al-Zukhruf 43:81-83

Qul in kāna li'r-Raḥmāni waladun fa-anā awwalu'l-ʿābidīn · Subḥāna rabbi's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi rabbi'l-ʿarshi ʿammā yaṣifūn · Fa-dharhum yakhūḍū wa yalʿabū ḥattā yulāqū yawmahumu'lladhī yūʿadūn

"Say: If al-Raḥmān had a child, I would be the first to serve him. Glory be to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne, far above what they ascribe. Leave them to plunge and to play until they meet the day they are promised."

Because of its construction this verse is among the most debated in the classical commentaries. I shall set the disagreement out in a table and show the logic of each reading separately.

The structure of the sentence is a conditional:

Condition: in kāna li'r-Raḥmāni waladun — "if al-Raḥmān had a child" Apodosis: fa-anā awwalu'l-ʿābidīn — "I would be the first to serve"

Now the transmitted readings:

The ground of the third reading is a lexical matter and must be transmitted: the lexicographers record that the verb ʿabida (عَبِدَ), as distinct from ʿabada (to serve), carries the sense "to be angry, to be disgusted, to refuse". On this reading ʿābid means "one who refuses". I transmit this explanation as it has been transmitted; it is also recorded that it is not widespread among the lexicographers.

I do not impose a preference. But I must open out the logic of the first reading separately, because the force of the verse lies there.

In Arabic a conditional sentence turns into an instrument of refusal when it is known that the condition has not been fulfilled. In logic this is called taʿlīq bi'l-muḥāl — "attaching to the impossible".

The Qurʾān uses this method elsewhere too, and the examples are plain:

• Law kāna fīhimā ālihatun illa'llāhu la-fasadatā (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/22) — "were there gods in them other than God, the order of both would break down."
• Wa mā kāna maʿahu min ilāhin idhan la-dhahaba kullu ilāhin bimā khalaq (al-Muʾminūn 23/91).

The structure is this: the claim is treated as if accepted, its consequence is shown, and the impossibility of the consequence refutes the claim.

But what is done in this verse is somewhat different, and I record this as my own reading:

What is shown here as the consequence is not a contradiction but a submission.

The sentence, that is, says this: "if it were so, I would not be the one objecting to it — I would be the first to accept."

And what this carries is the following, and it is consistent with the whole question of the sūra: the reason for the objection is not obstinacy. It is not a preference or a taking of sides. The objection comes from the claim's not being true.

Moreover the sentence is the counterpart, in the person of the Prophet, of the question of measure the sūra has worked from the beginning: throughout the sūra the other side drew its verdicts from position — from who was great, from who brought what. This sentence says that position does not determine the verdict: "if it were true, I would be the first to accept it."

I mark this as my own reading; its ground is the condition-apodosis structure of the sentence.

And the word awwal in the expression awwalu'l-ʿābidīn must be recorded: the verse does not say "I too would serve", it says "I would be the first". That is, foremost in the line.

And throughout the sūra "being in front" had been argued about as a measure — al-awwalīn (6, 8), salafan (56), ābāʾanā (22, 23). Here the same word is used for an order of submission.

And the word subḥāna comes for the second time in the sūra. In the thirteenth verse it was in the mouth of a person mounting his beast; here it stands against an ascription.

I complete here the table I set out above (in the discussion of 43/13).

And the object of the glorification must be recorded: ʿammā yaṣifūn — "above what they describe".

The root و-ص-ف: to characterise a thing, to describe it. Waṣf — a quality. And the lexicographers record the root's core of "setting a thing out as it is".

I give this as an observation: the verse names what the other side does describing. The matter, that is, is set not as a matter of knowledge but as a matter of characterisation — and in the nineteenth verse of the sūra the ground of that characterisation was asked for (a-shahidū khalqahum).

Rabbi'l-ʿarsh — and the word ʿarsh occurs in many places in the Qurʾān. A note was entered on the question of the Throne in al-Burūj, and I keep the same note: no description of its modality is produced.

The command is a command to leave off: dharhum — "leave them".

The root و-ذ-ر: to leave, to abandon. The lexicographers record that the perfect and the verbal noun of this verb are not used — it occurs only in the imperative and imperfect patterns.

The concrete sense of the root خ-و-ض: to go into water, to plunge; particularly to step on foot into muddy or deep water. Khāḍa'l-māʾ — he plunged into the water.

And from there: to plunge into a subject without knowing its measure; to be sunk in idle talk.

The picture of the word is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: khawḍ is entering a place on foot — not by swimming. That is, stepping into water whose bottom is not known.

The root ل-ع-ب: to play, to occupy oneself with something not serious. The lexicographers record the root's relation to "spittle" (luʿāb): what runs from a child's mouth and serves no purpose. I transmit this derivation as it has been transmitted.

Two verbs side by side, and both attach to the sūra's question of measure — I record this as my own reading: khawḍ is entering without measure, laʿb is occupying oneself without measure. Once more the sūra names the other side's stance with a word of measure — in the fifth verse musrifīn (those who overstep), in the twentieth yakhruṣūn (those who estimate by eye), and here yakhūḍū wa yalʿabū.

The same command occurs in al-Ṭūr 52/45 and in al-Maʿārij 70/42 as well; it was treated in al-Ṭūr and al-Maʿārij.