5. Sūrat al-Māʾida

One hundred and twenty verses. Medinan; and according to the transmitted reports it came down in the late part of the Medinan period, largely in the final years. The content of the sūra supports this finding: what stands before it is not a community in the making but a community already made. The road to al-Masjid al-Ḥarām is no longer closed (5/2), the order of pilgrimage and of the state of consecration is in operation (5/1-2, 5/94-97), treaties made with the surrounding communities and treaties broken by them have formed a past (5/12-14, 5/13), judicial matters are brought to the Prophet (5/42-43), and details that could only reach the agenda of a settled legal order — such as the bequest of a man who dies while travelling — are being regulated (5/106-108).

Its name comes from the word مَآئِدَة (māʾida), which occurs twice in the scene of verses 112-115: a table with food on it.

On the measure of the root the lexicographers divide in two, and I transmit both; I do not impose a preference:

The first branch of meaning has come up before in this collection: an tamīda bikum — "lest it sway with you" (al-Naḥl 16/15; Luqmān 31/10; al-Anbiyāʾ 21/31). The root was treated in al-Naḥl, al-Anbiyāʾ and Luqmān in the context of the function of the mountains; I rely on that treatment.

The second branch of meaning is worth recording: if māʾida means "the giver", then the word names not a passive object but a subject that bestows. The name of the table is not the name of the food on it but the name of the hand that gives.

And this is exactly what is asked for in the last section of the sūra: a table sent down from heaven. Those who ask for it ask for it as food; the condition on which it is given is laid down as a responsibility (5/115).

The first command of this sūra is a command about agreements, and the same thread is carried the whole way through.

The sūra opens thus: يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَوْفُوا۟ بِٱلْعُقُودِ — "O you who believe! Fulfil the contracts."

And the word mīthāq (a firm undertaking, a covenant) returns again and again in the sūra. The thread, in a form that can be followed, is this:

The side of this structure that needs recording: the sūra opens with a command about contracts, in its middle recounts what became of the contracts of the past, and in the eighty-ninth verse turns by way of the same root (ع-ق-د) to the hearer's own oath. That is, the history being recounted is made into a matter that belongs to the listener.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the words themselves and where they stand. The sūra uses this material not in order to recount the past of a community but in order to show what it is to give one's word.

And a note on method arises from this — the note this whole section obeys from beginning to end: the expressions "the Children of Israel", "naṣārā" and "yahūd" that occur in the sūra will nowhere in this section be read as a blanket verdict about a community. The reason is the text itself: the verses are either tied to a condition (la-in aqamtumu'ṣ-ṣalāta…, 5/12), or tied to an act (fa-bimā naqḍihim, 5/13), or they speak by explicitly dividing (minhum, farīqun minhum, kathīrun minhum, ummatun muqtaṣida). This is what the rule laid down in Method — "no blanket verdict is issued about an ethnic or religious group; what the verse describes are attributes" — comes to in this sūra, and it follows from the text itself.

The sūra consists of nine blocks. The block boundaries are marked by shifts of address and by the calls yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū — a call that occurs more often in al-Māʾida than in any other sūra of the Qurʾān.

Three things in the structure are striking, and all three can be verified from the text:

1. The sūra opens with the lawful and the forbidden (1-5), continues with the lawful and the forbidden (87-96), and closes with a table sent down from heaven (112-115). That is, there is a food line running from beginning to end, and that line ends at the very place that gives the sūra its name. 2. The command to be just comes twice, in almost the same sentence: 5/2 and 5/8. The five verses between them are held by these two commands like a frame. 3. The block on judging (41-50) stands at the exact centre of the sūra, and this block ties the section before it, on undertakings broken, to the section after it, on whom one stands beside.

I record all three as my own reading; the ground is where the verses stand and the repetition of the words.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū awfū bi'l-ʿuqūd · Uḥillat lakum bahīmatu'l-anʿāmi illā mā yutlā ʿalaykum ghayra muḥilli'ṣ-ṣaydi wa antum ḥurum · Inna'llāha yaḥkumu mā yurīd

"O you who believe! Fulfil the contracts. Livestock animals have been made lawful to you, apart from those that will be recited to you, on condition that you do not hold hunting lawful while you are in the state of consecration. God judges as He wills."

This is the only sūra in the Qurʾān that opens with the address yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū. And the first command that follows the address is not an act of worship but an agreement.

This is an order worth recording. The sūra opens not with a profession of belief, not with a call to worship, not with good news or a warning; it opens with the command that the word given be kept.

The root was treated in al-Fatḥ at 48/10, and what was recorded there was this: wafāʾ — completing; īfāʾ — paying in full; wafāt — the completion of a lifetime. In Form IV (awfā) the sense is intensified: to carry out entirely. I rely on that treatment; I do not repeat it here.

The only addition that belongs here is this: at the centre of the root stands completeness. The command therefore does not mean "comply with the contracts" but "fulfil the contracts entirely". On the logic of the word itself, keeping part of one's word counts as not having kept it.

The root was analysed in al-Falaq (an-naffāthāti fi'l-ʿuqad). The summary recorded there: the concrete sense is to tie a knot, to bind two ends to one another; ʿuqda — a knot, plural ʿuqad; ʿaqīda — that to which the heart binds itself; iʿtiqād — being knotted to something. I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this: ʿuqūd is the plural of ʿaqd, and ʿaqd stands one step beyond ʿuqda:

And the word's coming in the definite plural (al-ʿuqūd) raises a question of scope: which contracts? The classical commentaries give different answers to this question, and the disagreement is not to be concealed:

I do not impose a preference. But this much can be recorded: the rest of the sūra contains both kinds — the undertaking given to God (5/7), the treaties made with communities (5/12-14), oaths (5/89), bequest and witness (5/106). That is, the text itself makes it hard to narrow the scope.

The Turkish words "akit", "akde", "akit yapmak", "münakit" come from this root; and the Latin origin of "contract" — contractus (to draw together, to draw tight) — gives the same picture: two ends drawn towards one another.

بَهِيمَة — root ب-ه-م: to be closed, indistinct, unintelligible. Mubham — vague, not open (the Turkish "mübhem" is used in the same sense). Bahīma — a dumb animal; it takes this name because it does not speak, because it cannot make its meaning plain.

That is: in Arabic the word for "animal" is derived not from something the animal does but from something it cannot do: get its voice out.

أَنْعَٰم — root ن-ع-م: softness, ease, favour. Anʿām — domestic animals of the camel, cattle and sheep-and-goat kind. That the root comes from the same place as "favour" (niʿma) shows that these animals are named as an ease granted to man.

The construction is a genitive: bahīmatu'l-anʿām — "the beast of the livestock". Two explanations of this are given in the classical commentaries: (a) the construction is for clarification, "that is, the animals which are livestock"; (b) the construction is for specification, and it also takes in wild species resembling livestock. I transmit both; no preference is adopted.

The sentence lays down an exception but does not give the content of the exception: "apart from those that will be recited to you". The content will come two verses later, at 5/3.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the ruling is given first in general terms, its exception is left suspended, and then it is set out in detail. That the verb is imperfect and passive (yutlā — "which is being recited / which will be recited") builds this suspension out of the language itself.

صَيْد — root ص-ي-د: to hunt; and the thing hunted itself. The word is analysed here for the first time in this collection. The root conveys pursuing something and taking hold of it; ṣayyād — hunter. From the same root مِصْيَدَة (a snare).

حُرُم — from the root ح-ر-م, the plural of ḥarām; here in the sense of "those in the state of consecration". The root was treated in al-Ḥajj and al-Mumtaḥana: the primary sense is a thing's being made inviolable, being closed off from access. I rely on that treatment.

And the usage here shows the logic of the root very well: the consecrated person is himself called "ḥarām". That is, the person himself is held to have become inviolable — both untouchable himself, and, through his hand, making his surroundings untouchable. The prohibition on hunting comes out of the name of the state the person is in.

In this section the legal detail of consecration, hunting and their penalties is not entered into; the subject will return at 5/94-96, and the same limit will be kept there as well.

The closing of the verse identifies the source of the rulings. And the position of the sentence is meaningful: it comes immediately after a list of lawful things has been given.

The root ح-ك-م has been treated in many places in this collection (al-Baqara, al-Ḥujurāt, al-Shūrā). The summary recorded there holds here too: the concrete sense of the root attaches to the bit that turns an animal's head (ḥakama) — that is, to restraining, to reining in. A ruling is what prevents things from breaking down.

The root will be used with extreme density in this sūra — the block between 41 and 50 is built from beginning to end around it. The sūra opens by ascribing the act of judging to God in the last sentence of its very first verse.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū lā tuḥillū shaʿāʾira'llāhi wa la'sh-shahra'l-ḥarāma wa la'l-hadya wa la'l-qalāʾida wa lā āmmīna'l-bayta'l-ḥarāma yabtaghūna faḍlan min rabbihim wa riḍwānā · Wa idhā ḥalaltum fa'ṣṭādū · Wa lā yajrimannakum shanaʾānu qawmin an ṣaddūkum ʿani'l-Masjidi'l-Ḥarāmi an taʿtadū · Wa taʿāwanū ʿala'l-birri wa't-taqwā wa lā taʿāwanū ʿala'l-ithmi wa'l-ʿudwān · Wa'ttaqu'llāh · Inna'llāha shadīdu'l-ʿiqāb

"O you who believe! Do not profane the signs of God, nor the sacred month, nor the offering, nor the garlanded offerings, nor those making for the Sacred House, seeking bounty and good pleasure from their Lord. When you leave the state of consecration you may hunt. And let the hatred of a people, because they barred you from al-Masjid al-Ḥarām, never drive you into transgression. Help one another to goodness and mindfulness of God; do not help one another to sin and enmity. Be mindful of God; God is severe in punishment."

Root ش-ع-ر: to become aware of something by fine degrees, to sense. Shiʿr (poetry) — the speech that says what is finely sensed; shāʿir — the one who senses. Shaʿr (hair) — from its fineness. Shuʿūr — awareness.

