of the text and in the other the reader's inability to decide. And the two do not conflict, because the two look at two different faces of the text — one at the text itself, the other at the distance between the text and the reader.

In the classical commentaries the criterion of this distinction is disputed. I tabulate the principal explanations and impose no preference.

All these explanations are transmitted in the classical sources. Some of them do not exclude one another; there are also those who say that more than one criterion operates at once.

And it must be recorded with which criterion this distinction has been worked in the series — this is a statement of method: in this commentary the term mutashābih has been used consistently in the fourth sense (statements ascribing human acts to God) and in the fifth sense (the disconnected letters). Examples: al-Fajr 89/22 (wa jāʾa rabbuka), al-Ḥadīd 57/29 (bi-yadi'llāh), al-Ḥāqqa 69/17 (the bearing of the throne), Yāsīn (aydīnā), Qāf and al-Baqara (the disconnected letters). And in all those places the same stance was kept: the two attitudes (tafwīḍ and taʾwīl) were tabulated and no preference was imposed.

That is, this verse names a piece of work the series has already been doing.

The root أ-م-م: origin, source, that to which one returns. Umm — mother; imām — the one in front; umma — those gathered around one origin.

The root was treated at 2/78 in al-Baqara and at 42/7 in al-Shūrā (umm al-qurā). I do not repeat it here.

And a point of word order must be recorded, and the classical commentaries have dwelt on it: the subject is plural (hunna — "they"), the predicate is singular (umm — "mother"). It does not say "they are the mothers" (ummahātu'l-kitāb).

The classical explanation is this, and I transmit it: umm is used here as a generic term — the plurality goes back to a single origin. That is, the muḥkam verses do not form separate origins but a single origin.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the singular predicate implies that the muḥkam verses are a single body that does not contradict itself. And the root sense of the word umm completes this: the place to which one returns. That is, what is mutashābih is read by being returned to what is muḥkam — not the reverse.

This is the only note of method the verse gives, and it comes out of the verse's own wording.

And now the diagnostic part of the verse.

The root was analysed in detail at 53/17 in al-Najm (mā zāgha'l-baṣar) and at 61/5 in al-Ṣaff. I take the description given there:

"Its sense: to deviate from a straight line, to incline, to bend. Zāghati'l-shams — the sun declined from its zenith. At the centre of the root stands this: a departure from a line, a difference of angle. And this is the most important feature of the word: zaygh is not a sudden break but an inclination. The sun does not drop from its zenith all at once; it parts from it by a small angle, and that angle grows with time."

I rely on that treatment and add here what belongs to Āl ʿImrān alone.

At al-Najm 53/17 the zaygh is in the eye; here it is in the heart.

Three occurrences, one root, three separate positions. This is a fact verifiable from the text.

And the word order must be recorded: fī qulūbihim zayghun — "in their hearts is a crookedness". The sentence is a nominal sentence, and zaygh comes indefinite. That is, the verse does not say "their hearts are crooked"; it says "in their hearts is a crookedness". The difference is not small: the first defines the person, the second records a condition.

I give this as my own reading, and its ground is the indefinite form: the verse is not describing a group, it is describing a state. And that state will be the subject of the believers' prayer in the eighth verse — that is, the verse says indirectly that the state is closed to no one.

The root ب-غ-ي: to want, to seek; and to exceed the limit. The verbal noun of Form VIII, ibtighāʾ — to seek out, to go after. The root was treated at 2/213 in al-Baqara, at 42/14 in al-Shūrā and at 45/17 in al-Jāthiya (baghyan baynahum).

The root ف-ت-ن: to put gold into the fire and refine it. The root was treated at 29/2-3 in al-ʿAnkabūt and at 8/25 in al-Anfāl. Its sense here is given in two ways in the classical commentaries:

Both are transmitted; they do not exclude one another.

And what must be recorded is the verbal noun itself: ibtighāʾ — seeking. The verse is not describing a coming upon the mutashābih but a going after it. The verb is yattabiʿūna — "they follow, they go after."

I record this as my own reading: what the verse condemns is not the reading of what is mutashābih; it is leaving the muḥkam aside and choosing the mutashābih alone. For ittibāʿ is a verb of turning towards — a person chooses what he will turn to. And the reason for the choice is written plainly in the verse: the crookedness in the heart. The order is therefore this: first the inclination, then the choice, then the text.

This coincides with a measure this commentary has recorded again and again: at 2/213 in al-Baqara, at 42/14 in al-Shūrā and at 45/17 in al-Jāthiya it was recorded that division arises not out of ignorance but after knowledge. Here the same thing is said at the level of reading a text: the problem is not the closedness of the text but the inclination that turns to what is closed.

The root was analysed in Yūsuf as the key construct of that sūra (taʾwīlu'l-aḥādīth) and at 18/78-82 in al-Kahf (dhālika taʾwīlu mā lam tasṭiʿ ʿalayhi ṣabrā). I take the description given there:

"The root أ-و-ل: to arrive at the origin of a thing, at the place it returns to. Āla ilayhi — it returned to it, it arrived at it. Awwal — the first point, the one returned to. From this comes taʾwīl: to carry a thing to where it arrives, to show its end."

And the use in al-Kahf gives the full picture of the word: three events had occurred there — the holing of the boat, the killing of the boy, the setting straight of the wall — and Moses (Mūsā) had objected to all three. The taʾwīl spoken of in the eighty-second verse was not the meaning of the events but where they arrived. That is, taʾwīl is the outcome of what is seen; not an interpretation drawn from it.

This is decisive for the verse before us, and it can be given in a table:

And from here we come to the most disputed place in the verse. For if taʾwīl is understood as "interpretation" the sentence says one thing, and if it is understood as "the state arrived at" it says another.

This is one of the oldest and best-known questions of the pause (waqf) in Qurʾānic exegesis. Where the sentence stops changes directly what the verse says.

There are two readings, and both are transmitted in the classical sources with strong defenders. I give them in a table and I IMPOSE NO PREFERENCE.

And the last two rows of the table explain why the disagreement has lasted so long — I record this as my own reading: the two readings in fact give the word taʾwīl two different senses. On reading A taʾwīl is "the state to be arrived at", and knowing that really is not in human hands. On reading B taʾwīl is "the resolution of the meaning", and that is something reachable by work. That is, before the disagreement is about where the sentence stops, it is about which sense the word is taken in.

I give this as an observation; I prefer neither of the two readings and impose neither on the reader.

And one further caveat must be entered, because the disagreement is often pulled to one side:

Both readings can be drawn from the text, and both have been defended in the classical tradition. To make weapons of them against each other comes close to the very thing the verse condemns — ibtighāʾa'l-fitna. I write this as a note of method.

And this too is a verifiable fact: neither of the two readings forbids the reading of the mutashābih verses. The verse lays down no ban on reading; it makes a distinction of intention: between the one who approaches with ibtighāʾa'l-fitna and the one who says āmannā bih.

The root ر-س-خ: to strike root deep, to be fixed fast. The lexicographers record that the word is used of a mountain settling on the ground and of a tree striking root.

The picture of the root is worth recording: rusūkh conveys not height but depth. That is, the verse speaks not of those who have risen in knowledge but of those who have struck root in it.

And the preposition must be recorded: rāsikhūna fi'l-ʿilm — "inside knowledge". Not ʿalā (on top of it) but fī (inside it).

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the word pictures knowledge not as a height but as a ground. And the function of a ground is not to topple when it is shaken. The verse shows this at once: the one with a crookedness in his heart, meeting a closed verse, is thrown; the one who has struck root, meeting the same verse, stands and says "all of it is from our Lord".

The sentence spoken is worth recording, because it does not resolve the mutashābih.

Kullun min ʿindi rabbinā — "all of it is from our Lord." That is, the sentence does not pass off what it has not understood as understood; it records that what it has not understood comes from the same source.

I record this as an observation: the verse puts into the mouth of the one firmly rooted in knowledge not an explanation but a placing. And the word kull covers the muḥkam as well as the mutashābih — that is, the verse that divides the Book in two does not divide acceptance in two.

The root ل-ب-ب. It was treated at 39/18 in al-Zumar, and I take the description given there:

"albāb is the plural of lubb: the kernel of a thing, its inside; the edible part of a fruit, the part separated from its husk. That is, the intellect is named as the capacity to throw away the husk and take the kernel."

And at 13/19-24 in al-Raʿd the bearers of this attribute were tabulated in a list (keeping the covenant, joining what should be joined, patience, spending in secret and in the open, repelling evil with good). I rely on that treatment.

Here I add what belongs to Āl ʿImrān alone, and it is a fact verifiable within the sūra: the construct ūlu'l-albāb occurs twice in the sūra — at 7 and at 190. And the two occurrences stand at the two ends of the sūra.

Two fields: the written text and the visible order. The same attribute. I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the sūra works the same capacity on two different objects of reading and names both of them "throwing away the husk and taking the kernel".

What this verse says to the present goes beyond the bounds of a religious text, and I give this as an observation:

When any text is read — a law, a contract, a scientific paper, a news report — there always stand before the reader two kinds of statement: those that bear one sense and those open to more than one. And the easiest way to misuse a text is always the same: to leave aside what is plain and to push forward what is not.

The verse describes this operation and catches it at two separate points:

And the fourth row is a discipline of reading all by itself. The most closed sentence of a text is read in the light of that text's most open sentences. If the reverse is done — if what is open is bent to fit what is closed — the text is no longer speaking; the reader is.

The verse's choosing the word zaygh is exactly right for this reason: an inclination is not a break. No one turns a text upside down all at once. It begins with a small angle.

Rabbanā lā tuzigh qulūbanā baʿda idh hadaytanā wa hab lanā min ladunka raḥmah, innaka anta'l-wahhāb · Rabbanā innaka jāmiʿu'n-nāsi li-yawmin lā rayba fīh, inna'llāha lā yukhlifu'l-mīʿād

"Our Lord! Do not make our hearts swerve after You have guided us, and grant us a mercy from Your presence. Truly You are the great Bestower. · Our Lord! You will gather mankind for a day in which there is no doubt. Truly God does not fail His appointment."

These two verses are the direct continuation of the one before, and the link is in the word: lā tuzigh — the same root (ز-ي-غ), in Form IV.

This is a link verifiable within the sūra, and it has to be recorded.

I give this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the seventh verse had described a defect in someone else; the eighth takes it as a possibility for oneself. That is, immediately after the diagnosis the text turns the diagnosis back on the reader. The first thing a person who learns of a defect would do is look for it in others; the verse closes that road.

بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنَا — "after You have given us guidance".

The caveat itself matters: the prayer consists not in asking for guidance but in asking that what has been given be kept. And this agrees exactly with the picture of the root zaygh: an inclination is what happens not to one who was never on the road but to one who is on it. The sun cannot decline from its zenith before it has reached it.

ٱلْوَهَّاب — root و-ه-ب: to give without return. Wahhāb is the intensive form faʿʿāl. The distinguishing side of the root must be recorded: a hiba is a giving not tied to any return or to any deserving. And this agrees with the subject of the prayer: the heart's staying straight is not asked for as something held on to by desert.

And the word will occur once more later in the sūra, in the mouth of Zechariah: hab lī min ladunka dhurriyyatan ṭayyiba (38) — the same verb (hab), the same construction (min ladunk).

Two prayers built with the same two words: hab and min ladunk. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

لَا يُخْلِفُ ٱلْمِيعَادَ — mīʿād, from the root و-ع-د: the time or the place appointed. The root was treated at 13/31 in al-Raʿd and at 39/20 in al-Zumar.

And the word order of the sentence must be recorded: the prayer begins with rabbanā (second person), but the last sentence shifts to the third person: inna'llāha lā yukhlifu'l-mīʿād — "truly God does not fail His appointment."

This is the device called iltifāt in Arabic (a shift in the direction of address). I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence comes out of prayer and turns into a ruling. That is, the utterance is taken out of the mouth of the one praying and tied to a general note.

Inna'lladhīna kafarū lan tughniya ʿanhum amwāluhum wa lā awlāduhum mina'llāhi shayʾā, wa ulāʾika hum waqūdu'n-nār · Ka-daʾbi āli Firʿawna wa'lladhīna min qablihim, kadhdhabū bi-āyātinā fa-akhadhahumu'llāhu bi-dhunūbihim, wa'llāhu shadīdu'l-ʿiqāb · Qul li'lladhīna kafarū sa-tughlabūna wa tuḥsharūna ilā jahannama wa biʾsa'l-mihād · Qad kāna lakum āyatun fī fiʾatayni'ltaqatā, fiʾatun tuqātilu fī sabīli'llāhi wa ukhrā kāfiratun yarawnahum mithlayhim raʾya'l-ʿayn, wa'llāhu yuʾayyidu bi-naṣrihī man yashāʾ, inna fī dhālika la-ʿibratan li-ūli'l-abṣār

"For those who disbelieve, neither their wealth nor their children will avail them anything against God… like the way of the family of Pharaoh and of those before them… Say to those who disbelieve: you will be overcome… In two companies that met there was a sign for you: one was fighting in the way of God, the other was disbelieving; with the sight of the eye they saw them as twice their own number. God supports with His help whom He wills. In this there is surely a lesson for those who have eyes to see."

