32. Sūrat al-Sajda

Thirty verses. It is widely reported that it came down in the Meccan period. It takes its name from the expression stating prostration in the fifteenth verse: they fall down prostrate — خَرُّوا سُجَّدًا. This is also the verse of the sūra at which the prostration of recitation is performed (32/15).

The sūra is one of those that open with Alif-lām-mīm; and it joins the series that opens with these letters and then speaks directly of the Book.

Its name can be confused with that of another sūra: Sūrat Fuṣṣilat too is called Ḥā-mīm al-Sajda (recorded in Fuṣṣilat). This sūra, in turn, is called for short al-Sajda or Alif-lām-mīm al-Sajda.

The backbone of the sūra is the distance between what is given and what is used. In the ninth verse man is given hearing, eyes and hearts, and immediately afterwards it is said qalīlan mā tashkurūn (how little you give thanks). In the twelfth verse the same two organs come back from the mouths of the other side: abṣarnā wa samiʿnā — "we have seen and we have heard". That is, the sūra sets the giving, and the far too late acknowledgement of that giving, face to face in two separate scenes. This link will be shown separately below.

A second line runs from beginning to end as well: turning towards. Its name is prostration (15), it is rising from the bed (16), and on the other side it is the head's falling forward of itself (12). The sūra shows the same movement twice, once willing and once compelled.

Alif-lām-mīm · Tanzīlu'l-kitābi lā rayba fīhi min rabbi'l-ʿālamīn · Am yaqūlūna'ftarāh, bal huwa'l-ḥaqqu min rabbika li-tundhira qawman mā atāhum min nadhīrin min qablika laʿallahum yahtadūn

"Alif-lām-mīm. The sending down of this Book — there is no doubt in it — is from the Lord of all the worlds. Or do they say, 'he has fabricated it'? No: it is the truth from your Lord, that you may warn a people to whom no warner came before you — that they may perhaps find the way."

The note on the disconnected letters has already been entered in this series: at length in al-Baqara 2/1, in summary in Qāf, and mentioned again in al-Jāthiya and al-Aḥqāf. I do not repeat it here.

Its summary was this: the meaning of these letters is not known with certainty; one group of scholars refers the meaning to God (tafwīḍ); among the views that seek an explanation, the one that finds the most support from within the text is the explanation that the letters, by pointing to the raw material of the Qurʾān, make the challenge meaningful. And, as was written there plainly: no numerical reckoning, no abjad, no counting of letters is carried out over these letters.

The only thing that belongs here is that the regularity recorded in Qāf holds here too: immediately after the group of letters there comes an expression that speaks of the Book — tanzīlu'l-kitāb. This is a verifiable fact and not a claim.

In Fuṣṣilat 41/2 and in al-Jāthiya 45/2 it was tabulated how this sentence changes from sūra to sūra. The occurrence here is added to that table:

The difference is worth recording and is verifiable: in the other five places the One who sends down is named by two attribute-names. Here, in place of the pair of attributes, a construct comes: min rabbi'l-ʿālamīn — from the Lord of all the worlds.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the continuation of the third verse: the third verse says that those addressed are a people who had never received a warner before. That is, the address is built for a hearer meeting the Book for the first time. For such a hearer, to introduce the One who sends down by His scope rather than by His attributes — the Lord of all the worlds — fits the work of the sentence. This is an observation; I do not impose a preference.

Further, the transition between the construct rabbi'l-ʿālamīn and the min rabbika (your Lord) that comes immediately after must be recorded: in the second verse the widest relation (the worlds), in the third verse the narrowest relation (you). Two verses one after the other, moving forward by narrowing the scope.

The same construct was analysed in al-Baqara 2/2 (dhālika'l-kitābu lā rayba fīh), and the link in the word rayb between "doubt" and "the unease of doubt" was treated there. I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is its place in the sentence. In al-Baqara the construct came in the flow of the sentence, as the predicate of the subject dhālika'l-kitāb. Here, on the other hand, it enters between the subject and the predicate:

Tanzīlu'l-kitābi — [lā rayba fīhi] — min rabbi'l-ʿālamīn

In Arabic a sentence that comes in like this is called a jumla muʿtariḍa (a parenthetical sentence): without severing the elements of the main sentence from one another, it enters a note in between.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the absence of doubt is not counted at the end as an attribute of the Book; it comes in the middle, before the statement of the source is complete. The sentence itself meets the objection without waiting to be finished.

Am as a particle here states a transition, not a question — the usage the lexicographers call am munqaṭiʿa: "or do they say…?" That is, the sentence is built as though it were changing addressee: a moment ago the source of the Book was stated; now the objection raised against that statement is being reported.

ٱفْتَرَىٰ — root ف-ر-ي. The concrete sense given by the lexicographers: to cut leather, to cut it out. Farā'l-jilda — he slit the hide, he cut it. And from here two branches divide: one to make, to cut out and sew (useful work), the other to fabricate, to cut out and set forth what does not exist.

Iftirāʾ is Form VIII and runs along the second branch only: to cut out and bring into being a thing that does not exist. The picture in the word is worth recording: the charge is not "he told a lie" but "he cut and shaped". That is, the other side is saying that the text was manufactured.

بَلْ هُوَ ٱلْحَقُّ — the answer comes with bal: the particle that cancels what precedes and puts something in its place. And what is put in its place is al-ḥaqq — definite (maʿrifa). In Arabic a predicate that comes definite conveys restriction (ḥaṣr): "it is the truth itself."

"That you may warn a people to whom no warner came before you."

More than one reading of this sentence is transmitted in the classical works of exegesis, and the disagreement must not be concealed:

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

And in Fāṭir 35/24 the other end of this question was treated: wa in min ummatin illā khalā fīhā nadhīr — "there is no community but a warner has come and gone among it." There the verb was in the perfect: khalā — "came and passed".

When the two verses are read together, the second reading (the interval) is seen to have a ground within the text: Fāṭir says that the warning reached everywhere in the past, while al-Sajda says that none came to this people before you. The distance between the two is time. I record this as an observation and do not turn it into a preference.

لَعَلَّهُمْ يَهْتَدُونَ — and the purpose clause ends with laʿalla, that is, with the pattern of hope: the outcome is not guaranteed.

Allāhu'lladhī khalaqa'l-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa wa mā baynahumā fī sittati ayyāmin thumma'stawā ʿala'l-ʿarsh, mā lakum min dūnihī min waliyyin wa lā shafīʿ, a-fa-lā tatadhakkarūn · Yudabbiru'l-amra mina'l-samāʾi ila'l-arḍi thumma yaʿruju ilayhi fī yawmin kāna miqdāruhū alfa sanatin mimmā taʿuddūn

"It is God who created the heavens, the earth and what is between them in six days, then established Himself upon the Throne. You have, apart from Him, neither a friend nor an intercessor. Will you still not reflect? He directs the affair from the sky down to the earth; then the affair ascends to Him in a day whose measure is a thousand years of what you count."

