al-Dukhān 44:29

Fa-mā bakat ʿalayhimu's-samāʾu wa'l-arḍu wa mā kānū munẓarīn

"Neither the heaven nor the earth wept for them; nor were they granted respite."

This verse is one of the most discussed expressions in the sūra and deserves detailed treatment.

The root occurred in al-Najm (wa annahu huwa aḍḥaka wa abkā — "it is He who makes laugh and makes weep").

The concrete sense: the coming of tears from the eye; and the lexicographers record two branches of the root — weeping aloud (bukāʾ, when read with a long vowel) and silent tears (bukan). In the Qurʾānic usages the distinction does not always operate.

A human act is given to inanimate things. In Arabic rhetoric this is called tashkhīṣ (personification).

This concept was treated in Qāf and this verse was already cited there:

"In Arabic rhetoric this is called tashkhīṣ (giving personality to what is inanimate) and it is used in several places in the Qurʾān: the weeping of heaven and earth (al-Dukhān 44/29), the heavens' and the earth's saying 'we come willingly' (Fuṣṣilat 41/11), the speaking of the skins (Fuṣṣilat 41/21)."

I rely on that treatment and open out the particular case here.

The background most often appealed to in understanding this verse is a convention of hyperbole in Arab poetry.

It is transmitted that when a great man died the Arabs, in lamenting him, used expressions such as "the sky wept for him", "the earth wept for him", "the stars darkened", "the wind stood still after him". This was the poetic way of saying that the person's loss was felt on a universal scale.

I transmit this convention without making a claim: I transmit no particular poem or line, because to ascribe a text whose wording I am not sure of is contrary to the rules of this commentary. What I record is that the classical works of exegesis and rhetoric transmit that this usage was known among the Arabs.

And if this background is correct, the work of the verse is this: the Qurʾān takes a formula of praise its addressee knows, and negates it.

The sentence, that is, does not give a piece of information — it leaves an expectation unanswered.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the form of the negation. It may be seen thus: to say of a person "the sky did not weep for him" gains its sense only if there is a formula "the sky weeps for him". An absence carries news only if it is the absence of something expected.

The exegetes differ over what the expression conveys, and I do not impose a preference:

All three views are transmitted. I declare no preference in this commentary.

But a datum of language can be recorded, and it is not a preference: the verb of the verse is negative. The text, that is, does not say for whom heaven and earth weep. The only thing it says is that they did not weep for these. What the positive side is cannot be drawn from this verse — everything drawn comes from outside it.

Now let us look at the link of the verse with verses twenty-five to twenty-eight, because its real work shows there.

From the twenty-fifth to the twenty-eighth verse there was a list: gardens, springs, crops, stations, comfort — and all of it passed to someone else.

The twenty-ninth verse appears to add one more item to that list; but what it adds is not a possession, it is a response.

I present this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the verses: the list starts from what is possessed and moves towards what is left behind. And the last item measures all the preceding ones again.

For this question may be asked: if a man possessed so much, must he not have left a trace? The verse answers it: there is no record.

And this touches man's most widespread consolation — I give it as my own reading: a man hopes that what he possesses will carry a meaning after him as well; being remembered, being grieved for, leaving a gap. After telling of the changing of hands of property, the verse looks at this hope too.

The root was treated in many sections (al-Baqara, Qāf, ʿAbasa, al-Muṭaffifīn); its concrete sense is to look.

But here it is in Form IV and the sense changes: anẓara — to grant a respite, to give time. Munẓar — one to whom a respite is granted.

The link between the two senses is made by the lexicographers thus: to grant a respite is to wait and to watch — to keep an eye on someone until he finishes his business.

And now we come to the point within the sūra.

In the tenth verse the sūra had said irtaqib (watch) to its addressee — a command to wait. In the twenty-ninth verse it is said of the house of Pharaoh mā kānū munẓarīn — no waiting time was granted them.

Both roots lie in the field of waiting, and they work in two separate directions: the one describes the man who waits, the other the man who is not made to wait.

I present this as my own reading; the wording and the meaning of the two roots are verifiable, but to establish a relation between them is my interpretation.

And the pattern of the sentence: mā kānū munẓarīn — kāna + a passive participle, negated. The same pattern as innā kunnā mundhirīn in the third verse. The sūra gave the attribute of warning with kāna; it gives the withholding of respite with the same pattern.