The concrete sense of the root is worth recording: daʾaba fī ʿamalih — to keep at a piece of work in the same way, without tiring. Daʾb — a continuing habit, an accustomed course.

That is, the verse does not say "like the condition of the family of Pharaoh"; it says "like their course". The word conveys not a single event but a repeated pattern.

I record this as an observation: the choice of the word prepares in advance the line the sūra will lay down later in the Uḥud block. There too what will be described is not a single event but a recurring law: qad khalat min qablikum sunan (137).

The thirteenth verse names an encounter that took place in the past. In the classical sources this is identified as Badr.

Per the method (Method) I record this: the verse gives neither a place name nor a personal name. The only thing it gives is the attribute of the two sides: one tuqātilu fī sabīli'llāh, the other kāfira. In this commentary I do not go into the detail of the reports.

The sentence is one of the most debated places in the classical commentaries, because the reference of the pronouns is undetermined.

All three readings are transmitted in the classical sources. I do not impose a preference.

And the note raʾya'l-ʿayn must be dwelt on: "with the sight of the eye". That is, what is in question is not a guess or a supposition; it is recorded as something seen with the eye.

I give this as an observation, and it holds whichever reading is taken: the verse takes as its subject the perceived amount of the number, not the real amount. And that what is decisive in a battle is often not the real number but how the two sides see each other is a thing observed throughout history. I record this as a point of view; I am not dressing the verse in a modern thesis.

لِّأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَبْصَٰرِ — "for those who have sight." And this belongs to the same family as the ūlu'l-albāb of the seventh verse. In three separate places the sūra uses three separate constructions with "those who have": ūlu'l-albāb (7, 190), ūlu'l-abṣār (13), ūlu'l-ʿilm (18). This is a verifiable fact.

Zuyyina li'n-nāsi ḥubbu'sh-shahawāti mina'n-nisāʾi wa'l-banīna wa'l-qanāṭīri'l-muqanṭarati mina'dh-dhahabi wa'l-fiḍḍati wa'l-khayli'l-musawwamati wa'l-anʿāmi wa'l-ḥarth, dhālika matāʿu'l-ḥayāti'd-dunyā, wa'llāhu ʿindahū ḥusnu'l-maʾāb

"The love of the things desired has been made fair-seeming to people: women, sons, hoarded heaps of gold and silver, branded horses, cattle and tilled land. These are the provision of the life of this world; with God is the good place of return."

The verb is passive: "was made fair-seeming." The agent is not named.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and the classical commentaries have dwelt on it: the sentence does not name the one who adorns. Some exegetes read this as a natural disposition, others as the work of Satan. Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And the object of the sentence must be recorded: what is made fair-seeming is not the objects listed but ḥubbu'sh-shahawāt — the love of them. There are two steps: the object, and the love felt for the object. The verse takes the second as its subject.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the construction itself: the verse disparages none of the things listed — child, wealth, animal, tilled land. The next sentence confirms this: dhālika matāʿu'l-ḥayāti'd-dunyā — "these are the provision of the life of this world." Matāʿ is not a bad word; it means what is used, what is drawn benefit from. What is at issue is not the existence of these things but the kind of bond between them and a person.

The root ق-ن-ط-ر. Qinṭār — a large quantity; the lexicographers transmit different measures and do not agree on any definite amount. I give no figure in this commentary.

And the construction is worth recording: al-qanāṭīru'l-muqanṭara — a noun and an adjective from the same root. In Arabic this is called emphasis: "heaps heaped up".

The word will occur once more in the sūra, at verse 75 — there as a measure of trust: man in taʾmanhu bi-qinṭārin yuʾaddihī ilayk. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and the work of the two occurrences differs:

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the sūra names the same large quantity twice — once as possession, once as a trust. And in the second occurrence what is measured is not the amount of the property but the conduct of the one holding it.

The root س-و-م: to mark; and to turn loose (to pasture). Both senses are transmitted:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The fifteenth verse sets a list against the list (jannātun tajrī min taḥtiha'l-anhār), and the seventeenth verse counts five attributes:

The word order of the five must be recorded: all five are active participles — that is, they convey not an act but a continuance. In Arabic the active participle conveys the one who is doing the work and the one characterised by that work.

بِٱلْأَسْحَارِ — root س-ح-ر: saḥar, the last part of the night. The word was treated at 54/34 in al-Qamar (najjaynāhum bi-saḥar).

I record this as an observation: four of the five attributes are without a time; to the last of them a time is added. And that time is the time when one is least seen. The list closes with an act that has no visibility.

And a comparison can be made with the list in the fourteenth verse — I give this as my own reading: the first list counts things possessed, the second counts things done. In the first a person is the subject but there is no verb (zuyyina — passive); in the second there are five active participles. That is, the sūra draws a distinction between "having" and "doing".

Shahida'llāhu annahū lā ilāha illā huwa wa'l-malāʾikatu wa ūlu'l-ʿilmi qāʾiman bi'l-qisṭ, lā ilāha illā huwa'l-ʿazīzu'l-ḥakīm

"God has borne witness that there is no god but He — and so have the angels and those who possess knowledge, upholding justice. There is no god but He; al-ʿAzīz, al-Ḥakīm."

The word order of the verse must be recorded: a single verb (shahida), three subjects.

And the third place is worth recording: the verse sets those who possess knowledge immediately after the angels. This is a fact verifiable from the text, and the classical commentaries have dwelt on it a great deal.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: in the seventh verse came rāsikhūna fi'l-ʿilm; here ūlu'l-ʿilm. Two constructions in the same sūra, eleven verses apart. And both give knowledge not as a position but as a stance: the first is not thrown, the second bears witness.

The word is in the accusative and is a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl). But whose circumstance it is, is disputed:

All three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

قِسْط — root ق-س-ط. The root has a curious feature, and it was recorded in the series at 55/9 in al-Raḥmān: in Form I (qasaṭa) the root means to act unjustly, in Form IV (aqsaṭa) to act justly. That is, the same root turns to its opposite when the form changes. Qisṭ — justice, the giving of a right in full.

Inna'd-dīna ʿinda'llāhi'l-islām; wa ma'khtalafa'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba illā min baʿdi mā jāʾahumu'l-ʿilmu baghyan baynahum; wa man yakfur bi-āyāti'llāhi fa-inna'llāha sarīʿu'l-ḥisāb

"The religion with God is islām. Those who were given the Book fell into division only after knowledge had come to them, out of begrudging rivalry among themselves. Whoever denies the signs of God — God is swift in reckoning."

This verse and verse 85 are the two most-quoted and most misused verses of the sūra. Per the method (Method) I shall follow a procedure here: first I shall give the root sense of the word, then recall how this word has been treated in the series, then record what the verse does not say.

The concrete sense of the root was analysed in detail at 49/14 in al-Ḥujurāt, and I take the description given there:

"س-ل-م. Its original sense is to be sound, to be flawless, to be complete. Salāma — soundness. Salām — peace, wholeness. Silm — peace. Taslīm — to hand a thing over complete. At the centre of the root stands an operation: to hand something over to the other side in sound condition. Islām is in Form IV: to hand oneself over."

I rely on that treatment.

And the two branches of the root must be recorded, because English covers them with two separate words:

The two branches are not separate: to hand a thing over complete and to be sound come out of the same root. The one who hands over is the one who has kept nothing back.

al-Ḥujurāt 49/14 is the central text of this distinction, and the table given there was this:

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

And a point recorded there carries over directly and settles how the verse is read: in al-Ḥujurāt the refusal was read not as an exclusion but as a correction of place — islām is not a negative category but a positive word of the Qurʾān.

The wording of the verse is this: inna'd-dīna ʿinda'llāhi'l-islām. And the word order of the sentence must be recorded:

• Subject: al-dīn — definite (with al-).
• The caveat: ʿinda'llāh — "with God".
• Predicate: al-islām — definite.

In Arabic a nominal sentence whose two terms are both definite sets up an identity — "A is B and consists of B." That is, the sentence is a sentence of definition.

And the note ʿinda'llāh must not be passed over: the sentence does not say "with people" or "in history". It names the one who sets the measure.

Now, per the method (Method), I record this explicitly — these are limits that come out of the wording of the verse, not a softening brought in from outside:

One. The verse sets a measure of acceptance; it does not give a list of persons. No community, people or group is named in the sentence. What is named is the religion itself.

Two. The root sense of the word blocks any reduction of the verse to a historical-institutional name. Islām is by its root handing oneself over, and the Qurʾān uses this verb of Abraham (idh qāla lahū rabbuhū aslim qāla aslamtu li-rabbi'l-ʿālamīn, al-Baqara 2/131), of the sons of Jacob (Yaʿqūb), of the disciples (3/52: wa'shhad bi-annā muslimūn) and of the queen who came to Solomon (Sulaymān). These are facts verifiable from the text.

Three. The verse's own second sentence places on record how the first sentence is to be read. The second sentence is this: wa ma'khtalafa'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba illā min baʿdi mā jāʾahumu'l-ʿilmu baghyan baynahum. That is, the verse sets down the cause of the division as not ignorance but baghy.

Four. This commentary does not enter the debate about excommunication. Who is inside and who is outside this definition is a ruling the verse itself does not make, and it will not be made here. What the verse gives is a measure; applying the measure to persons is not the work of this commentary.

This construction has been treated many times in the series, and at 45/17 in al-Jāthiya a table of three places was drawn up:

The same structure in five places. And in all of them the same thing is said: disagreement arises not from the absence of the evidence but after it has come. I rely on al-Baqara 2/213, al-Shūrā 42/14 and al-Jāthiya 45/17 and do not repeat them here.

Here I add what belongs to Āl ʿImrān alone, and it is an observation about position: in the other four places this sentence is an independent statement. Here it is set immediately after a sentence of definition (inna'd-dīna ʿinda'llāhi'l-islām).

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the word order heads off a misuse by naming the cause of division immediately after the definition. As soon as the definition is given, it is recorded that the cause of splitting around that definition is not knowledge but baghy. That is, the verse meets, within the same verse, the turning of its own sentence into an instrument of contention.

Fa-in ḥājjūka fa-qul aslamtu wajhiya li'llāhi wa mani'ttabaʿan, wa qul li'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba wa'l-ummiyyīna a-aslamtum, fa-in aslamū fa-qadi'htadaw, wa in tawallaw fa-innamā ʿalayka'l-balāgh, wa'llāhu baṣīrun bi'l-ʿibād

"If they dispute with you, say: I have handed my face over to God, and so have those who follow me. Say to those who were given the Book and to the ummiyyūn: 'Have you handed yourselves over too?' If they hand themselves over they have found the way; if they turn away, your part is only to convey."

The noun of the preceding verse (al-islām) comes here as a verb: aslamtu.

And its object must be recorded: wajhiya — "my face". The root و-ج-ه: direction, face, the side of a thing towards which one turns. The root was treated at 2/112 and 2/115 in al-Baqara.

In Arabic wajh is used for the whole of a thing — because the face is the side of a person that stands foremost and is recognised. And the idiom occurs in the same form at al-Baqara 2/112: balā man aslama wajhahū li'llāhi wa huwa muḥsin.

I record this as an observation: the nineteenth verse had named the religion; the twentieth turns that name into a verb and puts the verb in the first person. That is, the definition is first shown on the speaker himself; then it is asked.

And the form of the question must be recorded: a-aslamtum — a question. Not a command, not an imposition; a question. And its answer is met with two possibilities, the second of which sets the limit of conveying: fa-innamā ʿalayka'l-balāgh.

ٱلْبَلَٰغ — a table of the limit of responsibility was drawn up in Muḥammad, at 42/48 in al-Shūrā, at 46/35 in al-Aḥqāf and at 28/56 in al-Qaṣaṣ. I rely on that treatment. In summary: balāgh is to convey — not to make accepted.

ٱلْأُمِّيِّۦنَ — from the root أ-م-م: those who are not people of a book. The word was treated at 62/2 in al-Jumuʿa. Per the method (Method) I record this: the word here is not a disparagement but a term of distinction — those who have not been given a book.

The twenty-first verse makes a severe statement: inna'lladhīna yakfurūna bi-āyāti'llāhi wa yaqtulūna'n-nabiyyīna bi-ghayri ḥaqqin wa yaqtulūna'lladhīna yaʾmurūna bi'l-qisṭi mina'n-nās — "those who deny the signs of God, who kill the prophets without right, and who kill those among the people who enjoin justice…"

Per the method (Method) I record this: the sentence is built with alladhīna — that is, it is tied to an attribute, not to a community. No group is named in the sentence. Whoever does these three things, the verse speaks of him.

And the third verb is worth recording, and it is usually passed over: wa yaqtulūna'lladhīna yaʾmurūna bi'l-qisṭi mina'n-nās — "those who kill those among the people who enjoin justice."

I record this as an observation: the verse puts non-prophets into the same sentence. That is, it is not required that the one killed be a prophet; it is enough that he enjoined justice. And this is the first link in the line of "enjoining what is right" that will be built in verses 104 and 110 of the sūra.

حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَٰلُهُمْ (22) — root ح-ب-ط. The concrete sense of the root was treated in Muḥammad: an animal's eating a harmful plant and swelling, and that swelling ending in death. That is, ḥabṭ is a swelling that deflates — full from outside, empty within. I do not repeat it here.

The twenty-third verse describes how, when those given a portion of the Book are called to the arbitration of their own book, a group of them turns away: thumma yatawallā farīqun minhum wa hum muʿriḍūn.

Per the method (Method) I record this, and it is a rule of reading that will be kept throughout the sūra: the verse says farīqun minhum — "a group of them". There is no blanket ruling. This note is directly connected with verse 113 of the sūra (laysū sawāʾ), and it will be shown there in a table.

The twenty-fourth verse gives the cause: dhālika bi-annahum qālū lan tamassana'n-nāru illā ayyāman maʿdūdāt — "because they said, the Fire will touch us only for a counted number of days."

This sentence occurred word for word at 2/80 in al-Baqara and was treated there. I rely on that treatment. In summary: the claim reduces not the existence of the punishment but its duration — and this is a more insidious operation than a denial, because it goes on believing while rendering the outcome ineffective.

غَرَّهُمْ فِى دِينِهِم مَّا كَانُوا۟ يَفْتَرُونَ — root غ-ر-ر: to deceive; the concrete sense of the root is a thing's outer face being bright and its inside empty. The root was treated at 31/33 in Luqmān and at 57/14 in al-Ḥadīd.

And the word order of the sentence must be recorded: the thing that deceives is not an enemy coming from outside — mā kānū yaftarūn, "what they themselves invented". That is, the verse ties the source of the deception to the one deceived.

Quli'llāhumma mālika'l-mulki tuʾti'l-mulka man tashāʾu wa tanziʿu'l-mulka mimman tashāʾ, wa tuʿizzu man tashāʾu wa tudhillu man tashāʾ, bi-yadika'l-khayr, innaka ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr · Tūliju'l-layla fi'n-nahāri wa tūliju'n-nahāra fi'l-layl, wa tukhriju'l-ḥayya mina'l-mayyiti wa tukhriju'l-mayyita mina'l-ḥayy, wa tarzuqu man tashāʾu bi-ghayri ḥisāb

"Say: 'O God, Owner of all dominion! You give dominion to whom You will, and You pull dominion away from whom You will. You raise whom You will and You abase whom You will. In Your hand is the good. Truly You have power over all things. · You make the night pass into the day, and You make the day pass into the night. You bring the living out of the dead and the dead out of the living. And You provide for whom You will without reckoning.'"

The word is a special vocative form standing in place of yā Allāh: the yā drops and a doubled mīm comes at the end. This form occurs in five places in the Qurʾān, and all five are sentences of calling or of entreaty.

I record this as an observation about the language; the lexicographers differ over how the form is constructed, and I impose no preference.

The root م-ل-ك occurs four times, and each of the four is at a different piece of work:

And the pairs of verbs must be recorded:

The root ن-ز-ع: to pull a thing out of its place, to wrench it loose. The choice of the root is worth recording: the verse does not say "You take back" (taʾkhudhu). Nazʿ is a pull that meets resistance — as though the thing taken were holding on.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two verbs: for giving, ītāʾ (holding out and handing over) is used; for taking, nazʿ. That is, the verse sets up an asymmetry between the way dominion is given and the way it is taken: silent in the giving, contested in the taking.

Per the method (Method), and following the note kept consistently throughout the series, the same holds here: expressions such as yad (hand) cannot be understood as ascribing an organ or a body to God. The same note was entered at 57/29 in al-Ḥadīd and in Yāsīn: two attitudes are transmitted in the classical commentaries — to accept the wording as it stands and leave its manner to God (tafwīḍ), or to interpret it in the sense of power and disposal (taʾwīl). I transmit both and impose no preference. The shared principle is al-Shūrā 42/11.

And there is something in the content of the sentence that must be recorded, and the classical commentaries have dwelt on it: the sentence says bi-yadika'l-khayr — only the good is named. Although raising and abasing are counted together, it does not say "in Your hand are good and evil".

The classical explanations:

All three are transmitted. I impose no preference and do not enter the theological debate.

The root و-ل-ج. It was analysed in detail at 57/6 in al-Ḥadīd and tabulated at 31/29 in Luqmān. I take the description given there:

"Root: و-ل-ج. Its concrete sense: to enter a narrow place, to slip in, to seep inside. […] The word itself describes a seeping. Night does not take the place of day; it enters into it."

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

Here I add what belongs to Āl ʿImrān alone, and it is a difference of context:

And the difference must be recorded — I give this as my own reading, and it is not binding: in the other two places īlāj is a proof of power. Here it does the work of a comparison. The twenty-sixth verse had described the changing of hands of dominion; the twenty-seventh gives a picture that shows how this happens.

For this is exactly the picture of īlāj: night does not cut day off at a stroke; the day grows a little shorter each day, then a little longer. The boundary shifts every day, and on no day can it be said "there, today it changed." And the changing of hands of dominion is most often like this too — what appears as an overturning in a moment is the last step of a long seeping.

I give this as a reading; the verse does not draw this comparison explicitly. What it does draw is the standing of two sentences side by side, and that can be verified from the text.

This sentence occurs in several places in the Qurʾān (Yūnus 10/31, al-Anʿām 6/95, al-Rūm 30/19) and was treated at 30/19 in al-Rūm. I rely on that treatment.

In the classical commentaries it is explained in two ways, and both are transmitted:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. And the second reading agrees with the context of the sūra: from the thirty-third verse the sūra will relate a lineage, and within that lineage there will be both those who are chosen and others.

بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ — "without reckoning". Two senses are given in the classical commentaries: either "unlimited, immeasurably abundant", or "without being calculated according to the person's deserving". Both are transmitted.

And the work the two verses do together can be recorded as my own reading: the twenty-sixth verse describes a changing of hands among people, the twenty-seventh a changing of hands in nature. Both are given with the same sequence of verbs (You give–You take / You make pass–You make pass / You bring out–You bring out). That is, the changing of hands of political power is put into the same sentence structure as the changing of places of night and day.

And this is what the verse says to the present: the prayer states that power is not lasting, not as a threat but as a description of an order. The verse neither praises nor blames any government; it names the subject of the verbs of giving and taking. No present-day political conclusion is drawn from this in this commentary.

Lā yattakhidhi'l-muʾminūna'l-kāfirīna awliyāʾa min dūni'l-muʾminīn, wa man yafʿal dhālika fa-laysa mina'llāhi fī shayʾin illā an tattaqū minhum tuqāh, wa yuḥadhdhirukumu'llāhu nafsah, wa ila'llāhi'l-maṣīr

"Let the believers not take those who disbelieve as protectors in place of the believers. Whoever does that has no relation left with God — except that you guard yourselves against a danger from them. God warns you of Himself; and to God is the return."

The root و-ل-ي: to be near, to be adjoining. Walī — the one who is near, who takes charge of another's affair. The root was treated across eight occurrences in al-Shūrā and in detail in al-Mumtaḥana.

Per the method (Method) I record this, and it comes out of the wording of the verse:

One. The word is not "friend". Walāya (the bond of mutual protection) means entrusting one's affair to another, declaring one's side. This distinction was set out plainly at 60/8 in al-Mumtaḥana: "God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought you over religion and have not driven you from your homes." I rely on that treatment.

Two. The verse's caveat is min dūni'l-muʾminīn — "in place of the believers". This caveat shows what the prohibition is aimed at: a situation of choosing.

Three. The verse does not give a blanket rule of conduct about a group of human beings; it takes up a question of allegiance. No legal ruling is drawn from this in this commentary.

The exception must be recorded: the verse sets an exception to its own ruling. Tuqāt, from the root ت-ق-ي — guarding oneself, taking precaution.

This exception has been discussed at length in the classical legal literature. Per the method (Method) I do not enter that discussion and I issue no legal ruling. What is to be recorded is that the verse itself sets an exception — that is, the ruling is not absolute but qualified.

The twenty-ninth verse says that the hidden and the open are the same (in tukhfū mā fī ṣudūrikum aw tubdūhu yaʿlamhu'llāh), and the thirtieth that everyone will find what he has done brought present: yawma tajidu kullu nafsin mā ʿamilat min khayrin muḥḍarā.

مُّحْضَرًا — root ح-ض-ر: to be present. A passive participle: brought present.

I record this as an observation: the verse does not say that the deed is recounted but that it is brought. And this is the very picture treated at 18/49 in al-Kahf (wa wajadū mā ʿamilū ḥāḍirā). I rely on that treatment.

And the closing sentence is worth recording: wa yuḥadhdhirukumu'llāhu nafsah… wa'llāhu raʾūfun bi'l-ʿibād. In the same context, both a warning and a tenderness. I give this as an observation about the word order: the sūra closes a heavy sentence with the name Raʾūf — and this lies along the same line as the pattern recorded in al-Ḥujurāt of "leaving room after every heavy sentence".

Qul in kuntum tuḥibbūna'llāha fa'ttabiʿūnī yuḥbibkumu'llāhu wa yaghfir lakum dhunūbakum, wa'llāhu ghafūrun raḥīm · Qul aṭīʿu'llāha wa'r-rasūl, fa-in tawallaw fa-inna'llāha lā yuḥibbu'l-kāfirīn

"Say: 'If you love God, follow me, and God will love you and forgive you your sins.' · Say: 'Obey God and the Messenger.' If they turn away — God does not love those who disbelieve."

The structure of the sentence must be recorded, and the classical commentaries have dwelt on it:

• The condition: in kuntum tuḥibbūna'llāh — "if you love God"
• The apodosis (a command): fa'ttabiʿūnī — "follow me"
• The outcome: yuḥbibkumu'llāh — "God will love you"

That is, the order is this: a love claimed → an act → a love answering to it.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not reject the claim of love; it ties it to something measurable. Love is an inward state and is not seen from outside; ittibāʿ is seen.

And the direction of the verbs is worth recording:

Two directions, one root (ح-ب-ب), in the same verse. And between them stands a verb. I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the verse takes love out of being a one-way feeling and turns it into a two-way relation — and the visible link of the relation is the verb in the middle.

وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ — and forgiveness is set after love, not before. I give this as an observation about the word order.

The thirty-second verse closes the block: aṭīʿu'llāha wa'r-rasūl. And this construction will occur once more in the sūra, at verse 132 — inside the Uḥud block.

The same command, on two separate grounds. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra. And at verse 152 the opposite of the same root will come: wa ʿaṣaytum — "and you disobeyed". The sūra sets down the command twice and records its breach once.

Inna'llāha'ṣṭafā Ādama wa Nūḥan wa āla Ibrāhīma wa āla ʿImrāna ʿala'l-ʿālamīn · Dhurriyyatan baʿḍuhā min baʿḍ, wa'llāhu samīʿun ʿalīm

"God chose Adam (Ādam), Noah (Nūḥ), the family of Abraham (Ibrāhīm) and the family of ʿImrān above all beings · as one offspring, one from another. God is hearing, knowing."

The concrete sense of the root is worth recording: ص-ف-و — a thing's being clear, pure, free of sediment. Ṣafwa — the cleanest part of a thing; ṣafī — clear water.

Form VIII (iftiʿāl): iṣṭafā — to pick out and take the pure part of a thing. That is, there is a sifting inside the verb: choosing is taking the clear out of the mixed.

And the distribution of the verb within this sūra must be recorded — this is a fact verifiable from the text:

Four occurrences in two verses. And in the forty-second verse the verb is repeated twice in the same sentence — this is a concentration verifiable within the sūra, and it will be taken up separately there.

Āla ʿImrān — "the family of ʿImrān". The construct occurs only here in the sūra.

A note per the method (Method): the Qurʾān names ʿImrān in two other places — 3/35 (imraʾatu ʿImrān) and al-Taḥrīm 66/12 (Maryama'bnata ʿImrān). The Qurʾān gives no other information about this person. The genealogical material transmitted in the classical sources is not passed on in this commentary; the only thing the text gives is a name.

The construction must be recorded: "an offspring, one part of it from another."

The root ذ-ر-ر / ذ-ر-و — the lexicographers differ over the origin of the word; dhurriyya means progeny, generation. The root was treated at 13/23 in al-Raʿd and at 36/41 in Yāsīn.

And the work of the sentence is worth recording — I give this as my own reading: the verse counts four separate names and then binds them into a single chain. That is, the choosing is given not as four separate events but as one continuing line.

And this is connected with a later sentence of the sūra: at verse 68, inna awla'n-nāsi bi-Ibrāhīma la'lladhīna'ttabaʿūh — "the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him". That is, the sūra builds a chain of descent and then ties nearness in that chain to following. This is a weave verifiable from the text, and it will be taken up separately at verse 68.

وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ — and the verse ends with the name of hearing. I record this as an observation about the word order: in the very next verse there will come an utterance spoken — a vow a woman turned over within herself and then put into words. The name prepares the scene.