شَعِيرَة / شَعَائِر — this branch of the root gives "sign, mark, token": an indication that makes one notice that something is there. The places and acts belonging to the pilgrimage are named in the Qurʾān with this word — of Ṣafā and Marwa it says min shaʿāʾiri'llāh (al-Baqara 2/158), and of the offerings likewise (al-Ḥajj 22/36).

That is, "shaʿāʾir" does not mean "sacred objects"; they are marks that remind, that make one notice. The word looks not at the object itself but at the function of pointing.

لَا تُحِلُّوا۟ — Form IV of the root ح-ل-ل: "do not hold lawful", that is, do not lift their inviolability. The root was treated in al-Baqara at 2/168: lawful — that whose knot has been untied; forbidden — that which has been tied, made inviolable. I rely on that treatment.

هَدْى — root ه-د-ي. The same root gives the word for guidance; here it means an offering driven to the Sanctuary. The link is plain: hady is what is led there. A gift (hadiyya) is from the same root — a thing led towards someone.

قَلَٰٓئِد — the plural of qilāda (necklace); root ق-ل-د: to wind about the neck, to turn. A mark showing that it was going to the Sanctuary used to be hung on the necks of the sacrificial animals. The Turkish words "kalade", "taklit" (following someone as though winding his trace about one's neck) and "mukallit" are from the same root.

Setting these two words side by side shows an order: the animal itself (hady) and the mark upon the animal (qalāʾid) are named separately. The mark itself is taken into the scope of inviolability.

The list begins with material objects, then moves to a unit of time (ash-shahru'l-ḥarām), and finally arrives at people: āmmīna'l-bayta'l-ḥarām — "those making for the Sacred House".

آمِّين — root أ-م-م: to turn towards a direction, to intend. From the same root imām (the one in front, the one turned towards), umma (a community turned in the same direction), umm (mother — the one returned to).

And the verse also writes down the intention of those people: yabtaghūna faḍlan min rabbihim wa riḍwānā. This qualification matters: inviolability is tied not to a person's membership but to what he is turned towards.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the list: the list rises from object to time, from time to person. What is placed last is the weightiest.

This is one of the sentences of this sūra most worth repeating, and six verses later it will come again, slightly altered (5/8).

شَنَـَٔان — root ش-ن-أ. The root was treated in al-Kawthar, and what was recorded there was this:

Shanaʾān: rancour, loathing, hatred, having no liking for someone. Shāniʾ — the active participle: one who harbours rancour. The word does not mean merely "enemy"; there is an emotional charge inside it. Enmity states a position; shanaʾān is an inward state.

I rely on that treatment and add what belongs here. The observation recorded in the section on al-Kawthar was this: the Qurʾān uses the same root in one place to describe the rancour felt towards us, and in another place to forbid the rancour felt by us. This is the place of that second use.

The pattern of the word should be recorded as well. Shanaʾān is a verbal noun on the pattern فَعَلَان, and in Arabic this pattern conveys movement and seething: ghalayān (boiling), dawarān (turning), ḥayarān (wandering in bewilderment). That is, the word does not describe a settled feeling but a state that stirs inside a person and pushes him. It is also transmitted that in one reading the word is read shanʾān (with a vowelless middle); I name no authority, because I cannot give one with certainty. On that reading the verbal noun leaves the pattern of movement and the sense is fixed as "rancour".

لَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ — root ج-ر-م. The root is analysed here for the first time in this collection.

The concrete sense of the root is to cut, to pluck off — in particular to gather fruit from a tree. Jarama'n-nakhla: he gathered the dates. Jarīm — that which has been cut, plucked off.

Two branches come out of this:

The Turkish words "cürüm", "cerime", "mücrim" come from this root.

There is a classical disagreement about the sense of the verb here, and it is not to be concealed:

I do not impose a preference. What the three share is this: rancour is spoken of as though it were an agent. The subject of the sentence is not the person but rancour itself. That is, if a person does not govern his rancour, his rancour governs him.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the case structure of the sentence: shanaʾānu qawmin is the subject, kum is the object. The person here is the object.

The verse writes down the cause of the rancour as well: "because they barred you from al-Masjid al-Ḥarām."

This is an unusual thing to record. In laying down a prohibition, it is granted that the feeling the prohibition is set against has a justified cause. The verse does not say "harbour no rancour without cause"; it counts the cause, and holds the limit even so.

A difference in the reading of the word is transmitted: an ṣaddūkum (with fatḥa — "because they barred you", looking to the past) and in ṣaddūkum (with kasra — "if they bar you", stating a condition). I record it because the two readings change the sense; I name no authority.

The difference in sense is this: on the first, the prohibition looks to a past; on the second, to a future. And when the two are joined the rule that emerges is the same: neither what has happened nor what may happen can be a ground for breaking justice.

The root ع-د-و was treated in al-Mumtaḥana and al-Kahf: to go past something, to pass over it. ʿAduww (enemy) — the one who crosses the limit. Iʿtidāʾ (Form VIII) — going beyond the bound.

And the difference between the root ع-د-و here and the root ع-د-ل at 5/8 will be seen when the verses are compared.

The root ع-و-ن was treated in al-Anbiyāʾ in the context of mustaʿān and in al-Fātiḥa in the context of nastaʿīn: ʿawn — help. I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is the pattern: تَعَاوُن, Form VI (تَفَاعُل).

In Arabic Form VI conveys reciprocity — an act two or more parties do to one another: taqātala (they fought one another), takātaba (they corresponded), taʿāhada (they gave one another their word), tabādala (they exchanged).

That is, the command is not "help" but "help one another". The pattern itself commands not a one-way benevolence but a reciprocal order.

And the same pattern is used on the negative side too: wa lā taʿāwanū ʿala'l-ithmi wa'l-ʿudwān. This makes a subtlety of the pattern visible:

The same verb, the same pattern, two opposite subjects. And what is being said is this: mutual help is a neutral instrument; its worth is settled by its subject. Evil, exactly like good, grows by being organised.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the twofold use of the same verb: the verse does not say "do not do evil" — it says that elsewhere already. What it says here is something else: do not take part in evil, do not build its infrastructure. The distance between the one who does the deed and the one who makes the deed possible is removed.

بِرّ — root ب-ر-ر: breadth, openness. Barr — dry land, open country (the opposite of the sea). Birr — goodness done broadly. The word was treated in detail in al-Baqara at 2/177; I rely on that treatment.

إِثْم — root أ-ث-م: to leave behind, to lag. Ithm — what holds a person back from good. I note that the word will occur again in this sūra: 5/3 (ghayra mutajānifin li-ithm), 5/62-63, 5/90-91.

Ḥurrimat ʿalaykumu'l-maytatu wa'd-damu wa laḥmu'l-khinzīri wa mā uhilla li-ghayri'llāhi bihī wa'l-munkhaniqatu wa'l-mawqūdhatu wa'l-mutaraddiyatu wa'n-naṭīḥatu wa mā akala's-sabuʿu illā mā dhakkaytum wa mā dhubiḥa ʿala'n-nuṣubi wa an tastaqsimū bi'l-azlām · Dhālikum fisq · Al-yawma yaʾisa'lladhīna kafarū min dīnikum fa-lā takhshawhum wa'khshawn · Al-yawma akmaltu lakum dīnakum wa atmamtu ʿalaykum niʿmatī wa raḍītu lakumu'l-Islāma dīnā · Fa-mani'ḍṭurra fī makhmaṣatin ghayra mutajānifin li-ithmin fa-inna'llāha ghafūrun raḥīm

"These are forbidden to you: carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, what has been offered up to other than God, the strangled, the beaten, the fallen, the gored and what a predator has eaten — except what you have slaughtered — and what has been slaughtered on the standing stones; and that you seek your portion by divining arrows. These are a departure from the way. Today those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion; so do not fear them, fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and completed My favour upon you, and I have approved Islam for you as a religion. But whoever is driven by hunger to necessity — without inclining to sin — God is forgiving and merciful."

This verse is a verse of law, and per the method (Method) no legal ruling will be issued here. What will be done is this: the lexical sense of every word in the list will be given, the structure of the list will be shown, and the verse's own qualifications will be brought forward. What may or may not be eaten in which circumstance, the conditions of slaughter, the detailed positions of the schools of law and contemporary applications are not the subject of this section and are not settled here.

The list is not of one kind; it consists of three layers, and the layers rest on different measures.

The four-item form of this same list was given at al-Baqara 2/173, and it was recorded there that the first three items look to the object and the fourth to intention and declaration. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

What al-Māʾida adds is this: a layer of "the manner of death" comes into the middle. In al-Baqara there was only al-mayta (carrion); here five distinct states of carrion are counted one by one.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the comparison of the two lists: the list in al-Baqara is a list of principle, the list in al-Māʾida a list of application. Once the principle has been laid down, the forms in which it is met in actual life are enumerated. This also fits the sūra's having come down in the late period.

مَيْتَة — root م-و-ت. Mayta is an animal that dies of itself, without being slaughtered. The pattern of the word is فَعْلَة: it states a single state, a single occurrence.

دَم — root د-م-ي. Blood. It was recorded in the section on al-Baqara: at al-Anʿām 6/145 the same item occurs with the qualification masfūḥan — "poured forth". I do not go into the legal consequences of that qualification.

خِنزِير. Most lexicographers count the word a noun standing on its own (jāmid); there is no agreed view on deriving it from a root. I make no claim about a root.

مُنْخَنِقَة — root خ-ن-ق: to squeeze the throat, to cut off the breath. The active participle of Form VII (infiʿāl): the one that has been strangled. The word covers an animal caught in a yoke, tangled in a rope, or throttled.

مَوْقُوذَة — root و-ق-ذ: to kill by striking with a stick, a stone, some heavy object. A passive participle: killed by being struck. The lexicographers record that the word is proper to a killing done with a non-cutting instrument.

مُتَرَدِّيَة — root ر-د-ي: to fall from a height, to tumble; and to perish. The active participle of Form V: the one that has died by falling. From the same root come tardī (tumbling) and ardā (he destroyed) — which occurs in the Qurʾān as fa-ardākum (Fuṣṣilat 41/23).