This verse is one of those most often made the subject of a claim about physics in the modern period. Per the method (Method) I draw the line at the outset:

From here I do not go to the theory of relativity, to the relativity of time, to the speed of light, or to any modern proposition of physics. I draw no such connection, and I do not support those that have been drawn.

The ground was written in detail in al-Maʿārij, and I rely on that treatment. It was summarised in three items: (1) the verse states not a proposition of physics but a measure; (2) the principle recorded in the method (Method) is that modern information is not to be forced onto a verse; (3) when such a connection is drawn, the truth of the text is made to hang on the fate of the connection drawn.

What the verse says is enough in itself, and that much I record: man's measure of time and the measure of time of this working are not the same. The verse says this itself: mimmā taʿuddūn — "of what you count". That is, the sentence keeps expressly on record by whose reckoning the measure is taken.

The root was analysed in detail in Muḥammad 47/24 on the occasion of tadabbur. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

The core recorded there was this: the concrete sense of the root is "the back, the rear of a thing" (dubur). And the family of meanings comes out of this picture: to look at the back of an affair, that is, to think of its end.

What belongs here is the difference of pattern, and it must be recorded:

Form V is reflexive: work a person does upon himself. Form II, on the other hand, is transitive: work done upon an object. Yudabbiru'l-amra — "He orders the affair".

The same root, in two forms, with two different subjects. I record this as my own reading: when the two verses are read together, the act asked of man and the act ascribed to God share the same picture — looking to the back, to the end. The difference lies in the one carrying a text to its end and the other an order. This is an observation about the language; I set up no theological equation.

ٱلْأَمْر — the word means both affair/event and command/order, and in the classical works of exegesis its sense here is dwelt on:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. Both senses of the word are live in Arabic, and the word order of the sentence is open to either.

The root was analysed in detail in al-Maʿārij on the occasion of that sūra's name: to ascend, to climb step by step along a sloping way. Miʿrāj — a ladder; and the second branch the lexicographers record is lameness (aʿraj), where the link lies in the picture of "a movement that does not go straight, that slopes". I do not repeat it here.

The difference here must be recorded, and the two sūras can be set side by side:

In al-Maʿārij what ascends is beings; in al-Sajda what ascends is the affair. I record this as an observation: the sentence of al-Sajda sets up a cycle — mina'l-samāʾi ila'l-arḍ (from the sky to the earth) … thumma yaʿruju ilayh (then it ascends to Him). Descent and ascent in a single sentence, the same road in two directions.

And the note recorded in al-Maʿārij holds here too: the expression ilayhi (to Him) states no place; what is reached is not a position but the centre of the command and the ruling. The common principle is al-Shūrā 42/11: "There is nothing like Him."

This comparison was already made and tabulated in al-Maʿārij 70/4. I carry that table over here, because the question belongs in this verse's own place:

The principal explanations of the classical exegetes about these three — as transmitted in al-Maʿārij:

I do not impose a preference. In comparing the two measures, the one verifiable difference that belongs here is this, and I record it: in al-Sajda what the measure is tied to is the affair that goes down and comes up, in al-Maʿārij the beings that ascend, in al-Ḥajj the punishment that is held back. Three verses speak of three separate events; two different numbers are not given for the same event. This is an observation that supports the first explanation from within the text — but it is not a preference, because the other explanations are not contrary to the wording either.

On this construct I enter a note per the method (Method) and do not open the discussion.

Two main positions are transmitted in the classical tradition:

Both positions are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The same distinction was treated in al-Fajr (wa jāʾa rabbuk) and was mentioned again in al-Maʿārij. I rely on that treatment. The common principle is again al-Shūrā 42/11.

And what is to be recorded in the word order is this: immediately after the sentence thumma'stawā ʿala'l-ʿarsh comes the fifth verse: yudabbiru'l-amr. That is, the sentence continues not with a halt but with a directing. I record this as an observation about the word order: the verse does not recount creation as a finished work and leave it at that; it goes on to name an ordering that continues. The same line was recorded in Fāṭir 35/3 — there too creating was asked about together with an ongoing providing of sustenance.

The place of the sentence is worth recording. Immediately after the creation of the universe has been recounted, the address turns to the hearer, and what is said is the absence of an intermediary.

Two words are chosen: walī (a friend, one who takes on your affair) and shafīʿ (one who intercedes). I record this as an observation: both are words of relation. That is, what is rejected is not a being but a form of connection.

And the sūra will come back to this word: in the thirteenth verse it will be said that the ruling has already been given, and in the twenty-ninth that faith which does not come in time will be of no use. Being without an intermediary is a line carried through to the end of the sūra.

Dhālika ʿālimu'l-ghaybi wa'l-shahādati'l-ʿazīzu'l-raḥīm

"That is He: the Knower of what is unseen and what is seen; He is mighty, He is merciful."

ذَٰلِكَ — the far demonstrative. Not "this" but "that". As was recorded in al-Bayyina, in Arabic the far demonstrative conveys taʿẓīm (exaltation) here: what is far is pointed to in order to raise the rank of what is being said.

ٱلْغَيْبِ وَٱلشَّهَٰدَة — the unknown and the seen. The same construct occurred inside a prayer in al-Zumar 39/46 (ʿālima'l-ghaybi wa'l-shahāda). In both places the pair is built in order to give the compass of the knowledge: two ends are named and what lies between them is taken in.

ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ — and the two names are worth recording.

In Fuṣṣilat 41/2 it was tabulated that the names of the One who sends down change from sūra to sūra: there, in place of al-ʿAzīz · al-Ḥakīm, came al-Raḥmān · al-Raḥīm. Here there is a third combination: al-ʿAzīz and al-Raḥīm side by side.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is what is missing in the second verse: in the second verse the One who sends down was named not by a pair of names but by rabbi'l-ʿālamīn. The pair of attributes has been deferred by four verses and comes in the sixth — and comes as a pair that joins power with mercy. The same pair appears in Sūrat al-Rūm as well (wa huwa'l-ʿazīzu'l-raḥīm — al-Rūm 30/5); it will be mentioned in al-Rūm.

Alladhī aḥsana kulla shayʾin khalaqahū wa badaʾa khalqa'l-insāni min ṭīn · Thumma jaʿala naslahū min sulālatin min māʾin mahīn · Thumma sawwāhu wa nafakha fīhi min rūḥihī wa jaʿala lakumu'l-samʿa wa'l-abṣāra wa'l-afʾidah, qalīlan mā tashkurūn

"He is the one who made beautiful everything He created. He began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his progeny from the essence of a despised water. Then He shaped him and breathed into him of His own spirit. He gave you hearing, eyes and hearts. How little you give thanks!"

Two readings of this sentence are transmitted, and because the difference changes the meaning it must be recorded:

Both readings are transmitted; both are recorded in the sources. I do not impose a preference.

The difference between them is this, and it is verifiable: on the first reading the beauty is ascribed to the things created, on the second to the act of creating. The result is close, but the emphasis differs: one praises the outcome, the other the operation.

أَحْسَنَ — root ح-س-ن. The pattern is Form IV and here has the sense "he made beautiful" — not "more beautiful" (the elative). The word order of the sentence shows this: aḥsana takes an object.