Idh qālati'mraʾatu ʿImrāna rabbi innī nadhartu laka mā fī baṭnī muḥarraran fa-taqabbal minnī, innaka anta's-samīʿu'l-ʿalīm · Fa-lammā waḍaʿathā qālat rabbi innī waḍaʿtuhā unthā wa'llāhu aʿlamu bimā waḍaʿat, wa laysa'dh-dhakaru ka'l-unthā, wa innī sammaytuhā Maryama wa innī uʿīdhuhā bika wa dhurriyyatahā mina'sh-shayṭāni'r-rajīm

"When the wife of ʿImrān said: 'My Lord! I have vowed to You what is in my womb — set free. Accept it from me; truly You are the hearing, the knowing.' · And when she gave birth to her she said: 'My Lord! I have given birth to a female.' — and God knew better what she had given birth to — 'and the male is not like the female. I have named her Mary; and I place her and her offspring in Your protection from the accursed Satan.'"

These two verses will be worked through with care. The sentence wa laysa'dh-dhakaru ka'l-unthā in particular is one of the sentences on which the most mistaken rulings have been built. Per the method (Method) I shall first settle the question of whose sentence it is, then give the classical explanations in a table.

The concrete sense of the root: ح-ر-ر — heat; and to be free, to be released from a bond. Ḥurr — free; taḥrīr — setting loose. The root was treated at 90/13 in al-Balad (fakku raqaba) and at 58/3 in al-Mujādala (taḥrīru raqaba).

A passive participle: muḥarrar — set free, released.

The senses given to this word in the classical commentaries:

All three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

And there is a tension in the word itself, and I record it as an observation: muḥarrar means "set free"; but in the sentence this freedom is given by a vow. That is, being loosed from everything else by being bound to one thing. The word carries the logic of a vow by itself.

The root و-ض-ع: to put a thing down, to set it down. Its use for giving birth comes from here — in Arabic waḍaʿati'l-marʾa means "the woman gave birth"; the picture of the root is the setting down of a carried load.

And the verb occurs four times in two verses:

The third occurrence must be recorded, because the whole question of the verse is knotted there.

There is an interposed clause (jumla muʿtariḍa) in the verse, and this is plainly recorded in the classical commentaries:

"…qālat rabbi innī waḍaʿtuhā unthā — wa'llāhu aʿlamu bimā waḍaʿat — wa laysa'dh-dhakaru ka'l-unthā…"

The middle sentence (wa'llāhu aʿlamu bimā waḍaʿat — "and God knew better what she had given birth to") is not the woman's words; it is the narrator breaking in. On this there is broad agreement among the sources.

And the real disagreement is about the sentence after it: wa laysa'dh-dhakaru ka'l-unthā. Whose speech does this sentence continue?

Both readings are transmitted in the classical sources. I do not impose a preference.

And it should be seen how much the sense changes between the two readings — this shows why the sentence before us must be worked through with care:

And now, per the method (Method), I enter a note, because this sentence is often misused:

One. Whichever reading is taken, the sentence is not a sentence of general ruling. It is spoken inside a scene, at the moment of a birth, in the context of a particular vow. Every element around the sentence is particular: a woman, a vow, a birth, a name.

Two. The word order of the sentence does not support a reading of disparagement; it blocks it. In Arabic, in the pattern laysa A ka-B, the measure is B — A is what is likened, B is what it is likened to. That is, the sentence makes unthā the measure and dhakar what is measured. This is a fact of word order that comes out of the wording itself, and it has been recorded in the classical commentaries as well.

Three. And the continuation of the verse confirms it. What happens immediately after the sentence: a name is given to the girl (Maryam), protection is sought, and then in verse 37 it is said "Her Lord accepted her with a good acceptance". That is, the vow is accepted — and what was expected in the vow was a male. The flow of the text describes not a deficiency but a change of place.

Four. And the sixth verse of the sūra had laid down the ruling of this scene in advance: huwa'lladhī yuṣawwirukum fi'l-arḥāmi kayfa yashāʾ — "He it is who shapes you in the wombs as He wills." Thirty verses apart, in the same sūra. This is a link verifiable from the text.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: what the two verses do together is to show the difference between a person's plan and what comes about. The woman had made a plan; the plan held, but not in the shape she expected. And the sūra will tell this not as a loss but as an outcome greater than the plan itself — because the child born will be settled at the centre of the family from which the sūra takes its name.

And I record this explicitly: no disparaging ruling about women can be drawn from this sentence; none is drawn in this commentary. What the sentence addresses is not a sex but an expectation.

The verb of naming is worth recording: sammaytuhā — "I named her". The pronoun is emphatic (innī).

And the name will occur six times in the second half of the sūra. In Maryam a sūra bears this name, and Mary's account was treated there in detail.

Per the method (Method) I record this: differing views are transmitted in the classical sources about the meaning of the name, and there is no certain knowledge. I make no claim about its meaning in this commentary.

ٱلشَّيْطَٰنِ ٱلرَّجِيمِ — rajīm: from the root ر-ج-م, stoned, driven off. The root was treated at 37/7 in al-Ṣāffāt and at 67/5 in al-Mulk (rujūman li'sh-shayāṭīn).

And the extent of the request must be recorded: uʿīdhuhā bika wa dhurriyyatahā — "her and her offspring". That is, the request for protection is stretched a generation further. And that offspring will, later in the sūra, consist of a single person.

Fa-taqabbalahā rabbuhā bi-qabūlin ḥasanin wa anbatahā nabātan ḥasanan wa kaffalahā Zakariyyā, kullamā dakhala ʿalayhā Zakariyya'l-miḥrāba wajada ʿindahā rizqā, qāla yā Maryamu annā laki hādhā, qālat huwa min ʿindi'llāh, inna'llāha yarzuqu man yashāʾu bi-ghayri ḥisāb

"Her Lord accepted her with a good acceptance and made her grow as a good plant grows, and He gave Zechariah charge of her. Whenever Zechariah entered upon her in the sanctuary he found provision beside her. 'Mary! Where does this come to you from?' he said. And she said: 'It is from God. Truly God provides for whom He wills without reckoning.'"

The root ن-ب-ت: a plant's coming up out of the ground. Form IV: anbata — to make grow, to raise.

And the construction of the comparison must be recorded, and the lexicographers dwell on it: the object of the verb is a human being, but its verbal noun is the verbal noun of a plant (nabātan). In Arabic this is called the absolute object (mafʿūl muṭlaq), and it reinforces the verb.

That is, the sentence does not say "He raised her well"; it says "He made her grow as one makes a plant grow."

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the comparison carries the sense that the growing happened of itself and unseen. A plant is not seen in the moment of its growing; whoever looks finds it each time a little further grown. And this picture agrees with what follows in the verse: every time Zechariah entered he found something new.

The word order must be recorded: kullamā — "whenever". This particle conveys repetition, and although the two verbs that follow it are both perfect, the sentence conveys continuance.

That is, the scene is not a one-time event; it is a repeated state.

ٱلْمِحْرَاب — root ح-ر-ب. The lexicographers differ over the origin of the word; it is commonly explained as the foremost, highest or innermost part of a place. The present-day sense of miḥrāb (the niche where the one leading the prayer stands) is a usage that settled later and cannot be read back into the verse. I record this explicitly.

The word occurs twice in the sūra — at 37 (beside Mary) and at 39 (Zechariah himself there). This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and it binds the two scenes to the same place.

The scene consists of a question and an answer, and the word order of both is worth recording:

I record this as an observation: the question is looking for an intermediary; the answer puts nothing in between. And the last sentence of the answer comes as a rule: inna'llāha yarzuqu man yashāʾu bi-ghayri ḥisāb.

And this sentence is word for word the same as the last sentence of verse 27 of the sūra: wa tarzuqu man tashāʾu bi-ghayri ḥisāb (27) — inna'llāha yarzuqu man yashāʾu bi-ghayri ḥisāb (37).

The same sentence, one in a prayer and one in a scene. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra. I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: what is said in the twenty-seventh verse as a principle is shown in the thirty-seventh as having come about in a room. The sūra states the principle and gives its instance ten verses later.

And in the next verse this scene will have a consequence: Zechariah will pray.

Hunālika daʿā Zakariyyā rabbah, qāla rabbi hab lī min ladunka dhurriyyatan ṭayyibah, innaka samīʿu'd-duʿāʾ · Fa-nādathu'l-malāʾikatu wa huwa qāʾimun yuṣallī fi'l-miḥrābi anna'llāha yubashshiruka bi-Yaḥyā muṣaddiqan bi-kalimatin mina'llāhi wa sayyidan wa ḥaṣūran wa nabiyyan mina'ṣ-ṣāliḥīn · Qāla rabbi annā yakūnu lī ghulāmun wa qad balaghaniya'l-kibaru wa'mraʾatī ʿāqir, qāla kadhālika'llāhu yafʿalu mā yashāʾ · Qāla rabbi'jʿal lī āyah, qāla āyatuka allā tukallima'n-nāsa thalāthata ayyāmin illā ramzā, wa'dhkur rabbaka kathīran wa sabbiḥ bi'l-ʿashiyyi wa'l-ibkār

"There and then Zechariah prayed to his Lord: 'My Lord! Grant me from Your presence a goodly offspring; truly You hear prayer.' · The angels called to him while he stood praying in the sanctuary: 'God gives you good news of John — confirming a word from God, a lord, one who holds himself back, and a prophet from among the righteous.' · He said: 'My Lord! How shall I have a boy, when old age has overtaken me and my wife is barren?' He said: 'Even so; God does what He wills.' · 'My Lord! Give me a sign.' He said: 'Your sign is that for three days you shall not speak to people except by gesture. Remember your Lord much, and glorify Him in the evening and in the early morning.'"

This account was treated in detail at 19/1-15 in Maryam. There nidāʾan khafiyyā, wahana'l-ʿaẓmu minnī, ishtaʿala'r-raʾsu shaybā, ʿitiyyā, and the list of what was given to John were analysed. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

The work I shall do here is to show the difference between the two tellings. And the difference can be verified from the text.

Every row of this table can be verified from the two texts. I now record three observations that come out of the table.

One. Sūrat Maryam tells the person; Āl ʿImrān tells the context. In Maryam there are Zechariah's bones, his hair, the failing of his voice — the state of a human being is described. In Āl ʿImrān there is none of this; in its place stands hunālika — "there and then". That is, the prayer is given as the consequence of the scene seen in the preceding verse (the finding of unlooked-for provision beside Mary).

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: in Āl ʿImrān the prayer is an inference. Zechariah has seen a provision that came without a cause, and has asked for his own impossibility. Hunālika is the one word that establishes this link, and it is not in Sūrat Maryam.

Two. In the two sūras the number three is the same and the unit different: thalātha layāl (Maryam) / thalāthata ayyām (Āl ʿImrān). This is a verifiable difference of wording. In the classical commentaries this is explained as two namings of the same span — in Arabic it is common for day and night to be used so as to include one another. I transmit this and build no ruling on it.

Three. The lists of attributes differ, and neither of them is deficient. What is given in Maryam bears on the inner world (ḥanān, zakāt, taqiyy); what is given in Āl ʿImrān bears on position (muṣaddiq, sayyid, nabī). I record this as an observation: the two sūras, telling of the same person, bring different attributes forward, and each sūra takes what suits its own axis. The axis of Sūrat Maryam is al-Raḥmān; the axis of Āl ʿImrān is being chosen, and position.

سَيِّد — the root س-و-د: to go in front, to be at the head. Sayyid — the one who stands before his people. The word occurs rarely in the Qurʾān, and here it is used as the attribute of a prophet.

حَصُور — the root ح-ص-ر: to encircle, to press in, to hold back. Ḥaṣr — narrowing, restriction. Ḥaṣūr is on the faʿūl pattern and conveys intensity.

The senses given to the word in the classical commentaries:

All three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

And per the method (Method) I enter a note: from the second reading it cannot be concluded that not marrying is a general excellence; elsewhere the Qurʾān says plainly that prophets had wives and children (al-Raʿd 13/38 — treated in al-Raʿd). No legal or moral ruling is established on this matter in this commentary.

The form of the answer must be recorded, and it differs from the one in Sūrat Maryam.

I record this as an observation: in Maryam the objection is met with a proof; in Āl ʿImrān with a declaration. And the context of Āl ʿImrān explains this: in this sūra something like the same sentence will be said to Mary as well, at verse forty-seven (kadhāliki'llāhu yakhluqu mā yashāʾ) — that is, the sentence is here turned into a pattern, and it binds the two annunciations together.

Two sentences on the same pattern; the one difference is in the verb: yafʿal (He does) / yakhluq (He creates). This is a verifiable difference of wording.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: what Zechariah asks for is an exception to an order that is working — a child from an old man. Mary's case, on the other hand, is outside the order. And the verbs appear to have been chosen accordingly: one is doing, the other creating. I give this as an observation; I establish no fixed rule.

The root ر-م-ز: to signal with the lip, the eye or the hand — a communication made without the voice. The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

And the observation recorded in Maryam can be carried over here: there it was said that the prayer was hidden (nidāʾan khafiyyā), and what was given as a sign also had to do with the voice.

In Āl ʿImrān the prayer is not silent; but the sign is again silence. I record this as an observation: in both sūras the same sign is given — not being able to speak. And in both sūras the same command follows it: sabbiḥ — glorify.

That is, speech with people is cut off, and the remembrance of God goes on. This is a thing shared that can be verified from the two texts.