نَطِيحَة — root ن-ط-ح: to strike with the horn, to butt. The pattern is فَعِيلَة, but its sense is passive: manṭūḥa — the one that has been gored. In Arabic it is common for the pattern فَعِيل to carry a passive sense (qatīl — slain; jarīḥ — wounded).

مَا أَكَلَ ٱلسَّبُعُ — "what a predator has eaten". سَبُع — root س-ب-ع: a beast of prey. Note: the same letters also give the word sabʿ (seven); I make no claim of a derivational link between the two words, and the lexicographers have no agreed view on the matter.

إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ — the exception. The root ذ-ك-و/ذ-ك-ي: the kindling of a flame, sharpening, being brought to completion. Dhakāʾ (keenness of mind) is from the same root. Tadhkiya — here, slaughter.

A confusion needs correcting: ذ-ك-و and ز-ك-و are separate roots.

Because the two roots are pronounced alike in Turkish (both "tezkiye"), they are confused. The one that has to do with slaughter is the first. Between zakāt and the tadhkiya of slaughter there is no link of root.

The scope of the exception — that is, which items "catching it alive and slaughtering it" returns to — is a classical disagreement. I know the disagreement and record it, but I do not settle it; that is the subject of the literature of law.

نُصُب — root ن-ص-ب: to set up, to make stand upright. The root was treated in Ṣād, al-Ghāshiya and al-Shūrā. Nuṣub — a standing stone: the stones around which sacrifice was made. The word describes not an idol's statue but a marker stone that has been set up.

There is a distinction to be noticed, and the verse makes it in its own words: the fourth item is mā uhilla li-ghayri'llāhi bihī — slaughtered in the name of other than God; this item is mā dhubiḥa ʿala'n-nuṣub — slaughtered on/beside the standing stones. The one looks to the utterance, the other to the place.

أَزْلَٰم — root ز-ل-م: to whittle, to trim. Zalam — an arrow or rod with writing on it and its ends whittled; plural azlām.

تَسْتَقْسِمُوا۟ — root ق-س-م, Form X (istifʿāl). Qism — a portion; qisma — apportioning; qasam — an oath (which in origin has to do with dividing into portions). Form X conveys "seeking": istiqsām — to seek a portion, to ask after one's share.

That is, the expression is not "to practise divination" but, on the logic of the word itself, "to ask after one's portion". In a matter before him, a person is asking these rods what falls to him. That the verb comes in Form X shows that the business is set up as a procedure of question and answer.

And this item is separated in kind from the rest of the list: the earlier ones are about food, while this one is about a method of deciding. The reason it enters the list is that it was used in the same setting — in dividing up sacrificial meat.

ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ — the closing. The root ف-س-ق was treated in al-Baqara, al-Ḥujurāt and al-Nūr: a date's coming out of its skin, bursting out. I rely on that treatment. The word describes a "going out of the way", an overflowing beyond the skin.

And the demonstrative dhālikum is addressed to a plural; whether it returns to the nearest item or to the whole list is a classical disagreement. No preference is adopted.

In the middle of the list the language of ruling breaks off and a wholly different sentence comes. This is the most striking side of the verse:

That is, the sentence cuts the list in two, and then the list carries on from where it left off. The classical commentaries dwell on this placement and give various explanations; I present none of them as certain knowledge.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the verse's own arrangement: that "I have perfected your religion for you" is said in the middle of a list of the lawful and the forbidden gives a clue about the sense in which "religion" is being used here. Had dīn covered only the articles of belief, the placement of the sentence would be strange. The sentence's being set inside a list of rulings shows that the word dīn takes in the order that is lived as well.

يَئِسَ — root ي-أ-س: to lose hope. The word marks the moment expectation ends.

The structure of the sentence matters: the despair is written down as theirs, the fear as yours. Fa-lā takhshawhum wa'khshawn — "do not fear them, fear Me."

The root خ-ش-ي was treated in al-Mulk and Fāṭir: a fear grounded in knowledge and mixed with awe — the wariness that arises from knowing how great its object is. I rely on that treatment.

A point of word order: in the sentence the direction of fear is changed; fear itself is not removed. This is a structure the Qurʾān uses often: a feeling is not forbidden, its address is changed. It was recorded at al-Baqara 2/148 that the same operation is applied to the feeling of competition — racing is not forbidden, its object is changed. I rely on that treatment.

In the classical commentaries the phrase min dīnikum has two readings:

I do not impose a preference; both readings follow from the language of the sentence.

All three verbs are in the first person singular, and all three are in the perfect. This is the most striking side of the sentence: the matter is announced as finished.

The difference between كَمَال and تَمَام is a distinction the lexicographers record, and I transmit it noting that there is no complete agreement:

And the verse gives the two verbs different objects; this is no coincidence:

• Ikmāl → dīnakum (your religion) — quality
• Itmām → niʿmatī (My favour) — quantity

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the objects of the verbs. For religion the verb of "wholeness" is chosen; for favour, the verb of "nothing lacking".

The prepositions differ too: religion comes with lakum (for you), favour with ʿalaykum (upon you). The one is in your favour, the other upon you. Favour is like something laid upon a person; religion is for the person, to the person's benefit.

رَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلْإِسْلَٰمَ دِينًا. The root ر-ض-و was treated in al-Fatḥ (riḍwān); I rely on that treatment. The word conveys a wholehearted approval.

The case structure of the sentence: al-Islām is the object, dīnan a specifier/circumstantial — "I have approved Islam for you, as a religion". The root س-ل-م was treated in al-Baqara at 2/131 (aslim / aslamtu): the primary sense of the root is soundness, freedom from flaw, a thing's being handed over whole. I rely on that treatment.

There is more than one explanation of this sentence in the classical commentaries. I transmit them all as reports; I make no historical claim and impose no preference.

Each of these explanations holds one side of the verse, and they do not exclude one another.

This needs recording plainly: I draw no historical conclusion from the sentence such as "no verse came down after this" or "this is the last verse of the Qurʾān". There are reports in the sources about the time of the verse's revelation — it is widely reported that it came down in a pilgrimage season, at ʿArafa, and on a Friday — but these are transmitted reports, and no historical claim has been built on them in this section. Moreover, the question of "the last verse to come down" is in itself a whole field of disagreement in the classical sources. I do not settle it.

And this too should be recorded: the sentence does not say "the religion is finished", it says "I have perfected it". The two are not the same. A thing's being completed does not mean that understanding it, applying it and reflecting on it are finished. What is completed is the text itself; the reading goes on. I record this as my own reading.

This pattern was treated in detail in al-Baqara at 2/173, and what was recorded there was this:

ٱضْطُرَّ — root ض-ر-ر, Form VIII and passive: uḍṭurra — "he was compelled". The passive matters: the person does not put himself into the state of compulsion; the compulsion comes upon him. And in the phrase fa-lā ithma ʿalayh the ruling is not lifted, the culpability is lifted.

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here. What belongs here is al-Māʾida's two alterations:

مَخْمَصَة — root خ-م-ص: the belly's sinking in, growing thin. Akhmaṣ / khamīṣu'l-baṭn — hollow-bellied, hungry. That is, in Arabic the word for hunger is derived from the mark hunger leaves on the body: the caving in of the belly.

The consequence of this observation: the subject of the dispensation is not a passing wish but a hunger that has become visible in the body. The word itself sets a threshold.

مُتَجَانِف — root ج-ن-ف: to lean to one side, to incline; and from there to swerve from what is right. Janaf — crookedness. The Qurʾān uses the root in the context of bequests as well: fa-man khāfa min mūṣin janafan (al-Baqara 2/182) — "one who fears a swerving from what is right on the part of a testator".

The pattern is Form VI (tafāʿul), and this should be recorded. Form VI, as we saw at 5/2 in taʿāwun, mostly conveys reciprocity; but it has a second function as well: making a show of a state in oneself, letting oneself go towards it (tanāwama — to feign sleep; tajāhala — to feign ignorance). Here this second sense is at work: mutajānif — one who lets himself go towards crookedness.

So the qualification is this: the dispensation is open to one who is genuinely without recourse; not to one who takes the dispensation as a pretext and lets himself go that way.

And the qualifications of the two verses complete one another: in al-Baqara the measure of the dispensation (quantity and duration) was limited; in al-Māʾida its intention is limited. I record this as my own reading.

The closing attributes are the same as well: ghafūr and raḥīm. The observation recorded in the section on al-Baqara holds here too: that the sentence following a prohibition ends with the attributes of pardon rather than of punishment says what the dispensation is.

Yasʾalūnaka mādhā uḥilla lahum · Qul uḥilla lakumu'ṭ-ṭayyibātu wa mā ʿallamtum mina'l-jawāriḥi mukallibīna tuʿallimūnahunna mimmā ʿallamakumu'llāh · Fa-kulū mimmā amsakna ʿalaykum wa'dhkuru'sma'llāhi ʿalayh · Wa'ttaqu'llāh · Inna'llāha sarīʿu'l-ḥisāb

"They ask you what has been made lawful to them. Say: the good things have been made lawful to you. And what you have trained the birds and beasts of prey to catch, teaching them out of what God has taught you — so eat of what they hold for you, and pronounce God's name over it. Be mindful of God; God is swift in reckoning."

The verse opens with a question and is answered with qul (say). It was recorded at al-Baqara 2/186 that when a question is asked in the Qurʾān the pattern is almost always "they ask you about…; say". This verse is one of the instances of that pattern.

And the first word of the answer widens the question. The question was put narrowly, "what has been made lawful"; instead of enumerating one by one, the answer gives a measure: al-ṭayyibāt.

The root ط-ي-ب was treated in al-Nūr at 24/26 and in al-Baqara at 2/168: pleasant, clean, good in its own substance. I rely on that treatment.

I record this as my own reading: the preceding verse had given a long list of prohibitions; this verse gives not a list but a measure. When the two stand one after the other the structure that emerges is this: what is forbidden is countable and limited, while the open field is uncountable and wide.

The concrete sense of the root: to wound, to open a wound. Jurḥ — a wound; jarrāḥ — one who opens or mends a wound (the Turkish "cerrah", "cerrahi" — surgeon, surgical — are from this root).

