Yāsīn 36:71-73

Awalam yaraw annā khalaqnā lahum mimmā ʿamilat aydīnā anʿāman fa-hum lahā mālikūn · Wa dhallalnāhā lahum fa-minhā rakūbuhum wa minhā yaʾkulūn · Wa lahum fīhā manāfiʿu wa mashāribu, a-fa-lā yashkurūn

"Have they not seen that of what Our hands have made We created for them livestock, and they own them? We have made them submissive to them: some of them they ride, and of some they eat. In them they have other benefits, and drinks. Will they not then give thanks?"

This construction has the same structure as the one in the thirty-fifth verse, and it runs in the opposite direction. The table was given above in the discussion of 36/35; I do not repeat it from here. Its summary was this:

This is a verifiable textual datum.

And the caveat of transcendence must be repeated here: expressions such as aydīnā cannot be understood as ascribing a limb or a body to God. 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 of direct making (taʾwīl). The same caveat was entered in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) at 40/7 in the discussion of the Throne. I transmit both; I do not impose a preference.

And the work of the construction must be recorded — this is a separate matter from the question of transcendence: the expression announces that the making was done without an intermediary. In the thirty-fifth verse the share of human labour was in dispute; here, with the same pattern, it is said that the animals are not of human making.

Anʿām — the plural of naʿam: domestic animals of the camel, cattle, sheep and goat kind. And from the same root comes نِعْمَة (niʿma).

The lexicographers record the connection: the core of the root naʿam is softness and ease (nāʿim — soft); a favour is what makes life soft. And because the Arabs counted these animals the most valuable of property, they named them directly with this word.

The word used in the verse, then, comes from the same root as "favour" — and the verse ends with a-fa-lā yashkurūn. I record this as an observation.

م-ل-ك — the root: to have power of disposal over a thing. Mulk — ownership and sovereignty; malik — a sovereign.

And the link inside the sūra can be verified and is striking:

The same root twice in the last block of the sūra. I record this as my own reading: the seventy-first verse grants man an ownership — it does not deny it, it says fa-hum lahā mālikūn. But it states in the same sentence how that ownership came about: khalaqnā lahum. And the last verse of the sūra gathers the same root, in its unlimited extent, into a single hand.

The sūra, that is, does not deny man's ownership; it places it inside a higher ownership.

The root has two branches, and the lexicographers keep them apart:

And the concrete use of dhalūl must be recorded: dābbatun dhalūl — an animal accustomed to being ridden, that does not shy, that is easily handled. And ṭarīqun dhalūl — a much-walked, easy road.

Form II, tadhlīl, is therefore the domestication of an animal: its coming out of the wild state and becoming able to work with a human being.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the second branch of the word: the verse does not say that the animal is humiliated but that it is made docile. And this is a fact open to the eye: a camel's or an ox's working with a human being cannot be explained by the animal's strength — the strength is in the animal; the submission has been given separately. The proof is built from here.

Rakūb — the faʿūl pattern. In Arabic this pattern usually has the sense of an active participle (ṣabūr — one who endures much), but in some words it takes the sense of a passive participle. The lexicographers place rakūb in this second group: ar-rakūba — the animal that is ridden, not the one that rides.

A few more words are counted in the same pattern (ḥalūb — the animal that is milked, and the like). I transmit this note as the lexicographers give it.

And a point of word order: fa-minhā rakūbuhum wa minhā yaʾkulūn — min partitive, twice over: "some of them they ride, of some they eat." Not all the animals, that is, are for both tasks; the verse makes the distinction itself.

Manāfiʿ — the plural of manfaʿa; root ن-ف-ع. And the extent of the word is left open: which benefits they are is not counted. This is like the thing the sūra has already done three times (36, 42, 55).

Mashārib — root ش-ر-ب. Two readings are transmitted:

The context requires the first reading (a drink obtained from the animals); the lexicographers record both.

And the word order: four benefits are counted — riding, eating, benefits, drinks. The first two are definite, the extent of the last two is left open.

This question comes for the second and last time in the sūra (the first at 35). It was tabulated in the section on structure and in the discussion of 36/35.

And what the two occurrences share can be verified: both come after things eaten and drunk — one plants, the other animals. The sūra asks about thanksgiving twice, and only in these two places.