Wa idh qālati'l-malāʾikatu yā Maryamu inna'llāha'ṣṭafāki wa ṭahharaki wa'ṣṭafāki ʿalā nisāʾi'l-ʿālamīn · Yā Maryamu'qnutī li-rabbiki wa'sjudī wa'rkaʿī maʿa'r-rākiʿīn · Dhālika min anbāʾi'l-ghaybi nūḥīhi ilayk, wa mā kunta ladayhim idh yulqūna aqlāmahum ayyuhum yakfulu Maryama wa mā kunta ladayhim idh yakhtaṣimūn

"When the angels said: 'Mary! God has chosen you and purified you, and chosen you above the women of all beings. · Mary! Be devoutly obedient to your Lord, prostrate yourself, and bow with those who bow.' · These are among the tidings of the unseen that We reveal to you. You were not with them when they cast their pens to see which of them should have charge of Mary; nor were you with them when they contended."

The verb occurs twice in the same verse, and the classical commentaries have dwelt on this repetition:

The classical explanations:

All three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

And the verb in the middle must be recorded: ṭahharaki — "purified you". The root ط-ه-ر: material and spiritual purity. The root was treated at 2/222 in al-Baqara and at 74/4 in al-Muddaththir.

The word order is worth recording: purification stands between the two choosings. I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence proceeds choosing–purifying–choosing; that is, the second choosing is not a repetition of the first, for an operation stands between them.

Three commands, and their order must be recorded, because it is the reverse of the customary order of the prayer: bowing comes before prostration; here prostration is named first.

Two explanations of this are transmitted in the classical commentaries:

Both are transmitted. I do not impose a preference and I draw no legal conclusion from this.

ٱقْنُتِى — the root ق-ن-ت: a continuous and silent submission, a standing in one state. The root was treated at 33/31 in al-Aḥzāb and at 66/12 in al-Taḥrīm — and in al-Taḥrīm about this same person: wa kānat mina'l-qānitīn.

And the note maʿa'r-rākiʿīn is worth recording: "together with those who bow".

I record this as an observation: the first two commands are singular and solitary; to the third a note of being together is added. And al-rākiʿīn is a masculine plural. In the classical commentaries this is explained in the sense of "within the congregation". I transmit this and build no ruling on it.

The forty-fourth verse names a scene but does not narrate it: idh yulqūna aqlāmahum ayyuhum yakfulu Maryam — "when they cast their pens to see which of them should have charge of Mary."

The Qurʾān says nothing else about this scene: how many they were, how the pen was cast, who won — none of it. And in the classical commentaries various reports are passed on that fill this gap. Per the method (Method) those reports are not passed on in this commentary.

The verse's own sentence already says why the scene is named: dhālika min anbāʾi'l-ghaybi nūḥīhi ilayk — "these are among the tidings of the unseen that We reveal to you."

And the note repeated twice: wa mā kunta ladayhim — "you were not with them."

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence is repeated twice, for two separate scenes (the casting of pens, the contending). And the work of the repetition is to show the source of the knowledge. The detail of the scene is not given; what is given is where that detail does not come from.

يَخْتَصِمُونَ — the root خ-ص-م: to contend, to dispute at law. The root was treated at 38/64 in Ṣād (takhāṣumu ahli'n-nār) and at 36/49 in Yāsīn.

And there is a point that must be recorded: the verse describes contending over a good thing — over who is to look after the child. I give this as an observation: the sūra always uses the words ikhtilāf and tafarruq negatively (19, 103, 105); the word used here is a different one (ikhtiṣām), and its subject is the sharing out of a responsibility.

Idh qālati'l-malāʾikatu yā Maryamu inna'llāha yubashshiruki bi-kalimatin minhu'smuhu'l-Masīḥu ʿĪsa'bnu Maryama wajīhan fi'd-dunyā wa'l-ākhirati wa mina'l-muqarrabīn · Wa yukallimu'n-nāsa fi'l-mahdi wa kahlan wa mina'ṣ-ṣāliḥīn · Qālat rabbi annā yakūnu lī waladun wa lam yamsasnī bashar, qāla kadhāliki'llāhu yakhluqu mā yashāʾ, idhā qaḍā amran fa-innamā yaqūlu lahū kun fa-yakūn

"When the angels said: 'Mary! God gives you good news of a word from Him; his name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary; he is honoured in this world and in the hereafter and is of those brought near. · He will speak to people in the cradle and in his maturity, and he is of the righteous.' · She said: 'My Lord! How shall I have a child, when no man has touched me?' He said: 'Even so; God creates what He wills. When He decrees a thing He only says to it 'Be', and it is.'"

This scene was treated at 19/16-21 in Maryam. There intabadhat, ḥijāb, aʿūdhu bi'r-Raḥmān, in kunta taqiyyā and the form of the annunciation were analysed. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here. Here I show the difference between the two tellings.

The last row of the table explains all the differences, and I record this as my own reading: Sūrat Maryam tells what happened to a human being — fear, taking refuge, the pangs, facing an accusation. Āl ʿImrān, on the other hand, is speaking inside a dispute, and for that reason it counts up who Jesus is and what he is not: a word, Messiah, son of Mary, honoured, brought near, righteous, speaking, a prophet. Eight attributes, and not one of them is "son of God".

In Sūrat Maryam there is a birth; in Āl ʿImrān there is no birth. This is a fact verifiable from the two texts, and it separates the work of the two sūras.

The construction must be recorded, and it is one of the places the classical commentaries have dwelt on most.

The root ك-ل-م: to wound; and to utter speech. The lexicographers establish the link thus: an utterance leaves a mark in the hearer. Kalima — a sound that leaves a mark.

And what must be recorded is the preposition: kalimatin minhu — "a word from Him". Min conveys source.

The readings transmitted in the classical commentaries about what the kalima is:

All three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

And per the method (Method) I record this plainly: the construction is bounded by the verse's own sentence. The verse does not debate what the kalima is; it gives it as a subject of good news and immediately afterwards names it with three names. No theological debate is entered in this commentary.

And a point of word order must be recorded, and the classical commentaries point to it: bi-kalimatin is feminine, but the pronoun comes masculine: ismuhū — "his name" (not ismuhā).

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence passes from the kalima to a person, and it makes the passage by a pronoun. That is, what is announced is not an utterance but a human being.

Three namings stand side by side, and all three will be at work in the sūra:

ٱلْمَسِيح — the root م-س-ح: to stroke with the hand, to wipe. More than one explanation is transmitted in the classical sources for why the word carries this name (because he was anointed, because he travelled about, because he healed the sick by touching them). There is no certain knowledge, and I impose no preference.

And the note ibnu Maryam must be dwelt on: the Qurʾān names Jesus for the most part with this construction. This is a verifiable fact of usage.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the giving of descent through the mother agrees with the later sentence of the verse (lam yamsasnī bashar) — that is, the naming contains the event itself. And the same naming is also the ground of the proof that will be built at verse 59 of the sūra.

The root و-ج-ه. Wajīh — one who has a face, held in esteem, whose word counts. The same root occurred in the twentieth verse in the construction aslamtu wajhī.

And the word order of the list must be recorded:

فِى ٱلْمَهْدِ وَكَهْلًا — "in the cradle and in maturity".

The root ك-ه-ل: one who has come to middle age, who has ripened. The word occurs in the Qurʾān only in this construction (here and at 5/110).

And the construction must be recorded, and the classical commentaries have dwelt on it: two states are set side by side — one the age at which speaking is extraordinary, the other the age at which it is ordinary.

I record this as an observation: the sentence does not content itself with either of the two ends. Had only the cradle been named, it would have been a note of a marvel; had only maturity been named, nothing would have been said. What is said when the two are named together is continuance: the speaking is not a one-time sign.

It was treated at 2/117 in al-Baqara, and the note there was this:

"كُن فَيَكُونُ — 'He says: be; and it is'. The expression pictures creation not as a process but as an utterance. Material, tool, labour, time — none of them is named."

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

Here I add what belongs to Āl ʿImrān alone, and it is a link verifiable within the sūra: the expression occurs twice in the sūra — at 47 and at 59. And at its second occurrence it will be named together with the creation of Adam.

The same expression, one an answer and one a proof. This will be taken up separately at verse 59.

Wa yuʿallimuhu'l-kitāba wa'l-ḥikmata wa't-Tawrāta wa'l-Injīl · Wa rasūlan ilā banī Isrāʾīla annī qad jiʾtukum bi-āyatin min rabbikum annī akhluqu lakum mina'ṭ-ṭīni ka-hayʾati'ṭ-ṭayri fa-anfukhu fīhi fa-yakūnu ṭayran bi-idhni'llāh, wa ubriʾu'l-akmaha wa'l-abraṣa wa uḥyi'l-mawtā bi-idhni'llāh, wa unabbiʾukum bimā taʾkulūna wa mā taddakhirūna fī buyūtikum, inna fī dhālika la-āyatan lakum in kuntum muʾminīn · Wa muṣaddiqan limā bayna yadayya mina't-Tawrāti wa li-uḥilla lakum baʿḍa'lladhī ḥurrima ʿalaykum, wa jiʾtukum bi-āyatin min rabbikum fa'ttaqu'llāha wa aṭīʿūn · Inna'llāha rabbī wa rabbukum fa'ʿbudūh, hādhā ṣirāṭun mustaqīm

"He will teach him the Book, wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel · and (send him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel: 'I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. For you I shape out of clay something in the form of a bird, and I breathe into it; by God's leave it becomes a bird. By God's leave I heal the one born blind and the leper, and I raise the dead. I also tell you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. If you are believers there is in this a sign for you.' · 'Confirming the Torah that was before me, and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden you…' · 'Truly God is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him. This is a straight path.'"

This is the most important fact of word order in the block, and it is verifiable: the expression occurs twice in the forty-ninth verse in the form bi-idhni'llāh, and the third verb is tied to the same note.

And the subjects of the verbs must be recorded: all of them are first person singular — akhluqu, anfukhu, ubriʾu, uḥyī, unabbiʾu. "I shape, I breathe, I heal, I raise."

And at the end of every sequence of verbs the same note comes.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the word order of the sentence says two things at once. The acts are not denied — they really are done. But the authority of the acts is each time tied elsewhere. And this is the whole question of the sūra in this block: what Jesus did is not denied; the conclusion drawn from what he did is limited.

And the last sentence of the block does this plainly: inna'llāha rabbī wa rabbukum — "God is my Lord and your Lord." The sentence puts the speaker on the same side as those he addresses.

This sentence occurs several times in the Qurʾān, always in the mouth of Jesus (5/72, 5/117, 19/36, 43/64). It was treated at 19/36 in Maryam. I rely on that treatment.

And it can be compared with the sentence at 29/46 in al-ʿAnkabūt: wa ilāhunā wa ilāhukum wāḥid. The two sentences do the same work, and this will be taken up separately at verse 64 of the sūra.

أَكْمَه — from the root ك-م-ه: blind from birth. And أَبْرَص — from the root ب-ر-ص: stricken with the white skin disease.

Both words occur in the Qurʾān only in these two places (here and at 5/110).

I record this as an observation and I force no connection: the two illnesses have in common that both are visible and lasting. One is from birth, the other carries its mark on the skin. That is, both are conditions that cannot be hidden and do not change by ordinary means.

The verse's caveat matters: baʿḍa'lladhī — "some of it". Not all.

Per the method (Method) I record this: this sentence is connected with a ruling named elsewhere in the Qurʾān (al-Nisāʾ 4/160, al-Anʿām 6/146). No legal ruling is built on that connection in this commentary; what is to be recorded is that the sentence speaks of a partial change.

And the closing sentence of the block is worth recording: hādhā ṣirāṭun mustaqīm. The construction was treated in detail in al-Fātiḥa. I do not repeat it here. And it will occur once more in the sūra, at verse 101: wa man yaʿtaṣim bi'llāhi fa-qad hudiya ilā ṣirāṭin mustaqīm. Two occurrences, one inside an account and one in an address to the community.

Fa-lammā aḥassa ʿĪsā minhumu'l-kufra qāla man anṣārī ila'llāh, qāla'l-ḥawāriyyūna naḥnu anṣāru'llāhi āmannā bi'llāhi wa'shhad bi-annā muslimūn · Rabbanā āmannā bimā anzalta wa'ttabaʿna'r-rasūla fa'ktubnā maʿa'sh-shāhidīn · Wa makarū wa makara'llāh, wa'llāhu khayru'l-mākirīn

"When Jesus sensed disbelief in them he said: 'Who are my helpers on the way to God?' The disciples said: 'We are God's helpers; we have believed in God. Bear witness that we are those who have handed themselves over.' · 'Our Lord! We have believed in what You sent down and we have followed the messenger; write us down among those who bear witness.' · They laid a plot; and God laid His plan. God is the best of planners."

The root ح-س-س: to perceive by the senses. Form IV: aḥassa — to sense, to feel.

The choice of the word is worth recording: the verse does not say "he saw" or "he knew". Aḥassa — he sensed. That is, the disbelief has not yet been spoken openly.

I record this as an observation: the sentence shows that the response is given before open hostility. And the response given is not a defence but a call: man anṣārī ila'llāh.