The second branch of the root is interesting and is recorded by the lexicographers: jaraḥa — to earn, to acquire. The Qurʾān uses this sense too: wa yaʿlamu mā jaraḥtum bi'n-nahār (al-Anʿām 6/60) — "and He knows what you have earned by day."

These two branches come out of one picture: the hand reaches for a thing and tears it off / wounds it — and this is at once wounding and earning. See: the root ج-ر-م treated at 5/2 had exactly this logic — to pluck off and to earn. The two roots are independent of each other but share the same image.

From the same root jawāriḥ is used of a person's limbs as well — because the limbs are the parts of a person that "earn". Here, however, what is meant is the animals of prey (birds of prey and four-footed beasts): those that catch by wounding.

كَلْب — dog. The active participle of Form II, mukallib: one who trains dogs, who raises hunting animals.

The pattern of the word deserves attention: Form II (tafʿīl) conveys repetition and continuity. That is, the trainer is not a person who teaches once but one who teaches again and again. The word describes an expertise.

This sentence is the most striking place in the verse, and in language it builds a chain:

And the same verb (ع-ل-م, Form II) is used at both links. The sentence shows the source of what man teaches the animal: mimmā ʿallamakumu'llāh — "out of what God has taught you."

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the repetition of the verb: in a very everyday matter — training a hunting dog — the reader is reminded where knowledge comes from. Skill is named not as man's own invention but as the continuation of something handed on.

And the particle min is partitive (conveying a part of something): "out of part of what He has taught". Man can pass on not the whole of what has been taught him but a part. The chain narrows at every link.

أَمْسَكْنَ — root م-س-ك: to hold, not to let go. And the qualification ʿalaykum matters: "what they hold for you". That is, the animal holds it not for itself but for its owner.

The legal debates around this qualification — the conditions for counting an animal trained, the animal's eating from the catch, the use of arrows and instruments — are not entered into. These are the subject of the literature of law and are not settled here.

وَٱذْكُرُوا۟ ٱسْمَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ — and the measure treated at 5/3 is repeated here: what is decisive is the name pronounced.

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ سَرِيعُ ٱلْحِسَابِ — the closing. The word is a reminder of the reckoning placed at the end of an everyday matter such as hunting and food. It will be seen throughout the sūra that the sections of ruling close in this way.

Al-yawma uḥilla lakumu'ṭ-ṭayyibāt · Wa ṭaʿāmu'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba ḥillun lakum wa ṭaʿāmukum ḥillun lahum · Wa'l-muḥṣanātu mina'l-muʾmināti wa'l-muḥṣanātu mina'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba min qablikum idhā ātaytumūhunna ujūrahunna muḥṣinīna ghayra musāfiḥīna wa lā muttakhidhī akhdān · Wa man yakfur bi'l-īmāni fa-qad ḥabiṭa ʿamaluh wa huwa fi'l-ākhirati mina'l-khāsirīn

"Today the good things have been made lawful to you. The food of those who were given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And chaste women among the believers, and chaste women among those who were given the Book before you — provided you give them their bridal dues, in chastity, not in fornication, and not taking secret lovers — are lawful to you. And whoever denies the faith, his work has come to nothing, and in the hereafter he is among the losers."

This verse is the source of one of the most intensively debated areas of the classical literature of law. Per the method (Method) no legal ruling is issued here. What will be done is to give the linguistic side of the words, to show the verse's own qualifications, and to transmit the disagreement in a neutral table. None of the tables below is this text's preference, and none of them is binding.

The sentence about food is built in two directions, and this is worth recording as a matter of word order:

Wa ṭaʿāmu'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba ḥillun lakum · wa ṭaʿāmukum ḥillun lahum

The same predicate, twice, with its direction reversed. The same word order was treated at al-Baqara 2/187 (hunna libāsun lakum wa antum libāsun lahunn): the repetition of a sentence with its direction reversed shows that no one-way superiority is being established between the parties. I rely on that treatment.

The function of this word order here is this: the relation of the table is announced not as a permission but as a reciprocal state.

The root ط-ع-م was treated in al-Insān and al-Balad: to taste, to eat. Ṭaʿām — food.

The scope of the word here is a classical disagreement:

I do not impose a preference. This table is a transmission of information and is not binding. The legal detail of the matter — the conditions of slaughter, who does the slaughtering, what holds in which case — is not the subject of this section and is not settled here.

The concrete sense of the root: to be protected, to be made secure. Ḥiṣn — a fortress; plural ḥuṣūn — the word was treated in al-Ḥashr at 59/2 (ḥuṣūnihim). Ḥaṣān — protected. The Turkish "hisar", "muhasara", "tahassun" are from this root.

That is, the picture the word gives is of one who has a fortress, who is protected. And from here three distinct usages arise; the sense of the word here is a classical matter of disagreement:

In al-Nūr at 24/4 the views on the scope of this same word were recorded, and no preference was adopted there either. Here too no preference is adopted.

A note on the variant readings: it is transmitted that the word is read muḥṣanāt (with fatḥa — the one who has been protected) and muḥṣināt (with kasra — the one who protects herself). I name no authority. The difference is whether the protecting is passive or active.

In giving the permission the verse enters three qualifications, and these are often passed over. In the text they stand side by side:

And the coming together of the second and the third qualifications carries a point:

مُسَٰفِح — root س-ف-ح: to pour out, to spill (of water or of blood). Sifāḥ — from this root, relations outside marriage. The picture the word gives is of an open and prodigal pouring out.

أَخْدَان — the plural of khidn; root خ-د-ن: a close companion, an intimate. The word covers the hidden relationship.

That is, the verse closes both doors: neither the public nor the hidden. And the one thing it sets against them is a word whose root is "fortress": muḥṣinīn. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the placing of the three words side by side.

أُجُور — the plural of ajr: a return, a wage. What is meant here is the bridal gift. That the word is "wage" shows the payment to be not a favour but a right.

The same field was treated at al-Baqara 2/221, and what was recorded there was this:

The ground of the verse is given openly at its end, and the ground is about the direction of the call: ulāʾika yadʿūna ila'n-nār. The verse issues no blanket verdict about a lineage, a people or a community; it speaks by way of an attribute.

I rely on that treatment. The relation between the two verses is one of the most debated matters in classical exegesis, and I transmit the disagreement as it stands:

I impose no preference and draw no ruling from this table. It is not binding.

Two points need recording besides:

1. The verse is one-directional. The address is made to men and only one direction is spoken of. On the reverse direction there is no explicit statement in this verse; that matter has been debated in the literature of law on the basis of other evidence, and it is not settled here.

2. The verse is not a recommendation but a statement of a limit. That something is permitted does not mean that it is preferred; the measure at al-Baqara 2/221 ("the direction of the call") is a separate measure and has not been lifted. It is widely recorded in the classical commentaries that this permission, though given, was not encouraged. I transmit this as a report.

The closing of the verse says that all these permissions rest on a ground.

The construction is striking: yakfur bi'l-īmān — "to cover over the faith". The primary sense of the root ك-ف-ر is to cover, and it has been treated in many places in this collection (al-Kāfirūn, Ibrāhīm, al-Shūrā). That what is covered here is named "faith" is interesting: one usually says "denial of God"; here faith itself is set as the object that is covered.

حَبِطَ — root ح-ب-ط: the concrete sense the lexicographers record is very vivid: an animal's eating a harmful plant so that its belly swells, and the swelling destroys it. That is, ḥubūṭ is fullness seen from outside and corruption from within. The word chosen for a deed's "coming to nothing" carries the picture not of emptiness but of a wrong fullness.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū idhā qumtum ila'ṣ-ṣalāti fa'ghsilū wujūhakum wa aydiyakum ila'l-marāfiqi wa'msaḥū bi-ruʾūsikum wa arjulakum ila'l-kaʿbayn · Wa in kuntum junuban fa'ṭṭahharū · Wa in kuntum marḍā aw ʿalā safarin aw jāʾa aḥadun minkum mina'l-ghāʾiṭi aw lāmastumu'n-nisāʾa fa-lam tajidū māʾan fa-tayammamū ṣaʿīdan ṭayyiban fa'msaḥū bi-wujūhikum wa aydīkum minh · Mā yurīdu'llāhu li-yajʿala ʿalaykum min ḥarajin wa lākin yurīdu li-yuṭahhirakum wa li-yutimma niʿmatahū ʿalaykum laʿallakum tashkurūn

"O you who believe! When you rise for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows; wipe your heads, and your feet up to the ankles. If you are in a state of major impurity, purify yourselves thoroughly. If you are ill or on a journey, or one of you has come from relieving himself, or you have touched women, and you find no water, then turn to clean ground; wipe your faces and your hands with it. God does not want to put hardship upon you; He wants to purify you and to complete His favour upon you — that you may be thankful."

This verse is the principal source of the rulings on ablution, on washing after major impurity and on ablution with earth, and it is one of the verses that has generated the most detail among the schools of law. Per the method (Method) this section does not enter into legal detail or into the debate among the schools. The linguistic side of the words will be given, and the sentence of reasoning at the end of the verse will be brought forward — because that is the subject of this section.

غَسْل — root غ-س-ل: to cleanse by making water run over something. مَسْح — root م-س-ح: to pass the hand over something, to stroke. The difference between the two verbs is whether or not water is made to flow, and the verse uses the two verbs separately.

مَرَافِق — the plural of mirfaq; root ر-ف-ق: softness, ease, companionship. Rifq — gentleness; rafīq — a travelling companion; mirfaq — both the elbow and "what provides ease" (it occurs in the Qurʾān in this sense too, as mirfaqan, al-Kahf 18/16).

That the elbow is named from this root is striking: the elbow is the place where the arm bends easily. The word comes from the function of the limb.

كَعْبَيْن — the dual of kaʿb; root ك-ع-ب: to rise, to jut out. Kaʿb — a protruding bone, the ankle; and the Kaʿba is from the same root: a rising, jutting structure. The Turkish "kâbe" and "küp" (from mukaʿʿab — cube-shaped) are from this root.

That is, both limits are marked by a protrusion: the elbow and the ankle bone. The limits are not abstract but points that can be felt with the hand.