And there is a detail of word order worth recording: kulla shayʾ — everything without exception. Immediately afterwards a single thing is set apart and gone into: man. That is, the sentence comes down from the general to the particular: everything → man → man's progeny → his organs.

طِين — clay: a mixture of earth and water. And the verb must be recorded: badaʾa — "he began".

I record this as an observation: the verse does not say "He created man from clay"; it says "He began the creation of man from clay". The verb states a starting point, not a list of materials. Indeed the next sentence continues with thumma — an interval is placed between the beginning and the coming of the progeny.

سُلَالَة — root: س-ل-ل. The root is analysed here for the first time in the series.

The concrete sense of the root: to draw a thing slowly out of its sheath, sliding it free. Salla'l-sayfa — he drew the sword from its scabbard. From the same root:

Both sides of the word work here at once, and this is a matter the lexicographers record: sulāla carries both the sense of the filtering of an essence and that of the continuation of a line. The verse already says naslahū (his progeny) — that is, two words say the same idea from two separate roots.

نَسْل — root: ن-س-ل. This root too occurs here for the first time in the series. The core given by the lexicographers: to come away from a thing and fall, to be shed. Nasala'l-shaʿr — the hair was shed. And from this comes the sense "offspring, line": what comes away from the stock.

The picture in the two roots looks the same way: sulāla tells of what is filtered out, nasl of what comes away. I record this as an observation about the language.

مَّآءٍ مَّهِينٍ — the root م-ه-ن was treated in al-Mursalāt 77/20 (māʾin mahīn) and in al-Qalam (mahīn). I do not repeat it here. The core: counted worthless, despised, weak.

What belongs here is the coming together of the two words, and it is worth recording:

sulālatin min māʾin mahīn — the essence of a despised water.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is that the two words carry opposite values: sulāla states what has been selected, what has been filtered — that is, it raises. Mahīn states what is counted worthless — that is, it lowers. Two opposite values in a single construct.

And this must be read together with the aḥsana kulla shayʾ of the preceding sentence: the one who made everything beautiful builds man's line from the essence of what is despised. The verse looks for beauty not in the material but in the operation.

سَوَّىٰ — root س-و-ي: to make equal, to level, to bring to completeness. The root has been treated in several places in the series — in al-Infiṭār 82/7 (fa-sawwāka fa-ʿadalak), in al-Aʿlā 87/2 (alladhī khalaqa fa-sawwā), and in al-Qiyāma. I do not repeat it here.

And this root will come back in the eighteenth verse of the sūra: lā yastawūn — "they are not equal". The same root, one in the making and one in the ruling. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be tabulated separately at the end.

مِن رُّوحِهِ — "of His own spirit". A note per the method (Method): no account of the manner is produced about this construct. What the lexicographers and the exegetes mostly record is that the particle min here does not state a part; what it states is relation and honour. (Indeed the same structure is seen in constructs such as "the House of God", "the she-camel of God".) I transmit this explanation as it has been transmitted and go no further.

The triad of ear, eye and heart has been treated in three places in the series. This is the fourth, and the four must be read together:

In all four places the same three doors are counted; in each place in a different condition.

The meaning of the order was recorded in al-Aḥqāf 46/26 and holds here too: the movement is from outside inwards — what is heard → what is seen → what is weighed within. The root of the word أَفْـِٔدَة (ف-ء-د, the burning of an ember; fuʾād, the kindled side of the heart) was analysed there; I do not repeat it here.

The difference between al-Aḥqāf and al-Sajda is worth recording, because both are sentences of giving:

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the pronoun and the tense of the verb: al-Aḥqāf recounts a finished example in the third person; al-Sajda turns the same triad into the second person and leaves it in the present. That is, the example is turned back upon the hearer himself.

قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ — the word order must be recorded: qalīlan has been brought forward (taqdīm). In Arabic an element brought forward carries emphasis. And mā here is either a strengthener of the negation or the particle of the verbal noun; both parsings are transmitted. In either case the ruling of the sentence comes out at the same place: thanks fall short beside what is given.

And this sentence will form a link with the twelfth verse of the sūra. It is shown below.

Wa qālū a-idhā ḍalalnā fi'l-arḍi a-innā la-fī khalqin jadīd, bal hum bi-liqāʾi rabbihim kāfirūn · Qul yatawaffākum malaku'l-mawti'lladhī wukkila bikum thumma ilā rabbikum turjaʿūn

"They said: 'When we have been lost in the earth, shall we really be in a new creation?' The truth is that they deny the meeting with their Lord. Say: 'The angel of death, who has been given charge of you, will take your souls; then you will be returned to your Lord.'"

ضَلَّ — root ض-ل-ل: to lose the way; and to be lost inside something and become impossible to tell apart. The "going astray" branch of the root has been treated in many places in the series — it was analysed in al-Fātiḥa (wa la'l-ḍāllīn) and in al-Najm 53/2 (mā ḍalla ṣāḥibukum). I do not repeat it here.

The branch here is the other one, and it must be recorded: ḍalla'l-shayʾu fi'l-shayʾ — one thing was lost, mingled away, became impossible to pick out inside another. The lexicographers record this use separately: like water lost in milk.

I record this as an observation: the objection is built not as "after we die" but as "after we have mingled with the soil and become impossible to tell apart". That is, what the other side finds hard is not death but inseparability. If the parts have mingled with one another, which is the one that will be brought back?

And the answer the verse gives is given not to this question but in the question's place: bal hum bi-liqāʾi rabbihim kāfirūn — "this is not the real matter: they deny the meeting."

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the particle bal: bal cancels what precedes and puts something in its place. The verse does not accept the technical objection as a ground; it names the refusal that lies beneath the objection. This is the line treated all along the axis of al-Jāthiya — there too the ground of the claim was asked for.

And the word liqāʾ must be recorded: it will occur twice in the sūra — here (10) and in the twenty-third verse (fa-lā takun fī miryatin min liqāʾih). The same word: one denied, the other closed off to doubt.

وُكِّلَ — root و-ك-ل: to commit an affair to another, to appoint someone to a task. The verb is passive and Form II: "he was made deputy, he was charged".

The choice of the word is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: the angel of death is named here not as an independent power but as one charged with a task. That the verb comes passive means the one who charged him is not stated in the sentence — but the continuation of the sentence states him anyway: thumma ilā rabbikum turjaʿūn.

And the word order sets up a sequence: yatawaffākum (he takes your souls) → turjaʿūn (you are returned). Both verbs stand in a position close to the passive: the subject of the first is one under orders, that of the second is not stated. That is, at no stage of the process is any disposal of man's own named.

A note per the method (Method): about the name, the number and the manner of the angel of death I write nothing beyond what the text states. The limit laid down about the angels in Fāṭir 35/1 holds here too; I rely on that treatment.

Wa law tarā idhi'l-mujrimūna nākisū ruʾūsihim ʿinda rabbihim, rabbanā abṣarnā wa samiʿnā fa'rjiʿnā naʿmal ṣāliḥan innā mūqinūn

"If only you could see: the guilty, before their Lord, with their heads bowed low: 'Our Lord! We have seen and we have heard. Send us back that we may do righteous work; now we are certain.'"