ٱلْحَوَارِيُّون — the root ح-و-ر: the lexicographers connect the word with the senses of whiteness and of turning to something; on the origin of ḥawārī there is no firm agreement. I impose no preference in this commentary.

And the last sentence of the answer must be recorded: wa'shhad bi-annā muslimūn — "bear witness that we are those who have handed themselves over".

This is directly connected with verse 19 of the sūra and confirms what I recorded there: the word islām is here the self-naming of the community around Jesus. This is a fact of usage verifiable from the text.

The root م-ك-ر: to lay a scheme in secret. The root was treated at 27/50-51 in al-Naml and at 13/42 in al-Raʿd.

Per the method (Method) I enter a note, and it has been kept consistently in the series: when the word is used of God it does not mean deceiving or wronging. In Arabic this is called mushākala (answering with the same word): the response is named with the wording of the first act.

And the sentence itself shows this: wa'llāhu khayru'l-mākirīn — "the best of planners". The attribute "best" records within the sentence that the verb is not meant in a bad sense.

This distinction was treated at 8/30 in al-Anfāl (wa yamkurūna wa yamkuru'llāh). I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

Idh qāla'llāhu yā ʿĪsā innī mutawaffīka wa rāfiʿuka ilayya wa muṭahhiruka mina'lladhīna kafarū wa jāʿilu'lladhīna'ttabaʿūka fawqa'lladhīna kafarū ilā yawmi'l-qiyāmah, thumma ilayya marjiʿukum fa-aḥkumu baynakum fīmā kuntum fīhi takhtalifūn

"When God said: 'Jesus! I shall take you fully, and raise you to Myself, and purify you of those who disbelieve, and set those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the day of resurrection. Then your return is to Me; and I shall judge between you in what you differed over.'"

The root و-ف-ي: to be complete, to be without deficiency. Wafāʾ — completing; īfāʾ — giving a right in full. Form V: tawaffā — to take a thing in full.

At the centre of the root there is no death; there is taking in full. Its use for death comes from the sense of the soul's being taken complete. And the Qurʾān uses the same verb of sleep as well (al-Zumar 39/42, al-Anʿām 6/60) — treated at 39/42 in al-Zumar. I rely on that treatment.

The sense of this word here is disputed in the classical commentaries, and the disagreement has continued. I give it in a table and impose no preference:

All four readings are transmitted in the classical sources. I do not impose a preference.

And per the method (Method) I enter a plain note: a wide theological and narrative literature has formed around this verse. That debate is not entered in this commentary. What is to be recorded is that the wording of the verse lists four acts: tawaffī, rafʿ, taṭhīr, jaʿl. And all four are ascribed to God; the subject of none of them is Jesus.

Per the method (Method) I record this: both sides in the sentence are named by an attribute — alladhīna'ttabaʿūk (those who followed you) and alladhīna kafarū (those who disbelieved). No people, nation or religious institution is named.

And what the word fawqa (above) conveys is disputed in the classical commentaries:

I transmit what is transmitted; I impose no preference. And no present-day political or social conclusion is drawn from this.

Verses fifty-six and fifty-seven compare two outcomes; verse fifty-eight closes the block: dhālika natlūhu ʿalayka mina'l-āyāti wa'dh-dhikri'l-ḥakīm — "this We recite to you of the signs and of the wise reminder."

I record this as an observation about the word order: before the account ends, the text turns once more to the narrator — just as in verse 44 (dhālika min anbāʾi'l-ghayb). The sūra sets a note of the same kind at both ends of the account.

Inna mathala ʿĪsā ʿinda'llāhi ka-mathali Ādam, khalaqahū min turābin thumma qāla lahū kun fa-yakūn · Al-ḥaqqu min rabbika fa-lā takūna mina'l-mumtarīn

"With God the case of Jesus is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him 'Be'; and he was. · The truth is from your Lord; so do not be of those who doubt."

This verse is a proof, and proofs are read by being taken apart. I shall set out its structure step by step.

The objection is this (it is not stated in the verse, but this is what the proof answers): a human being born without a father is not an ordinary human being; therefore he is something else.

The answer of the proof lies in three steps:

And the force of the proof lies in the second step. This needs opening out.

In the birth of Jesus there is a mother; there is no father. In the creation of Adam there is neither mother nor father. That is, the instance brought is more extraordinary than the case under dispute.

The logic of the proof is this, and it can be seen in a table:

And the conclusion is unavoidable: if the absence of one cause puts a person outside humanity, the absence of two would do so all the more. But no such claim is made about Adam by any side. Therefore the measure is not the number of causes.

In classical logic this is called qiyās bi'l-awlā, an argument a fortiori: a ruling is voided in the weaker instance by being shown not to hold in the stronger one.

I record this way of taking the proof apart as my own reading; but the structure itself comes out of the wording of the verse, and it has been explained in this direction in the classical commentaries as well.

The root م-ث-ل: to resemble, to be equal. Mathal — a likeness, an instance; and the case, the condition of a thing.

And the work of the word in the sentence must be recorded: the verse does not say "Jesus is like Adam". Mathala ʿĪsā… ka-mathali Ādam — "the case of Jesus is like the case of Adam."

I record this as an observation about the word order: what is likened is not the persons but the manner of their coming to be. This also settles the extent of the proof: the verse is not comparing the attributes of two prophets.

And the caveat must be recorded: ʿinda'llāh — "with God". That is, the measure is not people's view.

It was treated at 2/117 in al-Baqara; I do not repeat it here.

Here I add the fact within the sūra: the expression occurs twice in the sūra, and the two occurrences are bound to each other.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: in the forty-seventh verse this expression conveyed a possibility; in the fifty-ninth it is used as a leveller. The same utterance ties two human beings to the same cause and renders the difference between them — one from dust, the other from a mother — ineffective as regards the outcome.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the sentence begins with khalaqahū min turābin (perfect) and ends with fa-yakūn (imperfect). The standing of perfect and imperfect side by side in the same sentence is striking in Arabic.

The explanation in the classical commentaries: the imperfect brings the event before the eyes (ḥikāyat al-ḥāl). I transmit this and add an observation: the sentence narrates a past event and then passes in its last verb to the present — that is, what is narrated is left not as a finished event but as a rule in operation.

The root م-ر-ي: to doubt; and to dispute. Form VIII: imtirāʾ — to fall into doubt. The root was treated at 19/34 in Maryam (yamtarūn) and at 53/55 in al-Najm.

And the word order of the sixtieth verse must be recorded: al-ḥaqqu min rabbika — "the truth is from your Lord". The sentence states a source; a prohibition follows.

I record this as an observation: the sentence that comes after the proof is given does not command that the proof be accepted; it commands not falling into doubt. And the one addressed is the side presenting the proof. That is, the sentence is spoken not to the person who keeps up the dispute but to the one conducting it.

Fa-man ḥājjaka fīhi min baʿdi mā jāʾaka mina'l-ʿilmi fa-qul taʿālaw nadʿu abnāʾanā wa abnāʾakum wa nisāʾanā wa nisāʾakum wa anfusanā wa anfusakum thumma nabtahil fa-najʿal laʿnata'llāhi ʿala'l-kādhibīn

"Whoever disputes with you about this after the knowledge that has come to you, say: 'Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves; then let us pray with all our hearts and call down the curse of God upon the liars.'"

Per the method (Method) I draw a boundary here, and I write it plainly: a wide literature of reports and a dispute between the schools have formed around this verse. Those reports and that dispute are not entered in this commentary; no personal names are given. I keep within the wording of the verse.

The concrete sense of the root is worth recording, and the lexicographers dwell on it: ب-ه-ل — to let a thing loose, to leave it unrestrained. Bahala'n-nāqata — he did not keep the she-camel from her young but let her loose; he undid her halter.

From this comes ibtihāl: to entreat with abandon, keeping nothing back. The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

I record this as an observation: the picture of the root is an untying — the lifting of a restraint. And this is what is asked in the verse: that both sides turn directly to God with no reservation held back.

Those called are counted in three pairs, and the word order must be recorded:

All three pairs are symmetrical: each designation is applied to both sides in the same way. And the order is worth recording: sons, women, selves.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the order runs from what a person guards most towards himself. That is, the call does not mean "come, let us argue with each other"; it means "let each side put forward what it values most."

And the logic of the proposal lies here: if a man knows that he is lying, he will not call the price of that lie down upon his own child. That is, the proposal is not a method of debate but a measure of sincerity.

And the verse does not narrate the outcome of the proposal. I record this as an observation: the text does not say whether the encounter took place or not. This silence of the text is preserved in this commentary.

There is an indeterminacy in the sentence: ḥājjaka fīh — "disputes with you about this". What does the pronoun refer to?

All three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَكَ مِنَ ٱلْعِلْمِ — and the most repeated note of the sūra once more: the dispute comes after knowledge has arrived. The same note stood at verse 19; it will come once more at verse 105. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

Inna hādhā la-huwa'l-qaṣaṣu'l-ḥaqq, wa mā min ilāhin illa'llāh, wa inna'llāha la-huwa'l-ʿazīzu'l-ḥakīm · Fa-in tawallaw fa-inna'llāha ʿalīmun bi'l-mufsidīn

"Truly this is the true account itself. There is no god but God, and God is al-ʿAzīz, al-Ḥakīm. · If they turn away — God knows those who work corruption."

The concrete sense of the root was treated in Yūsuf and in al-Qaṣaṣ: ق-ص-ص — to follow a track. Qaṣṣa'l-athara — he followed the trail. From this comes qiṣṣa: to relate an event by tracing its track.

And the construction must be recorded: al-qaṣaṣu'l-ḥaqq — "the true account". That is, at the end of the block the truth of what has been related is recorded separately.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the block turns back to its own source three times — 44 (min anbāʾi'l-ghayb), 58 (natlūhu ʿalayk), 62 (al-qaṣaṣu'l-ḥaqq). Three notes, within a block of thirty verses. This is a verifiable fact.

And the emphatic pattern that closes the block is worth recording: inna hādhā la-huwa'l-qaṣaṣu'l-ḥaqq — inna + la + the pronoun of separation (huwa). Three instruments of emphasis together. The same pattern once more in the same verse: wa inna'llāha la-huwa'l-ʿazīzu'l-ḥakīm.

The sixty-third verse closes the block with the pattern of the limit of conveying: fa-in tawallaw… The same pattern occurred at verse 20 as well (wa in tawallaw fa-innamā ʿalayka'l-balāgh). Two occurrences, at the end of two blocks.

Qul yā ahla'l-kitābi taʿālaw ilā kalimatin sawāʾin baynanā wa baynakum allā naʿbuda illa'llāha wa lā nushrika bihī shayʾan wa lā yattakhidha baʿḍunā baʿḍan arbāban min dūni'llāh, fa-in tawallaw fa-qūlu'shhadū bi-annā muslimūn

"Say: 'People of the Book! Come to a word that is common between us and you: that we serve none but God, that we associate nothing with Him, and that none of us take others as lords apart from God.' If they turn away, say: 'Bear witness that we are those who have handed themselves over.'"

This verse opens the third block of the sūra and is one of its most-quoted verses. I shall treat it in detail, because both the form of the call and its content are worth recording.

The root ع-ل-و: height. The imperative form of the verb taʿālā: taʿālaw — "come".

And the picture of the word must be recorded, and the lexicographers dwell on it: in Arabic taʿāla is properly the calling up of one below by one who is in a high place. In time it took on a general sense of "come"; but the upward movement in its root has remained.

I record this as an observation about the language, and I build no claim of superiority on it — because the verse itself blocks that: the place called to is the middle between the two sides, not the caller's own side.

The three words must be taken separately.

كَلِمَة — the root ك-ل-م. It was treated at verse 45. And here it comes indefinite: kalimatin — "a word".

سَوَآء — the root س-و-ي: to be equal, to be even, to be level. Sawāʾ — equal, common, at the same distance from both sides.

The concrete sense of the root is worth recording: istawā — it became level, it came into balance. Sawiyy — even. At the centre of the root stands the absence of tilt: what does not lean to one side.

بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ — "between us and you". And the repetition of the word bayna must be recorded: it says baynanā wa baynakum, not baynanā wa kum. In Arabic this repetition stresses that the two sides are counted separately.

That is, the construction says: an utterance standing at an equal distance from both sides, imposed by neither upon the other.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the absence of tilt in the root of the word: the call is not "come over to our side". The ground itself is named as neutral. And this is the reverse of what is usual at the opening of a dispute — what is usual is to declare one's own position the ground.

And the content of the call is given at once. It is three items, and the word order of all three must be recorded:

And this is the most important fact of word order in the verse, and it is usually passed over: all three items are in the "we" person.

The verse does not say "do not you associate". It says "let us not serve, let us not associate, let us not take one another as lords".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the inflection of the verbs: the call is not a correction directed at the other side; it is set up as an obligation the two sides will take on together. And this is the one thing that makes the call acceptable — no one says yes to a sentence that begins "you are in the wrong".

The third item stands apart from the first two and must be dwelt on separately.

The first two items are vertical: they order the relation between a human being and God. The third item is horizontal: it orders the relation between one human being and another.