جُنُب — root ج-ن-ب: the side, the flank; and to keep away (ijtināb — to avoid; jānib — a side). Junub — on the word's own logic, "one who keeps away, who stays at the edge". The word conveys not an uncleanness but a distance.

غَائِط — root غ-و-ط: a hollow, a low place. The word is a euphemism for relieving oneself: people would go to hollows and low ground for this. That the Qurʾān names here not the act but the place shows the measure of decency in its language — a feature recorded in many places in this commentary, al-Nūr among them.

لَٰمَسْتُمُ — root ل-م-س, Form III (mufāʿala). The pattern conveys reciprocity. The sense of the verb here is a classical disagreement and has legal consequences; it is not settled in this section. It is also transmitted that the word is read lamastum (Form I); I name no authority.

تَيَمَّمُوا۟ — root أ-م-م: to turn towards, to intend. The same root occurred at 5/2 in the word āmmīna'l-bayt. Tayammum is Form V: to turn to a thing, to make for it. That is, the word itself does not mean "to purify oneself with earth"; it means "to turn towards". The name of the practice was given from the side of intention.

صَعِيد — root ص-ع-د: to rise, to go up. Ṣaʿīd — the face of the ground, its uppermost layer. The word means not "soil" but "the surface of the earth". Ṣuʿūd (ascent) and misʿad (lift) are from the same root.

It is well known that the word وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ is read both in the accusative (arjulakum) and in the genitive (arjulikum), and per the method (Method) it must be recorded, because it changes the sense:

I name no authority. And the legal debate arising from this difference is not entered into: how the two readings bear on practice is a subject debated in detail among the schools of law and is not settled in this section. What is recorded here is only the linguistic fact: both readings are transmitted by mass transmission, and they give two different case structures.

At the end of a long and detailed verse of ruling, the reason the ruling was laid down is written out. This is characteristic of this sūra, and of the Qurʾān's language of ruling generally.

The root ح-ر-ج was treated in detail at al-Fatḥ 48/17 and taken up again at al-Ḥajj 22/78. The summary recorded there:

The concrete sense of the root: narrowness, constriction. حَرَجَة — a thicket in which the trees are so pressed together that it cannot be passed through. That is, in the root there is an image of impassability.

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is the placing of three verses side by side, and this is a line that can be followed through the collection:

The structure of all three verses is the same: the ruling is given, then the will behind the ruling is stated.

It was recorded in the section on al-Baqara: "That the ground is given along with the ruling is characteristic of this section. And the point is not merely stated but applied: the dispensation for the sick and the traveller stands inside the same verse." The same holds here: in saying "I do not want hardship for you", the verse has shown the case in which the hardship is lifted inside the same verse — the sick, the traveller, the one who finds no water.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the shared pattern of the three verses: the lifting of ḥaraj is laid down not as an exception but as a principle belonging to the design of the ruling itself. The dispensation is not a door outside the ruling; it is part of the ruling.

وَلَٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ — and the positive set against the negative.

The root ط-ه-ر was treated at al-Muddaththir 74/4 (wa thiyābaka fa-ṭahhir), at al-Aḥzāb 33/33 (wa yuṭahhirakum taṭhīrā) and in ʿAbasa: to be cleansed, to be pure — both materially and inwardly. I rely on that treatment.

The structure of the sentence sets up a balance:

نِعْمَتَهُۥ عَلَيْكُمْ — and this same construction occurred three verses earlier, at 5/3: wa atmamtu ʿalaykum niʿmatī. The same root (ت-م-م), the same preposition (ʿalaykum), the same object (niʿma).

I record this as a repetition within the sūra: at 5/3 the completing of the favour was tied to the whole of the religion; at 5/6 it is tied to a ruling about purity. The small thing is named with the same word as the great one.

لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ — and the purpose is tied to thankfulness. It was recorded at al-Baqara 2/172: the regulation of eating and drinking was laid down as an occasion for what is given to be seen. The same link is made here for a ruling about purity.

Wa'dhkurū niʿmata'llāhi ʿalaykum wa mīthāqahu'lladhī wāthaqakum bihī idh qultum samiʿnā wa aṭaʿnā · Wa'ttaqu'llāh · Inna'llāha ʿalīmun bi-dhāti'ṣ-ṣudūr

"Remember God's favour upon you, and the covenant by which He bound you when you said 'we have heard and we have obeyed'. Be mindful of God; God knows what is in the breasts."

This verse is the bridge between the sūra's first sentence (5/1, awfū bi'l-ʿuqūd) and the long section on the covenant that will begin at verse 12.

And the order matters: first this community's own undertaking is recalled (7), then other people's undertakings and what became of them are recounted (12-14). That is, the history to be told is first tied to the hearer's own word.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the order of the verses. Before telling anyone else's story, the sūra stands its addressee in the same position.

The root has occurred in al-Aḥzāb, Muḥammad, al-Ḥadīd and al-Fajr. The primary sense of the root: to make a thing firm, to bind it tightly. Wathīqa — a document (the Turkish "vesika"); thiqa — a trustworthy person; īthāq — binding firmly; wisāq — a bond, a strap. The wa lā yūthiqu wathāqahū aḥad of Sūrat al-Fajr (89/26) is from the same root: binding.

The pattern should be recorded: مِيثَاق is on the pattern مِفْعَال, and in Arabic this pattern gives nouns of instrument — miftāḥ (key), mīzān (scales), miṣbāḥ (lamp), miqyās (measure).

That is, mīthāq is not "a word given" but, on the word's own pattern, an instrument of binding. Not the undertaking itself but that with which one is bound.

And the verb is in Form III: wāthaqa (mufāʿala) — a mutual binding. At al-Fatḥ 48/10 the verb yubāyiʿūna's being in the mufāʿala form was treated, and it was recorded there: verbs entering this form are two-sided. I rely on that treatment. The same holds here: a covenant is not a one-way surrender but a two-sided bond.

The content of the undertaking is given, and it consists of two words: samiʿnā wa aṭaʿnā.

This expression was treated at al-Nūr 24/51 and recorded there as the word of the believers. I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is the order of the two verbs:

The order cannot be reversed, and this has a consequence: obedience comes after hearing. A practice carried out without understanding is not what this sentence describes.

And the opposite of this expression will come later in the sūra: at 5/13, yuḥarrifūna'l-kalima ʿan mawāḍiʿih — shifting the word from its place. That is, hearing and then applying it otherwise.

ذَات — "the possessor of, the substance of". Dhātu'ṣ-ṣudūr — what the breasts possess; what they hold within.

The position of the closing is meaningful: at the end of a passage about giving one's word, it is not the utterance of the word that is named but its inside. A contract is made with the tongue; but whether the contract will be kept stands in the breast.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū kūnū qawwāmīna li'llāhi shuhadāʾa bi'l-qisṭ · Wa lā yajrimannakum shanaʾānu qawmin ʿalā allā taʿdilū · Iʿdilū huwa aqrabu li't-taqwā · Wa'ttaqu'llāh · Inna'llāha khabīrun bimā taʿmalūn

"O you who believe! Be those who stand up for God, who bear witness in equity. Let the hatred of a people never drive you into injustice. Be just — that is nearer to mindfulness of God. Be mindful of God; God is aware of what you do."

This verse is the second and sharper form of the command given six verses earlier (5/2). The two verses must be set side by side, because the differences between them are no coincidence.

What the differences mean — I record this as my own reading; its ground is the words in the table:

1. At 5/2 the cause was written down; at 5/8 it is not. In the first a particular situation is named; in the second the rule is cut loose from its cause and opened out to every case. That is, the concrete instance comes first, then the principle.

2. The forbidden act changes, and this is the most important difference. Taʿtadū (ع-د-و) forbids doing too much: aggression, going beyond the bound. The negative of taʿdilū (ع-د-ل) forbids doing too little: withholding what is due, not keeping the scales level.

Together the two close off both ends of the same axis:

That is, rancour pushes a person in one of two directions: either he does the other party extra harm, or he does not give him what he owes him. The sūra closes both doors.

3. The closing attributes too are chosen to fit the function: 5/2 ends with shadīdu'l-ʿiqāb (severe in punishment) — the subject there is the trampling of inviolabilities, that is, a visible act. 5/8 ends with khabīrun bimā taʿmalūn (aware of what you do) — the subject here is bearing witness, that is, a disposition known from within. The root خ-ب-ر conveys knowing the inside of a thing, its hidden side; khabīr is one who knows not the outside but the inside. The closing is chosen to fit its subject.

قَوَّام — root ق-و-م, an intensive form (فَعَّال). The root has been treated in many places in this collection (al-Baqara, al-Fatḥ, al-Qiyāma): to rise to one's feet, to stand up, to keep a matter standing.

In Arabic the pattern فَعَّال conveys two things: (a) multiplicity and continuity — one who does a thing constantly; (b) a trade or occupation — khayyāṭ (tailor), najjār (carpenter), khabbāz (baker).

That is, a qawwām is not "one who acts justly on one occasion" but one who makes it his business to keep justice standing. The command asks not for a behaviour but for a character. And the verb's coming as kūnū (be) supports this: not "do" but "be".

A point of word order: the sentence runs kūnū + qawwāmīna + shuhadāʾa, with no conjunction between the two descriptions. The absence of a conjunction shows that the second is an explanation or an instance of the first: the concrete form of standing up for God is bearing witness in equity.

There is another, very similar form of this command in the Qurʾān, and when the two sentences are set side by side an exchange of places appears:

The two phrases have changed places: bi'l-qisṭ and li'llāh have taken one another's position.

The classical commentaries dwell on this difference and explain it by context. What follows the verse in al-Nisāʾ speaks of bearing witness against one's family and near kin; what follows the verse in al-Māʾida speaks of a people towards whom enmity is felt. Two explanations are given from this:

I transmit these two explanations; I do not impose a preference. That the second is the safer of the two so far as the text goes I add as my own reading; its ground is that the same four elements are present in both verses.

The root ش-ه-د has been treated in many places in this collection (al-Baqara 2/282, al-Nūr, al-Burūj): to be present, to see; and to report what one has seen. Bearing witness, at its root, means being there. I rely on that treatment.