The sentence begins with law (an unrealised condition), and the answer to the condition is not stated. In Arabic this is called ḥadhf jawāb al-sharṭ: the answer is left to the hearer's imagining.

I record this as an observation about the word order: "if only you could see…" is said, and the sentence passes to the scene. What is not said is not said because it is heavier than the scene itself.

The root is analysed here for the first time in the series.

The concrete sense of the root: to turn a thing over, to set it head down, to bring its top to the bottom. Nakasa'l-shayʾa — he turned it over.

The English "relapse" carries exactly this picture, though it comes from an unconnected word: to fall back while going forward.

And the pattern here is the plural of the active participle: nākisū ruʾūsihim — "those who bow their heads". That is, the head is recounted not as bent from outside but as the person's own condition.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the pattern: the sentence does not say "their heads were bowed" (passive), it says "those who have bowed their heads" (active participle). No compelling hand appears in the scene; the posture itself is recounted.

And it must be set face to face with the fifteenth verse of the sūra:

The same direction: head downwards. The difference lies in the time and in the will. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two verses stand in the same sūra, three verses apart: the sūra shows the same bodily posture twice — one in its time and of itself, the other after the time has passed.

This is the clearest internal link in the sūra, and it must be shown.

In the ninth verse three doors were given to man: wa jaʿala lakumu'l-samʿa wa'l-abṣāra wa'l-afʾidah — hearing, eyes, hearts. And the sentence had ended with qalīlan mā tashkurūn.

In the twelfth verse the other side names two of those doors with its own mouth: abṣarnā wa samiʿnā — "we have seen and we have heard".

Three details must be recorded, and all three can be verified from the text:

One. In the ninth verse the order is ear → eye (samʿ first). In the twelfth verse the order is reversed: eye → ear (abṣarnā first). The other side says first what it saw.

Two. The third member of the triad of the ninth verse is missing here: afʾida (hearts) is not named. Two organs are counted, the heart is not.

Three. But at the end of the sentence there is a word that names the heart's work: innā mūqinūn — "now we are certain". Yaqīn is an act of the heart.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that these three details stand together: all three of the doors given in the ninth verse are stated in the twelfth as having worked — two by name, the third by its act. That is, the scene shows not that the instruments did not work but that they worked late. The observation recorded in al-Aḥqāf 46/26 goes one step further here: there was "an opportunity not used"; here there is an opportunity used but past its time.

The same request was treated in Fāṭir 35/37: rabbanā akhrijnā naʿmal ṣāliḥan ghayra'lladhī kunnā naʿmal — "Our Lord! Bring us out, that we may do a righteous work other than what we used to do!"

The two requests can be set side by side, and their differences must be recorded:

The difference is worth recording, and I give it as my own reading: the request in Fāṭir puts forward the mending of the deed, the request in al-Sajda puts forward knowledge. Both make a ground of the thing they claim was lacking in the world — and both grounds are made void by the verse itself: in Fāṭir by saying "time had been given", in al-Sajda by stating in the thirteenth verse that the ruling has already been laid down.

And there is a difference of place between the scene in Fāṭir and the scene here: there the request comes from inside the fire, here from the presence. That is, the scene of al-Sajda is the earlier one — and even so there is no return.

Wa law shiʾnā la-ātaynā kulla nafsin hudāhā wa lākin ḥaqqa'l-qawlu minnī la-amlaʾanna jahannama mina'l-jinnati wa'l-nāsi ajmaʿīn · Fa-dhūqū bimā nasītum liqāʾa yawmikum hādhā, innā nasīnākum wa dhūqū ʿadhāba'l-khuldi bimā kuntum taʿmalūn

"Had We willed, We would have given every soul its own guidance. But this word from Me came true: 'I shall fill Hell with jinn and men all together.' So taste — because you forgot the meeting with this day of yours. We too have forgotten you. Taste the lasting punishment for what you used to do."

The sentence is again built with law: an unrealised condition. And what is said is a statement of power: had We willed, it would have been — but it was not willed.

I record this as an observation: the verse does not say that the guiding of everyone is impossible. It grants the possibility openly and states that the possibility was not used. That is, the matter is not one of power but one of how the order was set up.

A limit per the method (Method): from here I do not enter the discussion of destiny and compulsion, and I do not argue the views of the schools of theology. What the verse says in its wording is two things: the willing was possible; and a word came true beforehand.

حَقَّ ٱلْقَوْلُ مِنِّى — ḥaqqa — root ح-ق-ق: to be fixed, to come true, to find its place as a right. The same verb in the same pattern occurred in Fuṣṣilat 41/25 (ḥaqqa ʿalayhimu'l-qawl), and there it was the sentence that ended the block. The two sūras use the same expression.

The difference is worth recording: in Fuṣṣilat ḥaqqa ʿalayhim — "it came true against them"; in al-Sajda ḥaqqa'l-qawlu minnī — "the word came true from Me". One says whom the word touches, the other from whom it issued.

The same verb twice, reciprocally: nasītum (you forgot) — nasīnākum (We forgot you).

The same reciprocal structure was treated in al-Jāthiya 45/34 (nansākum kamā nasītum liqāʾa yawmikum hādhā), and it was recorded there as a "verb built reciprocally". I rely on that treatment.

The two verses are built with almost the same words, and the difference must be recorded:

Al-Jāthiya builds the response as a likeness, al-Sajda as a cause and effect. This is a difference between the two sūras that can be verified.

And the explanation recorded in the classical works of exegesis about the ascription of nisyān (forgetting) to God is this, and I transmit it as it has been transmitted: the word here is not in the sense of real forgetting but in the sense of "leaving as though forgotten, remaining unconcerned" — indeed nisyān carries this use in Arabic. The same explanation was recorded in al-Jāthiya as well.

فَذُوقُوا۟ … وَذُوقُوا۟ — and the command is repeated twice, on two separate grounds: the first is tied to the forgetting, the second to what was done. That is, the ground takes in both a neglect and an act.

Innamā yuʾminu bi-āyātina'lladhīna idhā dhukkirū bihā kharrū sujjadan wa sabbaḥū bi-ḥamdi rabbihim wa hum lā yastakbirūn · Tatajāfā junūbuhum ʿani'l-maḍājiʿi yadʿūna rabbahum khawfan wa ṭamaʿan wa mimmā razaqnāhum yunfiqūn

"Only these believe in Our verses: those who, when they are reminded by them, fall down prostrate, who glorify their Lord with praise, and who do not grow proud. Their sides withdraw from their beds; they call upon their Lord in fear and in hope; and they spend of the provision We have given them."

This verse is the prostration verse of the sūra, and the place that gives the sūra its name.

The sentence begins with innamā (only, none but): the particle of restriction. And the direction of the restriction must be recorded: the sentence does not say "those who believe do these things"; it says "those who do these things believe".