رَبّ — the root ر-ب-ب: the one who nurtures, who owns, who takes charge of another's affair. The root was treated in detail in al-Fātiḥa.

And arbāb is a plural and comes with the caveat min dūni'llāh: "lords apart from God".

What this item describes is explained in the classical commentaries and is generally connected with absolute obedience to religious authorities. I transmit this and add the following as my own reading:

The wording of the item names no class. Baʿḍunā baʿḍan — "some of us, others of us". A reciprocal pronoun. That is, the item does not say who takes whom as a lord; it describes the operation.

And that the item comes third is worth recording. I give this as an observation about the word order: after the common ground is declared, how that ground will be broken is also stated. For even if the two sides agree on the first two items, if the third is violated the partnership turns into a hierarchy set up afresh.

The same line was treated at 29/46 in al-ʿAnkabūt, and there the utterance to be spoken was itself given. The table there was this:

I rely on that treatment. And I compare the two verses:

I draw three observations from the table, and all three can be verified from the two texts.

One. The two verses end with the same word: muslimūn. In al-ʿAnkabūt wa naḥnu lahū muslimūn, in Āl ʿImrān bi-annā muslimūn. And in both, this word is not a ruling directed at the other side but the speaker's declaration of his own position.

Two. Both verses state what is shared first and what divides afterwards. In al-ʿAnkabūt the two revelations are named together, then naḥnu lahū muslimūn comes. In Āl ʿImrān three shared items are counted, then fa-in tawallaw comes. That is, the sentence of division is spoken after the sentence of sharing, and only if there is a refusal.

Three. Āl ʿImrān says one item more, and that item is horizontal. In al-ʿAnkabūt there is no note about the relation between human beings. I record this as my own reading: the context of the two sūras explains this difference. Al-ʿAnkabūt is a Meccan sūra and its subject is the method of disputing; Āl ʿImrān is Medinan, and what it addresses is not only an opinion but an established order. When one speaks with an order, the question of hierarchy among human beings becomes unavoidable.

What is to be said in the case of refusal is also given. And its word order must be recorded.

What is commanded to be said is not a threat, not an accusation, not even an answer. Ishhadū — "bear witness". What is asked of the other side is not acceptance but testimony.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the verb: ishhadū does not put the other side into a position; it gives them a role — the one who records what he has seen. That is, even the side that refuses is not thrown outside the conversation.

And the same verb occurred earlier in the sūra, in the mouth of the disciples: wa'shhad bi-annā muslimūn (52). There the addressee was God; here the addressees are people.

The same verb, the same pattern, two different addressees. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

This verse gives a method for speaking with one who differs, and that method lies in four steps. I draw the steps from the wording of the verse:

And the fourth step is the one most easily passed over. The verse takes the possibility of refusal into account from the start and gives what is to be said in that case as well. What is given is not a sentence of rupture but a sentence of record.

Per the method (Method) I record this: no blanket ruling about any community can be drawn from this verse — neither favourable nor unfavourable. The verse sets up a call; who answers the call and how is not the subject of the verse. And verse 113 of the sūra will record plainly that the answer is not of one kind.

Yā ahla'l-kitābi lima tuḥājjūna fī Ibrāhīma wa mā unzilati't-Tawrātu wa'l-Injīlu illā min baʿdih, a-fa-lā taʿqilūn · Hā-antum hāʾulāʾi ḥājajtum fīmā lakum bihī ʿilm, fa-lima tuḥājjūna fīmā laysa lakum bihī ʿilm, wa'llāhu yaʿlamu wa antum lā taʿlamūn · Mā kāna Ibrāhīmu yahūdiyyan wa lā naṣrāniyyan wa lākin kāna ḥanīfan musliman, wa mā kāna mina'l-mushrikīn · Inna awla'n-nāsi bi-Ibrāhīma la'lladhīna'ttabaʿūhu wa hādha'n-nabiyyu wa'lladhīna āmanū, wa'llāhu waliyyu'l-muʾminīn

"People of the Book! Why do you dispute about Abraham? Both the Torah and the Gospel were sent down only after him. Will you not use your reason? · There you are: you disputed about what you had knowledge of; why then do you dispute about what you have no knowledge of? God knows, and you do not know. · Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was a ḥanīf, one who had handed himself over, and he was not of the mushrikūn. · The nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him, and this prophet, and those who believe. God is the protector of the believers."

These four verses build the first proof of the third block. And the kind of proof must be recorded: this is not a proof from history but a proof from the logic of time. I shall treat it in detail, because the form of reasoning built here does not come again so plainly in the sūra.

The structure of the sentence is this, and it consists of three elements:

And the second element carries the whole sentence. Its word order must be recorded separately: mā … illā — negation and exception. In Arabic this pattern sets up restriction (ḥaṣr): "not otherwise, but only thus." That is, the sentence does not say "they came down afterwards"; it says "they came down only after him". No other possibility is left.

I write out the logic of the proof plainly, because it looks short and is deep:

A person cannot be assigned to an identity that arose after him. The two adjectives set before Abraham's name (yahūdī, naṣrānī) cannot be attached to a person who lived before the two books that gave rise to those two adjectives. For a name cannot exist before the thing that brings it into being.

This is an objection that removes not the subject of the dispute but the possibility of the dispute. Before saying "Abraham was such and such", the verse says "what you are putting forward cannot be set up in point of time".

I record this as an observation about logic, and its ground is the verse's own wording: the sentence names the error of anachronism (placing a thing in a time that is not its own). And it does so not by a term but by a date: the time when the two books came down.

And I draw a boundary: the verse is not disputing the worth of the two books. In the third verse both were named as hudan li'n-nās (3/3-4). What is at issue here is not the truth of the books but the fact that a person lived before them. The two questions must not be confused.

And the verse does not state the conclusion. The sentence "therefore Abraham was of neither of the two" is not in verse 65; it is held back until verse 67.

I record this as an observation about the word order: verse 66 comes in between, and there the method of disputing is discussed. That is, the order is this — first the proof, then the method, then the conclusion. The conclusion is put last.

The root ع-ق-ل: to bind. ʿIqāl — the cord that binds a camel's knee. The root was treated in many places in the series; I do not repeat it here. What belongs here is this: the picture of the root is binding, and what is asked to be bound here are a date and a claim.

Hā-antum hāʾulāʾi ḥājajtum fīmā lakum bihī ʿilm, fa-lima tuḥājjūna fīmā laysa lakum bihī ʿilm

The verse divides disputing in two, and the division must be recorded:

And this is one of the most notable notes of the sūra in point of method. I give it as my own reading, and its ground is the opposition of the two sentences: the verse does not forbid disputing in itself. What it forbids is groundless disputing. And the measure is not which side one is on but whether one has knowledge in hand.

هَٰٓأَنتُمْ هَٰٓؤُلَآءِ — the coming of two particles of attention (hā) and two demonstratives one after another conveys in Arabic a direct confrontation: "there you are, you of all people." The same pattern will come once more in the sūra: at verse 119, hā-antum ulāʾi tuḥibbūnahum. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and in both the addressee is confronted with a false position.

The word order of the sentence must be recorded, and it has three steps:

And the real point is the difference between the first and second steps: what is removed are names, what is set down are attributes.

Yahūdī and naṣrānī are relative nouns conveying membership — they state belonging to a community. Ḥanīf and muslim, on the other hand, are each a quality: one conveys a turning, the other a handing over. Neither of them points to a group, nor does the plural of either give a list of members.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two kinds of word: the verse does not answer a claim of membership with another claim of membership. The kind of answer is changed — what was asked was "of which side?", and what is given is "of what quality?".

And per the method (Method) I record this plainly: no ruling about any community follows from this verse. The verse removes two names from Abraham; it says nothing about those who bear those names. Verse 113 of the sūra will enter the note on this separately.

The root was analysed in detail at 30/30 in al-Rūm (ḥanīfan fiṭrata'llāh) and at 2/135 in al-Baqara. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here. The summary recorded there:

ح-ن-ف — to incline in one direction, to turn away from crookedness. The lexicographers tie the word to a concrete usage: aḥnaf is a person whose feet turn inward. The idea that comes out of this: a ḥanīf is one who parts from what is common and inclines in another direction.

And what belongs here is this, which I give as an observation about the word order: ḥanīf conveys a parting; and the verse uses it in the very sentence in which two memberships are refused. That is, the picture of the word itself coincides with the work of the sentence: a turning that goes outside the two names.

مُسْلِمًا — root س-ل-م. It was analysed at verse nineteen; I do not repeat it here. The only note belonging here is this: the word comes here indefinite and as an attribute — musliman, as an adjective. That is, the sentence points not to an institution but to a state.

Inna awla'n-nāsi bi-Ibrāhīma la'lladhīna'ttabaʿūhu wa hādha'n-nabiyyu wa'lladhīna āmanū

The root و-ل-ي: nearness, adjacency. Walī — the one who is near. Awlā — the elative: the one who is nearer.

And the verse sets the measure of nearness plainly: alladhīna'ttabaʿūh — "those who followed him". Not descent, not a name, not membership — ittibāʿ.

I record this as an observation: the measure of nearness is drawn out of the dispute itself. The sides were disputing who belonged to Abraham; the verse turns the measure to who followed him. And this measure is not something that can be claimed but something that can be observed.

And the end of the verse must be recorded: wa'llāhu waliyyu'l-muʾminīn — a word from the same root (و-ل-ي), this time of God. That is, the verse closes a dispute about nearness by naming the source of nearness. The use of the same root twice in one verse, in two different directions, is a fact of word order.

Waddat ṭāʾifatun min ahli'l-kitābi law yuḍillūnakum wa mā yuḍillūna illā anfusahum wa mā yashʿurūn · Yā ahla'l-kitābi lima takfurūna bi-āyāti'llāhi wa antum tashhadūn · Yā ahla'l-kitābi lima talbisūna'l-ḥaqqa bi'l-bāṭili wa taktumūna'l-ḥaqqa wa antum taʿlamūn

"A party of the People of the Book wished to lead you astray; yet they lead none astray but themselves, and they do not perceive it. · People of the Book! Why do you deny the signs of God — and you yourselves bearing witness? · People of the Book! Why do you dress truth up in falsehood and conceal the truth knowingly?"

And this is a fact of word order to be underlined in this commentary: the sentence does not say ahlu'l-kitāb; it says ṭāʾifatun min ahli'l-kitāb — "a party of the People of the Book".

Min is here the particle of tabʿīḍ in Arabic (indicating a part of a whole). That is, the subject is not the whole of the set but a part of it.

The same caveat is there in the next verse too: wa qālat ṭāʾifatun min ahli'l-kitāb (72). And at verse 75 it will come once more, this time in both directions.

The same particle in all five verses: min. This is a fact verifiable within the sūra, and it settles how every statement of the sūra about the People of the Book is to be read.

The root ل-ب-س: to clothe, to cover over; and from this, to confuse, to make indistinct by covering. Libās — a garment. Labs — confusion, iltibās.

And the picture of the root must be recorded: one thing is put on over another; what is put on does not destroy what is beneath — it makes it invisible.

I give this as an observation about the word: the verse does not say "you destroy the truth". It says you clothe it. That is, the truth stands where it is, but because something has been drawn over it, it is not recognised.

And the verse sets two separate verbs side by side, and the two differ:

Two separate operations, in one sentence. In the first something is added, in the second something is taken away.

And it must be recorded that both sentences end with the same note: wa antum tashhadūn (70) — wa antum taʿlamūn (71). Both are notes of "knowingly". That is, the subject of the verses is not ignorance; it is what is done despite the presence of knowledge. This is the very note set up in the nineteenth verse: min baʿdi mā jāʾahumu'l-ʿilm.

Āminū bi'lladhī unzila ʿala'lladhīna āmanū wajha'n-nahāri wa'kfurū ākhirah, laʿallahum yarjiʿūn

"'At the beginning of the day believe in what has been sent down to those who believe, and at the end of it disbelieve; perhaps they will turn back.'"

وَجْهَ ٱلنَّهَارِ — "the face of the day", that is, its beginning. In Arabic the wajh of a thing is the side of it that appears first.

And the verse describes a method: belief is used as an instrument. To join in the morning and to part in the evening — and the calculated result of this is that the others should fall into indecision (laʿallahum yarjiʿūn).

I record this as an observation and I draw a boundary: the verse describes a tactic and limits the speaker to one party (ṭāʾifatun min). No blanket attribute of any community is drawn from this in this commentary; what is drawn is the naming of a form of conduct.

وَلَا تُؤْمِنُوٓا۟ إِلَّا لِمَن تَبِعَ دِينَكُمْ (73) — "believe none but him who follows your religion". And the work of the sentence must be recorded: the measure of truth is tied not to what is said but to the affiliation of the one who says it.

And the answer comes at once: qul inna'l-hudā huda'llāh — "Say: guidance is the guidance of God." That is, the measure is not the side but the source.

Qul inna'l-faḍla bi-yadi'llāh (73) and yakhtaṣṣu bi-raḥmatihī man yashāʾ (74) — the section closes by saying to whom the choosing belongs. And this does the same work as the verse mālika'l-mulk at verse 26: there dominion, here faḍl. Both verses close a dispute by saying in whose hand a thing is. This is a weave verifiable within the sūra.