The root ق-س-ط was treated in detail at al-Ḥujurāt 49/9, and what was recorded there was this:

Its primary sense is a portion, a share; and from there, giving a portion in full. Qisṭ — a share; muqsiṭ — one who gives shares rightly. The interesting side of the root: in Form IV (aqsaṭa) it conveys acting justly, while in its bare form (qasaṭa) it conveys acting wrongfully — it is one of the instances of aḍdād, words bearing opposite senses.

And the difference between ʿadl and qisṭ was given there in a table as well: ʿadl is the picture of scales and looks to the whole; qisṭ is the picture of a share and looks to a party. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is this: the verse uses both words. Bearing witness comes with bi'l-qisṭ, the command with iʿdilū.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the presence of both words in the same verse: bearing witness has to do with giving each party its share (qisṭ), while the judgement issued has to do with the scales coming level (ʿadl). The one looks to the parts, the other to the whole; the verse asks for both.

It is among the most cited sentences of the verse and of the sūra.

The root ع-د-ل was treated in al-Ḥujurāt, al-Shūrā and al-Infiṭār: to make equal, to level, to set straight. The two pans of the scales coming level. I rely on that treatment.

There is a subtlety in the case structure of the sentence, and it should be recorded. The pronoun huwa is masculine, and the word ʿadl is masculine too. But in the sentence iʿdilū is an imperative verb, and a pronoun cannot return directly to it. The classical explanation is this: the pronoun returns to the verbal noun the command conveys — that is, "justice is nearer to mindfulness of God."

And aqrab is an elative: "nearer". This choice of word deserves attention, because the sentence does not say "justice is mindfulness of God".

The difference between the two sentences is not small. I record this as my own reading:

• Had it said "justice is mindfulness of God", the person who carried out justice would have finished his business.
• When it says "it is nearer to mindfulness of God", justice is laid down not as a destination but as the road that leads there. The approach continues.

And the particle li conveys direction. In the sentence a distance and a direction are set between justice and mindfulness of God: justice is what carries a person towards mindfulness of God.

There is one more question: "nearer than what?" An elative asks for a comparison. Two answers are given in the classical commentaries:

I do not impose a preference.

What is done in this verse shows in its plainest form something recorded in many places in this collection: the measure of piety is laid down not by way of a list of acts of worship but by way of a behaviour.

This was the finding recorded in the introduction to al-Ḥujurāt: "The Qurʾān establishes piety not as a list of acts of worship but as an order of behaviour." This verse is among the densest instances of that finding — because the behaviour shown here as what brings one nearer to mindfulness of God is the behaviour required towards someone one detests.

And the difficulty of the command lies exactly here: the verse asks for justice not where it is easy but where it is hardest.

The verse does not say "feel no rancour". It grants that the feeling exists and names it as an agent (shanaʾānu qawmin, treated at 5/2). What it forbids is the feeling's turning into behaviour.

This distinction must be recorded, because reading the verse as a sentence that forbids a feeling does not fit the text. The verse is not a command about inward purity but a limit on behaviour: whatever you feel, when you judge, when you bear witness, when you apportion, the scales will be level.

And it must be recorded that the word qawm comes indefinite: shanaʾānu qawmin — "hatred of a people". Which people is not said. The rule is laid down not for a particular party but for any party at all. This agrees with the measure this commentary has kept from the beginning: a ruling is tied not to a community but to an attribute and an act.

Waʿada'llāhu'lladhīna āmanū wa ʿamilu'ṣ-ṣāliḥāti lahum maghfiratun wa ajrun ʿaẓīm · Wa'lladhīna kafarū wa kadhdhabū bi-āyātinā ulāʾika aṣḥābu'l-jaḥīm

"God has promised those who believe and do good works: for them there is forgiveness and a great reward. And those who disbelieve and cry lies to Our signs are the people of the Blaze."

A long block of rulings (1-8) closes here with two short verses. This is a structure that recurs in the Qurʾān's sections of ruling: the regulations are set out, then the end of the two parties is briefly named, and the block closes.

A point of word order: the two verses differ in structure, and the difference is meaningful.

On the side of good it says "God has promised"; on the side of evil no such verb is used — the outcome is laid down as a statement of fact. This distinction is widespread in the Qurʾān: the word "promise" is kept for the side of mercy.

أَصْحَٰب — root ص-ح-ب: companionship, being together, accompanying something. Ṣāḥib — a travelling companion. The construction aṣḥābu'l-jaḥīm means, in the full sense of the word, "the companions of the Blaze" — not those imprisoned in a place but those who keep it company.

جَحِيم — root ج-ح-م: a fire's blazing up fiercely, embers glowing red. Jaḥīm — a fire whose flame has risen, a scorching fire. The word occurred in al-Takāthur and al-Shuʿarāʾ.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanu'dhkurū niʿmata'llāhi ʿalaykum idh hamma qawmun an yabsuṭū ilaykum aydiyahum fa-kaffa aydiyahum ʿankum · Wa'ttaqu'llāh · Wa ʿala'llāhi fa'l-yatawakkali'l-muʾminūn

"O you who believe! Remember God's favour upon you: when a people set out to stretch their hands against you, and He held their hands back from you. Be mindful of God; and let the believers rely on God alone."

The verse points to a concrete event but gives no name at all: not the name of the people, not the place, not the time. Qawmun — indefinite.

In the classical commentaries several separate events are transmitted as the occasion of this verse's revelation, and they differ from one another. I transmit none of them as certain knowledge, and I give no name of a person or a tribe. Since the text itself gives no name, this section gives none either.

The root ب-س-ط was treated in al-Shūrā, al-Isrāʾ and al-Mumtaḥana: to spread, to open, to widen. Bisāṭ — a spread rug; basṭ — opening out.

And the phrase "to stretch out the hand" (basṭ al-yad) is an idiom in Arabic; it is used in two opposite directions:

The negative sense is used here; and the same root will come in the positive sense at verse 64 of this same sūra. The same root will also occur at 5/28 in the sentence of Adam's son: la-in basaṭta ilayya yadaka li-taqtulanī. It is a line of vocabulary that can be followed within the sūra, and in all three places the sense shifts with the context.

كَفَّ — root ك-ف-ف: to hold something, to draw it back, to restrain it. Kaff — the palm of the hand (what holds a thing). That is, in the phrase "He held their hands back", what does the holding is kin to a word for the hand as well.

هَمَّ — root ه-م-م: to set one's mind on a thing, to turn it over inwardly; to intend. The verse recounts the act not as carried out but at the stage of intention. That is, what is recounted is not something that happened but something that did not.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the choice of verb: the favour recalled is not a good thing that came upon them but an evil thing that did not. This is a widening of the notion of favour: things that go unnoticed precisely because they did not happen are counted as favours too.

وَعَلَى ٱللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ — the root و-ك-ل was treated at al-Ṭalāq 65/3 and in al-Zumar: to commit a matter to another, to appoint an agent. Tawakkul is Form V: to leave oneself in the hands of one's agent. I rely on that treatment.

Word order: ʿala'llāhi is brought forward — restriction. Not "let them rely on God" but "let them rely on God alone".

Wa laqad akhadha'llāhu mīthāqa banī Isrāʾīla wa baʿathnā minhumu'thnay ʿashara naqībā · Wa qāla'llāhu innī maʿakum · La-in aqamtumu'ṣ-ṣalāta wa ātaytumu'z-zakāta wa āmantum bi-rusulī wa ʿazzartumūhum wa aqraḍtumu'llāha qarḍan ḥasanan la-ukaffiranna ʿankum sayyiʾātikum wa la-udkhilannakum jannātin tajrī min taḥtiha'l-anhār · Fa-man kafara baʿda dhālika minkum fa-qad ḍalla sawāʾa's-sabīl

"God had taken the covenant of the Children of Israel, and We raised up twelve representatives from among them. And God said: I am with you. If you keep up the prayer, and give the alms, and believe in My messengers, and support them, and lend God a goodly loan, I shall certainly cover over your evil deeds for you, and shall certainly bring you into gardens with rivers running beneath them. Whoever among you disbelieves after that has strayed from the level road."

This block, running from 5/12 to 5/26, speaks of the undertakings taken from past communities and of what became of those undertakings. Per the method (Method) the following qualifications will be kept throughout this section, and they follow from the text itself:

1. The structure of the verses is conditional. At the centre of verse 12 stands la-in (if), and the promise is tied to five conditions. No verdict about an identity, independent of the conditions, can be drawn from a conditional sentence. 2. The outcome is tied not to identity but to an act. Verse 13 begins with fa-bimā naqḍihim mīthāqahum: the cause is the act of breaking one's word. 3. The verses themselves speak by dividing. At 13 there is the qualification illā qalīlan minhum (except a few of them), at 14 wa mina'lladhīna qālū (from among those who said). 4. And the section ends with a command to pardon: fa'fu ʿanhum wa'ṣfaḥ (13).

These four qualifications show that the text itself blocks any blanket verdict about a community. This section keeps that block in place.

نَقِيب — root ن-ق-ب: to bore through, to penetrate, to search out the inside of a thing. Naqb — a hole opened in a wall; niqāb — the eye-opening in a face-veil; manqaba — a person's known, brought-to-light merit.

That is, on the word's own logic a naqīb is one who "has penetrated into a community and knows its condition". Not an administrator but one who knows and reports. The Qurʾān uses the same root in the form fa-naqqabū fi'l-bilād (Qāf 50/36) — "they bored their way through the lands."

That the number is twelve has to do with the Children of Israel's being divided into twelve branches; the sūra does not explain this further, and I construct no historical narrative here.

The sentence says "I am with you", and a condition follows immediately. At al-Ḥadīd 57/4 wa huwa maʿakum was treated, and it was recorded there: being-with (maʿiyya) is not physical side-by-sideness. I rely on that treatment.

The being-with here is one that conveys protection and support, and it is framed by the conditions that follow it.

The promise is tied by la-in (if) to five verbs:

عَزَّرْتُمُوهُمْ — root ع-ز-ر: the sense the lexicographers give runs in two directions, and both should be recorded: (a) to help, to support, to back; (b) to hold back, to fend off, to restrain a person from evil.