I record this as an observation about the word order: faith is described not as a claim but by way of its signs. And the description fits the hearer of the sūra: in the tenth verse the other side had said something (a-idhā ḍalalnā…); in the twelfth verse it had changed what it said (innā mūqinūn). Where a word is no measure, the sūra ties the description to behaviour.

خَرَّ — root خ-ر-ر. The concrete sense the lexicographers record: to fall from a height; and the sound made in falling. Kharīr — the sound water makes as it flows. That is, the root holds both a fall and a sound.

The choice of the verb is worth recording: the verse does not say sajada (he prostrated) — it says kharrū sujjadan: "they fell down prostrating".

سُجَّدًا — the plural of sājid, on the fuʿʿal pattern; in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl). That is, the prostration is the form of the fall.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the choice of verb: the sentence recounts not a decision but a fall. And this is the exact counterpart of the scene in the twelfth verse: there the head fell forward of itself (nākisū ruʾūsihim), here the body goes down to the ground of itself. The same direction, two separate times.

وَهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ — and the description is completed with a negation. Form X of the root ك-ب-ر (istikbār) has been treated in many places in the series — in al-Jāthiya 45/8 and in Fuṣṣilat 41/15 (fa-stakbarū fi'l-arḍ). I do not repeat it here.

But the place of the negation must be recorded: after three positive attributes have been counted, a negative attribute is added. That is, "something he does not do" enters the list as well.

The root is analysed here for the first time in the series.

The concrete sense of the root: a gap opening between two things, their parting and drawing away from one another. Jafā'l-janbu ʿani'l-firāsh — the side rose, drew apart from the bed. The lexicographers illustrate the root thus: the saddle's not sitting flush on the horse's back and staying a little clear of it.

Turkish has borrowed cefa ("ill-treatment") from this root, and it carries the root's picture: the cutting off of closeness.

The pattern is Form V (tafāʿul), and the lexicographers record in this form gradualness and continuity: not a single rising, but the state of standing clear.

جُنُوب — the plural of janb: the side, the flank. مَضَاجِع — the plural of maḍjaʿ, root ض-ج-ع: to lie on one's side. Maḍjaʿ — the place where one lies on one's side, a bed.

This is the most striking side of the verse, and it must be recorded.

The subject of the sentence is not the person: tatajāfā junūbuhum — "their sides draw away". That is, the act is ascribed not to the man but to a part of the body.

And the object too is not a bed; the bed itself is a plural: ʿani'l-maḍājiʿ — "from the beds".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is two grammatical details — junūb as the subject, maḍājiʿ as a plural: the sentence is built not like a declaration of will but like a description of a state. And this runs in the same direction as the verb kharrū in the fifteenth verse: there too the body went down of itself. The sūra makes its description twice by way of the body — and both times the subject of the verb is not the person.

The plural maḍājiʿ carries one further overtone, and I give it as an observation: had "bed" been singular, a particular night could have been understood; the plural turns this into a repeated condition.

خَوْفًا وَطَمَعًا — "in fear and in hope". Two verbal nouns in the position of circumstantial qualifiers, side by side. The same pair occurs at al-Rūm 30/24 as well (yurīkumu'l-barqa khawfan wa ṭamaʿan) and will be treated in al-Rūm. In both places the pair is named together: neither fear alone nor hope alone.

وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَٰهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ — the same expression was analysed in al-Baqara 2/3 (wa mimmā razaqnāhum yunfiqūn), and it was recorded there that the particle min states the partitive — "of what We have given", not all of it. I do not repeat it here.

And the order of the description is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: prostration (the body going down to the ground) → glorification (the tongue) → not growing proud (the inner attitude) → rising from the bed (the body, at night) → prayer (the tongue) → spending (property). Six attributes; and the last is the only one that touches another person. The list begins with the person himself and moves outward.

Fa-lā taʿlamu nafsun mā ukhfiya lahum min qurrati aʿyun, jazāʾan bimā kānū yaʿmalūn

"No soul knows what delight of the eyes has been hidden away for them, as a recompense for what they used to do."

And here, immediately after the description, instead of the recompense being recounted, its unrecountability is stated.

The same line was treated in al-Wāqiʿa 56/61: wa nunshiʾakum fī mā lā taʿlamūn — "and We shall build you up in a form you do not know". What was recorded there was this: "Here the verse refuses to give a description." I rely on that treatment.

The two verses can be set side by side, and the difference must be recorded:

Both close off knowledge, but by two separate doors: al-Wāqiʿa makes the process unknowable, al-Sajda the outcome.

نَفْسٌ — indefinite (nakira) and within a negation. In Arabic an indefinite that comes within a negation conveys ʿumūm (generality): "no soul at all". That is, no exception is left.

أُخْفِىَ — the verb is passive: the one who hides is not stated. Root خ-ف-ي: to hide, to cover. The same root was treated in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/19 (wa mā tukhfi'l-ṣudūr) — there what was hidden was what is held within; here what is hidden is the recompense, and the party doing the hiding has changed.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is that the two verses use the same root in opposite directions: in Ghāfir man hides and God knows; in al-Sajda God hides and man does not know. The same verb, in two directions.

The construct is analysed here for the first time in the series.

Root ق-ر-ر: to stay in a place, to settle, to remain fixed. Qarār — the place where one settles; istiqrār — settledness. And the lexicographers record a second branch of the root as well: to be cold (qurr — cold).

The two branches meet in the expression qurratu'l-ʿayn, and the lexicographers give two explanations:

Both explanations are transmitted by the lexicographers and do not exclude one another. I do not impose a preference.

The usual English rendering is "delight of the eyes"; but the picture in the Arabic is not delight but stillness or coolness. I record this difference.

And aʿyun is an indefinite plural — "eyes", indefinite. The expression itself carries an indefiniteness too: what the delight of the eyes consists in is not said. The sentence had already said this: lā taʿlamu nafsun.

جَزَآءًۢ بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَعْمَلُونَ — "as a recompense for what they did". The verb kānū yaʿmalūn — a past that states continuity. That is, the recompense is tied not to a single act but to a doing that went on.

A-fa-man kāna muʾminan ka-man kāna fāsiqan, lā yastawūn · Ammā'lladhīna āmanū wa ʿamilu'l-ṣāliḥāti fa-lahum jannātu'l-maʾwā nuzulan bimā kānū yaʿmalūn · Wa ammā'lladhīna fasaqū fa-maʾwāhumu'l-nār, kullamā arādū an yakhrujū minhā uʿīdū fīhā wa qīla lahum dhūqū ʿadhāba'l-nāri'lladhī kuntum bihī tukadhdhibūn

"Is one who is a believer like one who has broken out of bounds? They are not equal. As for those who believe and do righteous works: they shall have the Gardens of Refuge as a lodging for what they used to do. As for those who broke out of bounds: the place they come to is the Fire. Every time they want to come out of it they are turned back into it, and they are told: 'Taste the punishment of the Fire that you used to call a lie'."

This expression has been treated in three places in the series. This is the fourth, and the four must be read together:

In all four places the same root: س-و-ي. And the differences among the four are worth recording:

One — likeness or direct statement. Fāṭir and Ghāfir build the contrast by a comparison drawn from the senses (blind/seeing). Al-Sajda uses no comparison: it names the two sides directly.