Wa min ahli'l-kitābi man in taʾmanhu bi-qinṭārin yuʾaddihī ilayk, wa minhum man in taʾmanhu bi-dīnārin lā yuʾaddihī ilayka illā mā dumta ʿalayhi qāʾimā, dhālika bi-annahum qālū laysa ʿalaynā fi'l-ummiyyīna sabīl, wa yaqūlūna ʿala'llāhi'l-kadhiba wa hum yaʿlamūn · Balā man awfā bi-ʿahdihī wa'ttaqā fa-inna'llāha yuḥibbu'l-muttaqīn

"Among the People of the Book there is one who, if you entrust him with a qinṭār, will give it back to you; and among them there is one who, if you entrust him with a single dinar, will not give it back to you unless you stand over him. That is because they say, 'We have no obligation regarding the ummiyyūn'; and they speak a lie against God knowingly. · No indeed! Whoever fulfils his covenant and guards himself — God loves those who guard themselves."

This verse will be treated in detail in this commentary, because its division settles how the sūra's discussion of the People of the Book is to be read.

The backbone of the verse is two particles, and both are min:

And this is the most important fact of the verse and must certainly be brought forward: the sentence is a division, not a ruling.

The verse does not say "the People of the Book betray a trust." Neither does it say "the People of the Book are faithful to a trust." It counts the two groups in the same sentence, in the same pattern, with the same particle. And it counts the favourable one first.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and its ground is the sequence: the sentence begins with the trustworthy one. That is, the text's own order blocks the building of a blanket unfavourable ruling at the very first word.

And per the method (Method) I write plainly: no blanket ruling about any religious community can be built on this verse — because the verse itself does not build one. The verse describes two kinds of conduct and assigns a part to each. Whoever does that conduct, the verse speaks of him.

The same division was treated in two separate places in the series, and I rely on them:

Three sūras, three separate subjects, the same structure. This is a weave verifiable within the series, and I rely on al-ʿAnkabūt 29/47 and al-Raʿd 13/36.

I add the following as my own reading, and it is not binding: when the Qurʾān speaks of the People of the Book it does not build a single sentence of ruling; it builds divided sentences. And the axis of the division is each time a conduct or an attitude, and never a name.

At the fourteenth verse al-qanāṭīru'l-muqanṭara was treated, and it was recorded there that qinṭār is a large amount and that the lexicographers do not agree on any definite figure. I rely on that treatment.

And the word order here must be recorded, and it is very fine:

The opposition shows the conduct of the two sides at their furthest points: one gives back the largest, the other does not give back the smallest. And the two extremes prove that the distinction has nothing to do with the amount. What is being measured is not the size of the property but the attitude of the person.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the two amounts: had the verse given the same amount to both, the difference would have been a difference of degree. By choosing the two extremes it turns the difference into a difference of kind.

"Unless you stand over him." And this note describes the second attitude exactly: the return is the result not of an obligation but of supervision.

قَآئِمًا — root ق-و-م: to stand. And the same word will come in a wholly different place in the sūra, at verse 113: ummatun qāʾima — "a community that stands upright". The same word in two different senses: one conveys the one who stands watch, the other the one who stands upright. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and the root picture of the word (to stand) is at work in both.

And the verse gives the pretext of the second attitude as well. And this is the real subject of the verse.

Laysa ʿalaynā fi'l-ummiyyīna sabīl — "there is no way (no obligation) upon us regarding the ummiyyūn."

That is, the obligation has been lifted according to who the other party is. The moral rule has been narrowed according to the one addressed.

And the answer the verse gives to this sentence must be recorded, and it has two steps:

One. Wa yaqūlūna ʿala'llāhi'l-kadhiba wa hum yaʿlamūn — the ascribing of this narrowing to God is named separately. That is, what is criticised is not only the conduct; it is the attributing of the conduct to religion.

Two. Balā man awfā bi-ʿahdihī wa'ttaqā (76) — and the counter-sentence comes.

The particle بَلَىٰ in Arabic sets up an affirmative by rejecting a negative sentence. Laysa ʿalaynā… sabīl had been said; balā refutes it directly: "no, it is not so."

And the word order of the sentence put in its place must be recorded: man awfā bi-ʿahdihī wa'ttaqā — a conditional sentence, and its subject is man: "whoever." No group name at all.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and it is the sūra's method: a party had narrowed an obligation according to group membership. The answer is given in a sentence that ties the obligation to no group at all. The measure is man — whoever it may be.

The operation the verse describes is a recognisable operation today too, and it has a name: the narrowing of a moral rule according to the one it is applied to.

A rule is set up "for everyone"; but in practice a circle is drawn, and those outside the circle are taken out of the rule's reach. And this narrowing is generally done with a pretext — because the narrowing itself cannot be defended, but its pretext can.

The verse's answer lies in two places, and both are in the text: the ascribing of the pretext to religion is counted as a separate offence (wa yaqūlūna ʿala'llāhi'l-kadhib), and the counter-measure is set up with a man that recognises no circle (76).

Per the method (Method) I record this: no conclusion about any religious or ethnic group is drawn from this section. What is described is an attitude, and the verse itself, in its first word (wa min), blocked the assigning of that attitude to the whole of a group.

Inna'lladhīna yashtarūna bi-ʿahdi'llāhi wa aymānihim thamanan qalīlan ulāʾika lā khalāqa lahum fi'l-ākhirati wa lā yukallimuhumu'llāhu wa lā yanẓuru ilayhim yawma'l-qiyāmati wa lā yuzakkīhim wa lahum ʿadhābun alīm · Wa inna minhum la-farīqan yalwūna alsinatahum bi'l-kitābi li-taḥsabūhu mina'l-kitābi wa mā huwa mina'l-kitāb, wa yaqūlūna huwa min ʿindi'llāhi wa mā huwa min ʿindi'llāh, wa yaqūlūna ʿala'llāhi'l-kadhiba wa hum yaʿlamūn

"Those who sell the covenant of God and their oaths for a small price — they have no share in the hereafter; God will not speak to them or look at them on the day of resurrection, nor will He purify them; and theirs is a painful punishment. · A group of them twist their tongues with the Book so that you may think it is from the Book; yet it is not from the Book. 'It is from God', they say; yet it is not from God. And they speak a lie against God knowingly."

The root ل-و-ي: to twist, to wring, to turn. To twist a rope, to turn a thing on its own axis.

The root was analysed in al-Munāfiqūn and tabulated there together with the root ح-ر-ف. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here. The summary recorded there was this:

ل-و-ي and ح-ر-ف are two names for the same operation. One describes twisting, the other pulling from the edge. Neither breaks; both bend.

And what belongs here is this, and it deserves to be spelled out:

What is twisted is not the Book but the tongue. The verse does not say yalwūna'l-kitāb; it says yalwūna alsinatahum bi'l-kitāb — "they twist their tongues with the Book".

I record this as an observation about the word order, and it is the finest point in the verse: the text is not touched. What is altered is the reciting. The same letters are made to resemble something else by a different movement of the tongue.

And the verse itself says this plainly: li-taḥsabūhu mina'l-kitāb — "so that you may think it is from the Book". The verb is ḥasiba: to think, to suppose. What is aimed at is not a change in the text but a change in the impression in the hearer.

And the root ح-س-ب will come four more times in the sūra after this: lā taḥsabanna / lā yaḥsabanna (169, 178, 180, 188). This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra and was recorded in the table in the introduction.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the object of the verb: the sūra uses the verb "to suppose" both here and at the end. Here it is one person making another suppose wrongly; at the end it is a person supposing wrongly of himself. The same verb in two directions.

The seventy-seventh verse sets four negative sentences one after another, and the word order must be recorded:

Four negations, and two of them (speech and a look) are words of relation. I record this as an observation: the sentence of punishment leaves the punishment to the last; it first says that the relation is cut off.

ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا — "a small price". And the construction will come once more in the sūra, at verse 187 (wa'shtaraw bihī thamanan qalīlā) and at verse 199 in the negative (lā yashtarūna bi-āyāti'llāhi thamanan qalīlā). Three occurrences, and the third is the opposite of the first two. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

I record this as my own reading: the adjective itself carries a ruling. Thamanan qalīlā — the price is named "small". That is, while describing the operation as a transaction, the verse says in the same sentence that the transaction is at a loss.

Mā kāna li-basharin an yuʾtiyahu'llāhu'l-kitāba wa'l-ḥukma wa'n-nubuwwata thumma yaqūla li'n-nāsi kūnū ʿibādan lī min dūni'llāhi wa lākin kūnū rabbāniyyīna bimā kuntum tuʿallimūna'l-kitāba wa bimā kuntum tadrusūn · Wa lā yaʾmurakum an tattakhidhu'l-malāʾikata wa'n-nabiyyīna arbābā, a-yaʾmurukum bi'l-kufri baʿda idh antum muslimūn

"It is not for a human being to whom God has given the Book, judgement and prophethood then to say to people, 'Be servants to me apart from God.' Rather: 'Be rabbānīs, by the Book you teach and by what you study.' · Nor does He command you to take the angels and the prophets as lords. Would He command you to disbelief after you have handed yourselves over?"

These two verses are the unfolding of the third item of verse 64 (wa lā yattakhidha baʿḍunā baʿḍan arbāban min dūni'llāh). And this is a link verifiable within the sūra: the same word (arbāb) and the same caveat (min dūni'llāh) occur twice, fifteen verses apart.

The pattern mā kāna li-fulānin an yafʿala conveys in Arabic an unfittingness and an impossibility: "this is not a thing that can be for him."

And the choice of subject must be recorded: li-bashar — "for a human being". It does not say prophet; it says human being.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence sets the prohibition on the widest set. Even after the three highest things that can be given to a person have been counted, that person is named "human being".

And the threefold count must be recorded: al-kitāb, al-ḥukm, al-nubuwwa. The same three occurred at verse 48 of the sūra for Jesus, and at 45/16 in al-Jāthiya for the Children of Israel. I rely on al-Jāthiya 45/16-20.

And the verse does not content itself with a prohibition; it sets a sentence in its place. The word order is this:

رَبَّانِيّ — root ر-ب-ب. The lexicographers differ over the derivation of the word, and the disagreement is not to be concealed:

All three are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. But the verse's own note gives an indication, and I record this as an indication, not as a preference: the continuation of the sentence is bimā kuntum tuʿallimūna'l-kitāba wa bimā kuntum tadrusūn — teaching and studying. That is, the word is named within the verse together with learning and teaching.

And that the word rabbānī is from the same root as rabb is a fact of word order and must be recorded: in saying "do not take arbāb", the verse gives the alternative with a word from the same root. What is refused is the applying of the root to human beings in the plural (arbāb); what is set down is a relative form of the same root (rabbānī).

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the verse does not forbid attachment, it corrects where the attachment goes. The same root stands both in the prohibition and in the alternative; what changes is to whom the root is applied.

And the eightieth verse widens the list: al-malāʾikata wa'n-nabiyyīn.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the prohibition names the two likeliest candidates. A person is not seated in the position of an intermediary on a claim of nearness to a stone or a tree, but to an angel and a prophet. The verse builds the list with the two most revered names — because the question is not whether the intermediary is of worth but whether he stands in between.

And the verse's last note: baʿda idh antum muslimūn — "after you have handed yourselves over". The word is again muslim: the last word of verse 64, the attribute of Abraham in verse 67, and now the state of the one addressed. Three occurrences within sixteen verses. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

Wa idh akhadha'llāhu mīthāqa'n-nabiyyīna lamā ātaytukum min kitābin wa ḥikmatin thumma jāʾakum rasūlun muṣaddiqun limā maʿakum la-tuʾminunna bihī wa la-tanṣurunnah, qāla a-aqrartum wa akhadhtum ʿalā dhālikum iṣrī, qālū aqrarnā, qāla fa'shhadū wa ana maʿakum mina'sh-shāhidīn · Fa-man tawallā baʿda dhālika fa-ulāʾika humu'l-fāsiqūn

"God took this covenant from the prophets: 'I have given you a Book and wisdom; then, when a messenger comes to you confirming what is with you, you shall surely believe in him and you shall surely help him.' 'Do you affirm this, and do you take up My heavy charge on these terms?' He said. 'We affirm it', they said. 'Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses', He said. · Whoever turns away after this — those are the ones who have gone out of the way."

The content of the pledge must be recorded, and it is tied to two verbs:

Both verbs come with the nūn of emphasis — in Arabic the most forceful binding form an utterance can take. That is, the pledge is not a loose intention but an undertaking taken in the heaviest pattern.

And the condition itself must be recorded: rasūlun muṣaddiqun limā maʿakum. The attribute of the messenger who comes: one who confirms what is with you. The same attribute was used of the Book in the third verse of the sūra: muṣaddiqan limā bayna yadayh. Two occurrences, one for the Book, one for the messenger. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

The root أ-ص-ر: to bind, to hold fast; and a heavy load. Iṣr — both a bond and a burden hard to carry.

And both senses of the word are at work here at once: the pledge taken is both a bond and a burden. The word occurred at 2/286 in al-Baqara (wa lā taḥmil ʿalaynā iṣrā), and there it is the subject of a prayer. Here it is an obligation taken up.