The two senses do not contradict: to back someone is to fend off what would harm him. From the same root comes taʿzīr in the language of law — where the sense is "a penalty that restrains a person from evil". The legal content of taʿzīr is not entered into in this section.

It is transmitted that the word is read ʿazzartumūhum (with doubling) and ʿazartumūhum (without); I name no authority.

أَقْرَضْتُمُ ٱللَّهَ قَرْضًا حَسَنًا — the root ق-ر-ض: to cut, to clip. Miqrāḍ — shears (the resemblance in sound to the Turkish "kırkmak/kırpmak", to shear and to clip, is a coincidence; I make no claim of derivation). Qarḍ — a portion cut off from one's property and given.

The same construction (qarḍan ḥasanan) was treated at al-Ḥadīd 57/11 and al-Taghābun 64/17; I rely on that treatment. What was recorded there in substance was this: the expression itself sets up an equation — what is given is not lost but written down as a debt.

And that the construction is present in this verse is worth recording: the same expression occurs in an undertaking given to a past community as well. That is, the measure is not new.

Form II of the root ك-ف-ر: takfīr — to cover, to close over. And here the primary sense of the root appears bare: the covering over of evil deeds.

This shows once more a point recorded in many places in this collection: the root ك-ف-ر is not in itself negative; it means to cover. Who does the covering and what is covered settle the word's value. A farmer too is called kāfir — because he covers the seed with earth (this use occurs at al-Ḥadīd 57/20 and was treated in al-Ḥadīd).

And at the end of the verse the same root will come in a negative sense: fa-man kafara baʿda dhālika. The same root, in the same verse, in two opposite directions. When the one covering is God it is mercy; when it is man it is denial.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the use of the same root with two different agents in a single verse.

فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَآءَ ٱلسَّبِيلِ — sawāʾ, root س-و-ي: evenness, levelness. Sawāʾu's-sabīl — the road in its level state, running down the middle. That is, straying is not leaving the road but sliding from the middle of the road to its edge.

Fa-bimā naqḍihim mīthāqahum laʿannāhum wa jaʿalnā qulūbahum qāsiya · Yuḥarrifūna'l-kalima ʿan mawāḍiʿihī wa nasū ḥaẓẓan mimmā dhukkirū bih · Wa lā tazālu taṭṭaliʿu ʿalā khāʾinatin minhum illā qalīlan minhum · Fa'fu ʿanhum wa'ṣfaḥ · Inna'llāha yuḥibbu'l-muḥsinīn

"For their breaking of their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They shift the words from their places, and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of. Except for a few of them, you will not cease to come upon some treachery from them. Even so, pardon them and overlook it. God loves those who do good."

The verse begins with fa-bimā. The bāʾ here conveys causation: "on account of…". The mā, according to most lexicographers, is redundant, that is, it is there for emphasis.

This is the most important linguistic detail of the verse, and it is underlined in this section: the subject of the sentence is not an identity but an act. The curse and the hardness of heart are tied to the breaking of a word, and to nothing else.

And the word naqḍ is precisely the opposite of mīthāq:

The root ن-ق-ض: to unravel, to undo something woven or twisted. To unspin thread after it has been spun; to pull down a building that has been built. Naqḍ — undoing; munāqaḍa — mutual undoing; the Turkish "nakzetmek" (to overturn a decision) is from this root.

The Qurʾān uses this root with a very vivid comparison: ka'llatī naqaḍat ghazlahā min baʿdi quwwatin ankāthā (al-Naḥl 16/92) — "like the woman who unravels her yarn after she has spun it firm." It was treated in al-Naḥl; I rely on that treatment.

The two words stand side by side in the same sentence: naqḍihim mīthāqahum. A word order that holds the binder and the unraveller in a single construction.

The root ق-س-و: the hardness of stone; hardness. Qaswa — the word is in use in Turkish too (kasvet). The hardening of the heart is a recurring image in the Qurʾān and was treated in detail at al-Baqara 2/74 (thumma qasat qulūbukum min baʿdi dhālika fa-hiya ka'l-ḥijārati aw ashaddu qaswa). I rely on that treatment.

A note on the variant readings: it is transmitted that the word is read qasiyyatan instead of qāsiyatan (not from ق-س-و but from the root قسى — in the sense of "adulterated, debased silver"). I record it because the two readings change the sense; I name no authority. On the second reading the state of the heart is not hardness but the spoiling of its purity.

This notion was treated in detail at al-Baqara 2/75, and what was recorded there was this:

The root حرف: an edge, a tip, a border. Not the middle of a thing but its margin. Inḥirāf — swerving from the road. On this, taḥrīf is: to bend a thing from its edge. Not to tear the text down the middle; to draw it slightly aside from its margin. A small crookedness produces a great deviation further off. And the classical distinction: distortion of the wording (which can be seen by comparing copies) and distortion of the meaning (the text stays, its interpretation is shifted; it leaves no trace at all).

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is the construction al-Māʾida adds: ʿan mawāḍiʿihī — "from their places".

The expression in al-Baqara was min baʿdi mā ʿaqalūh (after they had understood it); the expression here states a location: the word is shifted from its place.

The root و-ض-ع: to put, to set in place. Mawḍiʿ — the place where a thing is set; plural mawāḍiʿ.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the construction itself: the expression speaks not of a word's being erased but of its place being changed. The word stands; where it stands has altered. A sentence torn from its context and set elsewhere, a condition passed over, an exception ignored — all of these come under this description.

And this is not a danger belonging to other people alone. The word the verse uses names not a fault peculiar to a community but an operation. The same operation is possible for anyone who reads his own text. I record this as my own reading.

حَظّ — root ح-ظ-ظ: a share, a portion. The choice of word matters: in saying "they forgot", it is said that what was forgotten is not the whole but a portion.

And the verb dhukkirū is passive: "what was reminded to them". That is, a body of knowledge was given, and then part of it dropped away.

The root نسي was treated in al-Kahf and at Ṭāhā 20/115: to forget; and to abandon. Both senses are possible and both are given in the classical commentaries. No preference is adopted.

Immediately after saying "you will not cease to come upon some treachery from them", the verse lays down an exception: illā qalīlan minhum.

This exception cannot be passed over. The grammatical structure of the sentence says that the ruling belongs not to the whole but to those left outside the exception. The text limits its own ruling itself.

خَآئِنَة — root خ-و-ن: to act contrary to a trust. On the word's coming in the feminine there are two explanations in the classical commentaries:

I do not impose a preference. But if the first explanation is accepted the sentence speaks of an act, and if the second is accepted, of a group — and in either case the qualification illā qalīlan minhum stands where it is.

تَطَّلِعُ — root ط-ل-ع, Form VIII: to climb up on something and see, to come to know. Ṭulūʿ — to rise, to come up. That the verb comes in the imperfect and with lā tazālu conveys continuity.

This is the command given after all these findings, and it must be brought particularly forward in this section.

The root ع-ف-و was treated at al-Baqara 2/219: to wipe out, to pardon; and what is surplus, beyond need. I rely on that treatment. The word's first sense is "to wipe out a trace" — as the wind wipes out footprints.

The root ص-ف-ح: the broad face or side of a thing. Ṣafḥa — a page, a face; ṣafīḥa — a plate. The verb ṣafaḥa ʿanhu: he turned his face away, he passed the matter by.

The difference between the two verbs is recorded by the lexicographers and conveys an order:

That is, the second verb goes further than the first: to pardon is to wipe out the offence, while ṣafḥ is never to raise the subject at all.

And the placing of this command here settles how the section is to be read. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the order of the verse: the verse first makes grave findings, then commands the one addressed to pardon. Had these verses been sent down in order to establish a lasting verdict about a community, the concluding sentence would not have been a command to pardon.

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ — and the ground: that those who do good are loved. Form IV of the root ح-س-ن: iḥsān — to do a thing well; and to do good without return. The word was treated at al-Raḥmān 55/60.

Wa mina'lladhīna qālū innā naṣārā akhadhnā mīthāqahum fa-nasū ḥaẓẓan mimmā dhukkirū bih · Fa-aghraynā baynahumu'l-ʿadāwata wa'l-baghḍāʾa ilā yawmi'l-qiyāma · Wa sawfa yunabbiʾuhumu'llāhu bimā kānū yaṣnaʿūn

"And from those who said 'we are naṣārā' We took their covenant; and they too forgot a portion of what they were reminded of. So We set enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection. God will inform them of what they used to do."

The verse begins with wa mina'lladhīna qālū. The min here is partitive (conveying a part of something), and it is so recorded in the classical commentaries.

That is, the sentence is built not as "We took the covenant of those who are naṣārā" but as "We took the covenant of some of those who said 'we are naṣārā'". The division is in the first letter of the sentence.

This is the sibling of the qualification illā qalīlan minhum in the preceding verse. Both verses limit their own ruling from within.

The verse does not say "from the naṣārā"; it says from those who said "we are naṣārā". That is, the naming is transmitted not as a name the verse lays down but as the group's own declaration.

نَصَارَىٰ — root ن-ص-ر: to help. The root was treated in al-Fatḥ, al-Ṣaff and al-Ḥajj. I rely on that treatment.

The lexicographers do not agree on the origin of the word, and I transmit the disagreement as it stands:

I do not impose a preference, and I issue no verdict on etymology.

أَغْرَيْنَا — root غ-ر-و/غ-ر-ي: to glue. Ghirāʾ — glue, gum. Ighrāʾ (Form IV) — to stick one thing to another; and from there to incite, to set at odds.

The concrete sense of the word gives the image very sharply: enmity is glued between them. It becomes a thing hard to pry loose.

And the construction is striking: baynahum — "among them". The enmity is set not outwards but within their own ranks.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the preposition itself: the verse pictures the consequence of forgetting the undertaking not as an external punishment but as an internal division. When a shared bond slackens, internal strife fills the gap that opens.

The difference between عَدَاوَة and بَغْضَآء: ʿadāwa (ع-د-و) — crossing a limit, hostile behaviour; baghḍāʾ (ب-غ-ض) — rancour, inward hatred. The one comes out, the other stays within. The root ب-غ-ض was treated at al-Mumtaḥana 60/4.

Both words are named at once: behaviour and feeling alike.