Two — question or statement. Al-Jāthiya objects with am ḥasiba to a supposition ("did they suppose so?"). Al-Sajda first asks a question (a-fa-man…) and then gives its own answer: lā yastawūn. That is, the question is not left open.

Three — number. Lā yastawūn is plural, whereas there are two sides being compared; the dual (lā yastawiyāni) might have been expected. The lexicographers explain this by the relative pronoun man being singular in wording and plural in sense: what is compared is not two persons but two classes.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is this detail of number: the verse compares not two men but two groups. And the "series moving from the lighter to the heavier" recorded in Fāṭir 35/19-22 is absent here — al-Sajda sets up a single pair, but opens it out at once in two verses (19 and 20). Fāṭir lists them and leaves it there; al-Sajda goes into the single pair in detail.

The concrete sense of the root is given by the lexicographers thus: fasaqati'l-ruṭabatu ʿan qishrihā — the ripe date came out of its skin. That is, fisq is a thing's coming out of its own covering, its own boundary.

That muʾmin is set opposite the word is worth recording: the contrast is built not with kāfir but with fāsiq. And the verb carries this on: in the twentieth verse alladhīna fasaqū — a verb, not a noun.

I record this as an observation: what the verse describes is not a declaration of belief but the act of stepping outside the boundary. The same root was treated in al-Ḥujurāt 49/6-7; I rely on that treatment.

The two verses use the same root (أ-و-ي), and in the word order this is a deliberate symmetry:

The root أ-و-ي: to take refuge, to shelter, to come back and settle. Maʾwā — the place one returns to and takes refuge in.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is that the two verses share the same word: for both sides the recompense is named "the place of refuge". The word is the same; the content is opposite. And this is the counterpart in word order of the ruling in the eighteenth verse of the sūra (lā yastawūn): two things that are not equal are put into two places bearing the same name.

نُزُلًا — root ن-ز-ل: to come down. Nuzul is the hospitality prepared for a guest when he alights. The word was treated in al-Wāqiʿa 56/56 and 56/93 — there nuzul was said of both sides. I do not repeat it here.

كُلَّمَا — "every time": a particle of time that states repetition.

And the relation between the two verbs must be recorded: arādū (they wanted) — active; uʿīdū (they were turned back) — passive.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the subject of the verb of wanting is stated, the subject of the verb of turning back is not. That is, in the scene the will is on one side and the outcome on the other. And kullamā does not reduce this to a single occasion: the wanting is repeated, and so is the outcome.

This is the continuation of the request in the twelfth verse (fa'rjiʿnā), and it is a line that can be verified within the sūra: there a return was asked for, here a coming out. Both requests go unanswered.

Wa la-nudhīqannahum mina'l-ʿadhābi'l-adnā dūna'l-ʿadhābi'l-akbari laʿallahum yarjiʿūn · Wa man aẓlamu mimman dhukkira bi-āyāti rabbihī thumma aʿraḍa ʿanhā, innā mina'l-mujrimīna muntaqimūn

"We shall surely make them taste of the nearer punishment, short of that greatest punishment, that they may perhaps turn back. And who does greater wrong than one who is reminded by the verses of his Lord and then turns away from them? From the guilty We are takers of retribution."

أَدْنَى — root: د-ن-و (some lexicographers connect it with أ-د-ن-و as well): to be near. Both senses of the word are live: "nearest" and "lowest, least". The root has been treated in many places in the series — in al-Najm 53/9 (aw adnā) and, on the occasion of al-dunyā (the life that is nearest), in many sections. I do not repeat it here.

The contrast here must be recorded, and the word order carries an asymmetry:

That is, opposite "near" is set not "far" but "great". I record this as an observation about the word order: the two punishments are named not both by distance; the one is named by distance and the other by measure. The choice of words implies that the two are not two degrees of one kind.

There is a disagreement in the classical works of exegesis over what "the nearer punishment" is, and it must not be concealed:

All three views are transmitted in the sources. I do not impose a preference, and I set up no equation with a particular historical event.

What the verse says in its wording can be recorded, and that much I record: there is an order between the two punishments (dūna — before it, short of it), and the purpose of the first is stated: laʿallahum yarjiʿūn — that they may perhaps turn back.

This purpose is worth recording, and I give it as my own reading: the verse says that the smaller one is not an end but a call. And the same verb (رجع) occurs for the third time in the sūra:

The same root in three separate patterns: a statement, a request, a hope. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra. And the sequence is worth recording: the return is named first as an unavoidable event (11), then as a request refused (12), and finally as a door still open (21). The door is opened after the scene has been recounted.

The sentence is an istifhām inkārī: a negation in the form of a question, whose answer is "no one".

And the verb must be recorded: dhukkira — passive, Form II: "he was reminded". The same verb was passive in the fifteenth verse too: alladhīna idhā dhukkirū bihā kharrū sujjadan.

The two verses begin with the same verb and go to two separate places:

The same entrance, two separate exits. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the verb stands in the same pattern in both places: the reminding is done to both sides — what separates them is not the reminding but what comes after. And the ruling of the eighteenth verse (lā yastawūn) takes concrete shape between these two verses.

The particle thumma must be recorded separately: ثُمَّ أَعْرَضَ — "then he turned away". In Arabic thumma states an interval. That is, the turning away is recounted not as a reaction given at once to the reminding but as a stance taken after time has come in between. The same work of this particle (the distance between a word and a stance) was treated in al-Aḥqāf 46/13 and in Fuṣṣilat 41/30 — there in the positive direction, here in the negative.

مُنتَقِمُونَ — root ن-ق-م: to find a thing ugly and reject it; and from this to repay it. This is the core the lexicographers record: retribution is first a not approving. The same root was treated in al-Burūj 85/8 (wa mā naqamū minhum illā an yuʾminū — "they found nothing in them ugly except that they believed"). I rely on that treatment.

And the picture recorded there is reversed here: in al-Burūj the subject of the verb naqama was those who did wrong; here the same root is ascribed to the side that gives the response.

Wa laqad ātaynā Mūsa'l-kitāba fa-lā takun fī miryatin min liqāʾihī wa jaʿalnāhu hudan li-banī Isrāʾīl · Wa jaʿalnā minhum aʾimmatan yahdūna bi-amrinā lammā ṣabarū wa kānū bi-āyātinā yūqinūn · Inna rabbaka huwa yafṣilu baynahum yawma'l-qiyāmati fīmā kānū fīhi yakhtalifūn

"Assuredly We gave Moses the Book. Do not you be in doubt about the meeting with him. We made it a guidance for the Children of Israel. When they were patient, We raised up among them leaders who guided by Our command; and they were certain of Our verses. On the Day of Resurrection your Lord will give the decision between them concerning that in which they differed."

مِرْيَة — root: م-ر-ي. It was analysed in Fuṣṣilat 41/54, and the concrete sense recorded by the lexicographers was given there: to squeeze and pull at an animal's udder in milking; from this comes the sense "to wrangle over a matter, to waver in doubt". I do not repeat it here.

