al-Ṣāffāt 37:133-138

Wa inna Lūṭan la-mina'l-mursalīn · Idh najjaynāhu wa ahlahu ajmaʿīn · Illā ʿajūzan fi'l-ghābirīn · Thumma dammarna'l-ākharīn · Wa innakum la-tamurrūna ʿalayhim muṣbiḥīn · Wa bi'l-layl, a-fa-lā taʿqilūn

"And Lot too was one of the messengers sent. When We saved him and his whole household — save an old woman among those who stayed behind. Then We razed the others. And you pass by them in the morning — and by night as well. Will you still not use your reason?"

And this section is the first break in the sequence: not one of the four closing moulds is present. It was given in a table in the section on the structure, and the possible explanations were discussed there. I do not repeat it.

What is to be added here: what the section puts in their place.

I record this as my own reading and complete the note in the section on the structure: in the other sections of the sequence it is said "We left upon him a remembrance"; here what was left is shown. The verb "We left" is replaced by the sentence "you pass by them". And this is a passage from a spoken memory to a visible one.

Ajmaʿīn — root ج-م-ع: all, the whole. And it is used as a word of reinforcement (taʾkīd): "his whole household".

And the point of word order is worth noting — this is a textual datum: ajmaʿīn ("all") is said and immediately after comes an exception (illā ʿajūzan). Reinforcement and exception side by side, that is.

The explanation the grammarians record: ajmaʿīn announces the completeness of those saved; the exception takes out the one not included in that group. The two do not conflict: "the whole of his household was saved — that woman was already among those who stayed behind."

And there is a word that supports this explanation: fi'l-ghābirīn.

Ghābir — root غ-ب-ر. And the root has an interesting property, which the lexicographers record: the root means both "to pass on" and "to stay behind" — two senses that are opposites of one another. In Arabic this is called aḍdād (words with opposite meanings).

From the same root ghabara — dust. Ghabara — the dust that stays behind. The link the lexicographers make: the dust left behind a passing caravan announces both pastness and remaining.

Its sense here: those who stayed behind — that is, those who remained together with those destroyed.

And the Qurʾān uses the same word consistently in this account: al-ghābirīn occurs at al-Ḥijr 15/60, al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/171, al-Naml 27/57 and al-ʿAnkabūt 29/32-33 as well. This is a countable fact.

ʿAjūz — root ع-ج-ز: to be weak, to be unable. ʿAjūz — an old woman. The link the lexicographers make: old age is the exhaustion of strength.

The word was treated at al-Dhāriyāt 51/29 (wa qālat ʿajūzun ʿaqīm) — there Abraham's wife used it of herself. The same word, two different women, two different sūras. This is a datum about the word.

And a note: the verse gives no name, only an attribute. No name is given in this commentary either. Elsewhere the Qurʾān names this person as imraʾatu Lūṭ (the wife of Lot) (al-Taḥrīm 66/10), and it was treated in al-Taḥrīm. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it.

Dammara — root د-م-ر, Form II: to raze, to destroy utterly.

And the sentence has exactly the same structure as the eighty-second verse:

The same particle (thumma), the same object (al-ākharīn), the same position (toward the end of the section). Only the verb changes. This is a parallel that can be verified from the text.

And the observation recorded in the section on the eighty-second verse holds here too: the sentence of destruction comes not in the middle of the section but at its end, and pushed away with thumma.

And this is the one place in the whole sequence where it turns to the one addressed. This is a countable fact.

From the seventy-fifth verse to the hundred and thirty-sixth, for sixty-two verses, the telling is in the third person. In the hundred and thirty-seventh it passes suddenly to the second person: innakum — "you".

In Arabic this transition is called iltifāt, and it was treated in several places in this commentary (al-Wāqiʿa 56/51; in this sūra verses 21 and 38).

Tamurrūn — root م-ر-ر: to pass, to go by.

And the verb is imperfect: la-tamurrūn — "you keep passing by". Not once, that is, but continually.

Muṣbiḥīn — root ص-ب-ح, the active participle of Form IV: those who are in the morning, who are at the hour of dawn. In a circumstantial position: "passing at the hour of morning".

Wa bi'l-layl — "and by night".

A point of word order must be recorded: the two times are given in two different forms. The morning by a circumstantial (muṣbiḥīn — an active participle), the night by a preposition (bi'l-layl). Not symmetrical.

The grammarians' explanation: bi'l-layl is an adverbial attached to muṣbiḥīn; the sense becomes "in the morning and by night". The difference of form does not change the sense.

And what is said when the two times are named together is worth noting — as my own reading: morning and night are the two ends of the day. When both are named, the sense "at all times" arises. Passing by the ruin is not an exceptional event, then; it is a daily route.

And at al-Qamar 54/38 another verse of this account was treated (wa laqad ṣabbaḥahum bukratan ʿadhābun mustaqirr). There too the hour of morning was named. The two sūras use the same hour in the same account. This is a datum about a word.

ʿAqala — root ع-ق-ل. And the concrete picture of the root is worth noting: ʿiqāl is the cord that ties a camel's knee. ʿAqala'l-baʿīr — he tied the camel. Reason (ʿaql), then, is a power of binding: what keeps a person from going wherever he pleases.

The root was treated at al-Mulk 67/10 (law kunnā nasmaʿu aw naʿqilu). I rely on that treatment.

And the placing of the question here is worth noting — as my own reading: the verse does not say "do you not see?". Seeing is already happening — the hundred and thirty-seventh verse says so: you pass by. What is missing is not seeing but binding what one sees.

And this ties to the thirteenth verse of the sūra: wa idhā dhukkirū lā yadhkurūn — "when they are reminded they do not remember". The two verses describe the same gap: the break between the knowledge that arrives and the conclusion that is drawn.

And a note: the Lot section is the section of the sequence nearest to the one addressed. The other sections recount events that lie in the past; this section shows something the addressee passes by every day. This is a fact worth considering together with the section's not receiving the closing mould.