The two occurrences can be compared, and the difference must be recorded:

The same word, one a ruling and one a command. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the difference of mood between the two sentences: Fuṣṣilat states the condition of the other side, while al-Sajda addresses the Prophet. And the pattern of prohibition states not that the doubt exists but that it is a place one must not be in. This use is widespread in Arabic, and the lexicographers generally explain it as an address to the community by way of the one addressed; I transmit this explanation as it has been transmitted.

There is a disagreement in this verse, and it must not be concealed: liqāʾih — "the meeting with him" — the referent of the pronoun is not stated.

All three readings are transmitted in the classical works of exegesis. I do not impose a preference.

But I record that the third reading has a ground from within the sūra, and I give this as an observation: in the tenth verse bi-liqāʾi rabbihim kāfirūn occurred. The same word, in the same sūra, thirteen verses apart. This is not a preference but an overlap that can be verified from the text.

أَئِمَّة — the plural of imām; root أ-م-م: to head towards, to aim at. Amma'l-makāna — he headed for that place. And imām means "the one headed towards, the one who stands in front and towards whom the one behind heads". From the same root come umma (a community that looks in one common direction) and amām (the front).

The picture in the word is worth recording: an imām is not one who commands but one who stands in front. And the verse limits this at once: yahdūna bi-amrinā — "they guide by Our command". That is, the guiding is not out of the leader's own source.

Two readings of this word are transmitted, and because it changes the meaning it must be recorded:

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

The difference is worth recording: on the first, leadership falls at the same time as the patience; on the second, patience becomes the cause of leadership. The second reading brings the verse closer to a sentence stating a rule.

And what is common to both readings is this, and I record it as my own reading: within the word order of the verse leadership stands in the position of a result — after the verb jaʿalnā two conditions come: patience and certainty (kānū bi-āyātinā yūqinūn). That is, the verse recounts leadership not by way of a lineage, an office or an appointment, but by way of two inward attributes.

And the word yūqinūn occurs for the second time in the sūra:

The same root (ي-ق-ن), two separate times. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the tenses of the verbs: in the twelfth verse yaqīn is given by a nominal sentence, as a state reached at that moment; in the twenty-fourth by kānū … yūqinūn, as a state that had gone on. What the sūra separates is not the presence of certainty but when it was acquired.

The root ف-ص-ل has been analysed in many places in the series — in al-Mursalāt and al-Nabaʾ in the context of yawmu'l-faṣl, and in Fuṣṣilat 41/3 with the tafṣīl pattern. I do not repeat it here. The core: to separate two things from one another, to put a distance between them.

And the line of leaving a disagreement to the judgement has been treated in several places in the series: al-Baqara 2/213 and 2/253, al-Jāthiya 45/17, Fuṣṣilat 41/45, al-Zumar 39/3 and 39/46. In all of them the same thing is said: the disagreement arises after the Book has come; and its judgement is deferred. I rely on those treatments.

What belongs here is the emphasis in the sentence: inna rabbaka huwa yafṣilu — the pronoun huwa comes in between. In Arabic this pronoun coming between subject and predicate is called ḍamīr al-faṣl (the pronoun of separation) and conveys restriction: "the one who will do the separating is He alone."

The play on words is worth recording, and I give it as an observation about the language: to fix the subject of the verb faṣl (separating), the pronoun of faṣl is used. The same root, one in the ruling and one in the grammar.

A-wa-lam yahdi lahum kam ahlaknā min qablihim mina'l-qurūni yamshūna fī masākinihim, inna fī dhālika la-āyātin a-fa-lā yasmaʿūn

"Has it not guided them, how many generations We destroyed before them? And yet they walk about in the dwellings of those people. In this there are surely signs. Will they still not hear?"

Of all the proofs the verse chooses the one most easily reached: the ground underfoot.

The same proof was treated in Fāṭir 35/44 and in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/21, 40/82 (a-wa-lam yasīrū fi'l-arḍi fa-yanẓurū kayfa kāna ʿāqibatu'lladhīna min qablihim), and what was recorded there was this: the proof is brought not from a distant history but from the ruins along the road. I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded, and it is verifiable:

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the mood of the verb: in the other verses there is a command or an urging (go, look); here there is a declarative sentence — they are there already. That is, al-Sajda removes even the distance needed to take up the proof: the ground being walked on is itself the proof.

مَسَاكِن — root س-ك-ن: to come to rest, to settle. The root was analysed in detail in al-Fatḥ 48/4 (sakīna), and the note was entered there that a maskan is "not a house but the place where movement ends". I do not repeat it here.

The use of the word here is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: the word chosen for those who were destroyed is from the root that states coming to rest. And now there are people walking there — yamshūna. Stopping in one root, walking in the other; in the same place.

The end of the verse must be recorded, and it sets up a pattern within the sūra.

The verse recounts a proof of sight (walking among the ruins), but ends the question with hearing: a-fa-lā yasmaʿūn.

And the next verse does the reverse: the reviving of soil by rain is recounted, and the question ends with sight: a-fa-lā yubṣirūn.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is that the two verses come one after the other and end with two different senses: the first two members of the triad given in the ninth verse (samʿ and abṣār) are here distributed over the closes of two separate verses. That is, at the end of the block of proofs the sūra tests one by one the instruments it gave. And these are the same two words as abṣarnā wa samiʿnā in the twelfth verse.

One further choice of word must be recorded: the twenty-sixth verse speaks of past generations — they are not seen; only the report of them is heard. That is, the question fits the way the proof arrives. This is an observation.

قُرُون — the plural of qarn, root ق-ر-ن: to bind two things side by side. The root was treated in Fuṣṣilat 41/25 (quranāʾ). The derivative here, qarn, means "a generation that lived together in one period" — before it states a measure of time, the word states a being together.

A-wa-lam yaraw annā nasūqu'l-māʾa ila'l-arḍi'l-juruzi fa-nukhriju bihī zarʿan taʾkulu minhu anʿāmuhum wa anfusuhum, a-fa-lā yubṣirūn

"Have they not seen that We drive the water to the bare ground and bring out with it a crop of which their cattle and they themselves eat? Will they still not see?"

سَاقَ — root س-و-ق: to drive before one, to conduct. The word is used especially of driving a herd of animals from behind. From the same root come sāʾiq (the driver), sūq (a market — the place goods are driven to) and sāq (the leg, what one walks on).

The choice of the verb is worth recording: the water does not "come down" or "flow" — it is driven. That is, the sentence gives the water a direction and a driver.

And the choice of the object must be recorded too: the water is driven not to the place where the rain falls but to the dry ground. The verb puts the distance between them into the sentence.

The root occurs here for the first time in the series.

The core given by the lexicographers: to cut and clear, to tear up by the root, to leave nothing on top. Jarazahū — he cut it, he mowed it. Sayfun jurāz — a sword that cuts and shears. And arḍun juruz: ground on which no plant is left, ground eaten bare.

The picture in the word is worth recording: for "dry ground" the verse does not choose a word meaning "waterless". The word it chooses states that what was on the ground has been taken away. That is, the dryness is recounted not as a lack but as a having-been-emptied.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the root's sense of "to cut and clear": the ground on which the proof is built is not soil that never yielded but soil whose yield has been taken. And this fits where the proof is going — all through the sūra the subject is whether a thing that has happened once can happen again.

This proof has been treated in two other places in the series, and the three must be compared:

Three differences are worth recording, and all three can be verified from the text:

One — the verb. In Fāṭir suqnāhu (We drove) is perfect; in al-Sajda nasūqu is imperfect: We are driving. Fāṭir recounts a finished event, al-Sajda a work that is going on. The change of the verb tenses was recorded separately as an observation about the word order in Fāṭir 35/9; I rely on that treatment.

Two — the outcome. Al-Zumar goes as far as the crop turning yellow and becoming chaff: the proof is built on transience. Al-Sajda stops at the eating of the crop: the proof is built on usefulness. The same event, cut off at two different points.

Three — who eats. Al-Sajda names the two sides together: anʿāmuhum wa anfusuhum — their cattle and they themselves. And the order must be recorded: the animals first.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order: the sentence does not put man at the head of the list. There are two parties at the same table, and man is named second. This runs in the same direction as the observation recorded in Fāṭir 35/45: there too the scope was not kept limited to man (min dābba).

فَنُخْرِجُ بِهِۦ زَرْعًا — zarʿ — root ز-ر-ع: to sow. This root was treated in detail in al-Wāqiʿa 56/63-64 (a-antum tazraʿūnahū am naḥnu'l-zāriʿūn — "is it you who make it grow?"), and there man's share and the ground on which the outcome rests were separated. I rely on that treatment. Here the same distinction is made by the voice of the verb: nukhriju — it is We who bring it out.

Wa yaqūlūna matā hādha'l-fatḥu in kuntum ṣādiqīn · Qul yawma'l-fatḥi lā yanfaʿu'lladhīna kafarū īmānuhum wa lā hum yunẓarūn

"'When is this fatḥ, if you are truthful?' they say. Say: 'On the day of the fatḥ, the faith of those who disbelieved will not profit them, nor will they be granted any respite.'"

The root was analysed in detail in al-Fatḥ on the occasion of that sūra's name (to open what is shut; fattāḥ, miftāḥ) and occurred again in Fāṭir 35/2 with the verb yaftaḥ. I do not repeat it here.

There is a disagreement in the classical works of exegesis over the use here, and it must not be concealed:

All three views are transmitted in the sources. I do not impose a preference, and I set up no equation with a particular historical event.

I record that the first view has a ground from within the language, and I give this as an observation: the preceding block had ended with inna rabbaka huwa yafṣilu baynahum (25) — separating. And the sense of judgement in the word fatḥ says the same work with another root. This is a closeness that can be verified from the text — but it is not a preference.

The question asks for a date and carries a condition: in kuntum ṣādiqīn — "if you are truthful".

A question of the same structure was treated in al-Maʿārij 70/1 (saʾala sāʾilun bi-ʿadhābin wāqiʿ), and the observation recorded there holds here too: the questioner asks for a date, the verse gives no date. I rely on that treatment.

The form of the answer here must be recorded, and it is verifiable: the answer does not touch the matā question at all. The question is "when?" — the answer is "what will happen on that day."

I record this as my own reading; its ground is how the answer is built: qul yawma'l-fatḥi lā yanfaʿu… — the sentence takes the word of the question (al-fatḥ), turns it into an adverb of time, and builds a ruling upon it. That is, the question is not answered; the word of the question is set inside a ruling.

لَا يَنفَعُ … إِيمَٰنُهُمْ — and what is said is heavy: it is said not that faith will not be had but that the faith that is had will not profit on that day.

This is directly connected with the twelfth verse and is a line that can be verified within the sūra: there innā mūqinūn had been said — certain knowledge had been acknowledged in the scene. The twenty-ninth verse gives the ruling on the same thing: faith at that hour does not count.

وَلَا هُمْ يُنظَرُونَ — root ن-ظ-ر, passive of Form IV: "they will not be granted a respite". The "looking" and "granting a respite" branches of the root were tabulated in al-Dukhān 44/59 (in the comparison of naẓar / irtiqāb). I rely on that treatment.

And the choice of the word is worth recording: the next verse ends with two words from the same root — wa'ntaẓir innahum muntaẓirūn. That is, the last two verses of the sūra use the same root three times. It is tabulated below.

Fa-aʿriḍ ʿanhum wa'ntaẓir innahum muntaẓirūn

"So turn away from them and wait; they too are waiting."

Three words, two commands and a statement.

فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ — root ع-ر-ض: breadth, width; and from this iʿrāḍ — to turn side on, to turn the breadth of the face away. The root was treated in Fuṣṣilat 41/4 (fa-aʿraḍa aktharuhum) and 41/51 (naʾā bi-jānibih). I do not repeat it here.

And there is a reversal worth recording: in Fuṣṣilat iʿrāḍ was the act of the other side. Here the same verb is commanded to the one addressed. The same root, in two directions: one a turning away from the text, the other a turning away from the one who turns away.

A note per the method (Method): from this I draw no ruling of estrangement or of wholesale abandonment. The context of the sentence is plain: in the twenty-eighth verse a date was asked for, and in the twenty-ninth an answer was given. Iʿrāḍ is the not-continuing of the argument.

In al-Dukhān 44/59 the close of that sūra was built with the same structure, and this verse was already mentioned there. I rely on that treatment and carry the comparison over here, to its own place:

The difference between the two roots was tabulated in al-Dukhān, and its summary was this:

Two differences belong here, and both are verifiable:

One. In the close of al-Sajda there is one command more: fa-aʿriḍ ʿanhum. Al-Dukhān passes straight to the waiting; al-Sajda commands first a breaking off and then a waiting. The two verbs set up a sequence: first withdrawal from the argument, then waiting.

Two. The choice of root fits the sūra's own words. In the twenty-ninth verse wa lā hum yunẓarūn had occurred — the same root, in the sense "no respite is granted".

The same root, three times in two verses. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is this threefold repetition: the twenty-ninth verse says that there is no respite; the thirtieth commands waiting. That is, the sūra commands not a waiting without an end but a waiting whose end has been stated. The length of the waiting is not known; what will happen when it ends is known.

And the observation recorded in al-Dukhān works here too: the sentence does not say "you wait, and they will be destroyed". It joins both sides in the same verb — muntaẓirūn, the plural active participle of the same form. The difference will appear not in the act but at the end of the act.

The sūra opened with a statement about a Book (2) and closed with a command to wait (30). Between them there are two scenes, and both carry the same two words: in the ninth verse hearing and eyes are given, and in the twelfth it is said that they were heard and were seen.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the overlap of words between these two verses: what the sūra separates is not the instrument but the time. Those described in the fifteenth verse use the same instruments in their time; those in the twelfth after the time has passed. And the twenty-first verse is the one sentence that says that the time has not yet passed: laʿallahum yarjiʿūn.