No lasting, blanket verdict about a community can be drawn from this verse — I write this plainly, because the verse does not lend itself to such a reading:

• The sentence begins with a partitive particle (min).
• The cause is tied not to identity but to an act (fa-nasū).
• And forty-eight verses later the sūra will speak of those who stand nearest from within that same group (5/82-85), and there too the ground will be tied to an attribute.

Reading the text as a whole requires keeping both verses in their places.

وَسَوْفَ يُنَبِّئُهُمُ ٱللَّهُ — and the final announcement is left to the future. The root ن-ب-أ: important, useful news. That the verb comes in Form II (yunabbiʾu) conveys that the news will be given in detail. That is, the verdict will be issued not here but there; the verse says so itself.

Yā ahla'l-kitābi qad jāʾakum rasūlunā yubayyinu lakum kathīran mimmā kuntum tukhfūna mina'l-kitābi wa yaʿfū ʿan kathīr · Qad jāʾakum mina'llāhi nūrun wa kitābun mubīn · Yahdī bihi'llāhu mani'ttabaʿa riḍwānahū subula's-salāmi wa yukhrijuhum mina'ẓ-ẓulumāti ila'n-nūri bi-idhnihī wa yahdīhim ilā ṣirāṭin mustaqīm

"O People of the Book! Our messenger has come to you; he makes plain to you much of what you used to hide of the Book, and he passes over much. A light and a clear Book have come to you from God. By it God guides those who follow after His good pleasure to the ways of peace; He brings them out of the darknesses into the light by His leave, and guides them to a straight path."

The most striking place in the verse is the use of two opposite verbs about the same object, and in both the same word appears: kathīran / kathīr (much of it).

The root ع-ف-و occurred two verses earlier (5/13) in the sense of pardoning; here it comes in the sense of "not dwelling on, not opening up". The primary sense of the root — to wipe out a trace — explains both uses.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the placing of the two verbs side by side: the work of making plain must choose. To pour out everything that has been hidden is the work of a settling of accounts, not of a delivery of a message. In recounting what the messenger does, the verse also recounts what he does not do.

And this is the applied form of the command fa'fu ʿanhum wa'ṣfaḥ in verse 13 of the sūra. Four verses stand between them, and the second repeats the first.

Two words are set side by side: nūr and kitāb. What each of them is, is debated in the classical commentaries:

I do not impose a preference. The root ن-و-ر was treated in detail at al-Nūr 24/35; I rely on that treatment.

There are two separate words for way in the verse, and one is plural, the other singular:

This distinction is consistent in the Qurʾān and has been recorded before in this collection. The observation recorded at al-Baqara 2/257 was this: the darknesses are plural, the light is singular. The same structure works here for the ways.

And the difference between the two words is given by the lexicographers as follows: sabīl is any road one travels; ṣirāṭ is the broad main road that runs straight. The word ṣirāṭ was treated in al-Fātiḥa; I rely on that treatment.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the presence of both words in the same verse: the ways that lead to peace are many, the direction travelled is one. The multiplicity is in the method, the singleness in the direction.

And the verb of guidance occurs twice in the same verse (yahdī bihi'llāh … wa yahdīhim). The object of the first is ways, the object of the second a direction. The verb is the same, the place arrived at different.

بِإِذْنِهِ — and the verb of bringing out comes with a qualification: by leave. The word was treated in al-Fatḥ and at Ibrāhīm 14/1 (li-tukhrija'n-nāsa mina'ẓ-ẓulumāti ila'n-nūri bi-idhni rabbihim); the same construction stands there as well. I rely on that treatment.

Laqad kafara'lladhīna qālū inna'llāha huwa'l-Masīḥu'bnu Maryam · Qul fa-man yamliku mina'llāhi shayʾan in arāda an yuhlika'l-Masīḥa'bna Maryama wa ummahū wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿā · Wa li'llāhi mulku's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi wa mā baynahumā · Yakhluqu mā yashāʾ · Wa'llāhu ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr

"Those who said 'God is the Messiah, son of Mary' have certainly fallen into denial. Say: if God willed to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth together, who could hold anything against Him? To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He wills. God has power over all things."

The subject of the sentence is not the name of a community but an utterance: alladhīna qālū — "those who said."

This is a structure that will be recorded again and again in this section, and it is what the rule "a ruling is tied to an attribute" of Method comes to in the text. The verse names no name of a group; it names a particular sentence and ties the ruling to that sentence.

The same structure will be repeated at 5/72 and 5/73, and in all three the same pattern is used: laqad kafara'lladhīna qālū…

The answer is not an argument but a question: fa-man yamliku mina'llāhi shayʾā?

And the proof is given not directly against the claim of divinity but by way of a comparison of power: if a being can be destroyed, and has no power to stop the one destroying it, then that being cannot be what is being said about it.

The most striking side of the proof is that it names three things side by side: al-Masīḥ, ummahū (his mother), and wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿā (everyone on earth).

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the sequence of the list: the name of the Messiah is set inside the same sentence as the name of his mother and as all mankind. That is, the distinction is drawn not between an ordinary person and a superior person, but between the created and the Creator. The proof belittles no one; it fixes a category.

مَسِيح — root م-س-ح: to lay a hand on, to stroke; and to anoint with oil. The lexicographers do not agree on the origin of the word as a name; I issue no verdict on etymology. More than one explanation is transmitted in the classical commentaries.

يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ — and the sentence touches the real support of the claim: an extraordinary birth. This subject was treated at Maryam 19/21; I rely on that treatment. The verse does not deny that the event was out of the ordinary; it places it inside the act of creation.

Wa qālati'l-yahūdu wa'n-naṣārā naḥnu abnāʾu'llāhi wa aḥibbāʾuh · Qul fa-lima yuʿadhdhibukum bi-dhunūbikum · Bal antum basharun mimman khalaq · Yaghfiru li-man yashāʾu wa yuʿadhdhibu man yashāʾ · Wa li'llāhi mulku's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi wa mā baynahumā · Wa ilayhi'l-maṣīr

"They said, 'We are the sons of God and His beloved ones.' Say: then why does He punish you for your sins? No; you are human beings, part of what He has created. He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; and to Him is the journey's end."

This verse takes up a different claim from the preceding one. The claim at 5/17 was about God; the claim here is about themselves: a claim to privilege.

And the answer has two steps, and both are short:

بَلْ — in Arabic the particle of iḍrāb: it cancels the preceding sentence and puts a new one in its place. "No, it is not so; it is thus."

بَشَرٌ مِّمَّنْ خَلَقَ — and this is the new description laid down.

The root ب-ش-ر: the outer surface of the skin; and from there a human being (the creature whose skin shows). From the same root comes bushrā (good news) — because the skin of the face of the one who receives good news changes. The root was treated in Maryam and al-Insān.

That is, the verse answers those making the claim with the most concrete, most bodily word for a human being.

And the qualification mimman khalaq — "part of what He has created" — comes with a partitive particle: one unit within a group. What is set against the claim of privilege is having a place inside the crowd.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the form of the verse's answer: what this verse rejects is not a fault peculiar to a particular community but a way of thinking — the thought that belonging by itself provides a guarantee.

And this measure is put in the Qurʾān once more, this time directed at those being addressed. It was recorded at al-Baqara 2/221: what one receives is tied not to the name of a community but to an attribute. The same measure, in the same verse, looks both at the other party and — by the generality of the principle — at the reader.

This verse is one of the grounds within the Qurʾān for this commentary's refusal to issue blanket verdicts about a group: the verse rejects drawing a verdict from belonging in the mouths of those who claim it. To perform the same operation in the reverse direction would be inconsistent for the same reason.

Yā ahla'l-kitābi qad jāʾakum rasūlunā yubayyinu lakum ʿalā fatratin mina'r-rusuli an taqūlū mā jāʾanā min bashīrin wa lā nadhīr · Fa-qad jāʾakum bashīrun wa nadhīr · Wa'llāhu ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr

"O People of the Book! In a period when the succession of messengers had lapsed, Our messenger has come to you, making things plain, so that you may not say, 'no bearer of good news and no warner came to us'. Now a bearer of good news and a warner has come to you. God has power over all things."

The sense of the root: to slacken, to weaken, to lose speed. Futūr — slackness (the Turkish "fütur getirmek", to lose heart, is from this root); fātir — slackened, gone still.

And the picture the word gives matters: fatra is not "a void in which nothing happens" but the interval in which the motion slows. The word conveys not a clean break but a slackening.

عَلَىٰ فَتْرَةٍ مِّنَ ٱلرُّسُل — "upon an interval in the messengers". That is, the messenger comes upon this interval.

The ground the verse gives is unusual: an taqūlū… — "so that you may not say."

That is, as the ground for the sending of the messenger, a sentence the addressee might say in future is put forward. The proof is built as the closing off, in advance, of an objection yet to come.

This is a structure repeated in many places in the Qurʾān: responsibility is not established without knowledge having been given. Among the relevant verses one may count al-Nisāʾ 4/165 and al-Isrāʾ 17/15 (wa mā kunnā muʿadhdhibīna ḥattā nabʿatha rasūlā); it was treated in al-Isrāʾ, and I rely on that treatment.

بَشِير and نَذِير — two descriptions. The root ب-ش-ر was treated in the preceding verse. The root ن-ذ-ر: to give warning of a danger beforehand. It was treated in al-Muddaththir and at al-Najm 53/56.

A point of word order: at the head of the verse the two words come negated and indefinite (mā jāʾanā min bashīrin wa lā nadhīr — no bearer of good news and no warner at all); at its end they come affirmed and again indefinite (fa-qad jāʾakum bashīrun wa nadhīr). The same two words, in the same verse, first as the claim and then as the answer. The answer is given in the objection's own words.

Wa idh qāla Mūsā li-qawmihī yā qawmi'dhkurū niʿmata'llāhi ʿalaykum idh jaʿala fīkum anbiyāʾa wa jaʿalakum mulūkan wa ātākum mā lam yuʾti aḥadan mina'l-ʿālamīn · Yā qawmi'dkhulu'l-arḍa'l-muqaddasata'llatī kataba'llāhu lakum wa lā tartaddū ʿalā adbārikum fa-tanqalibū khāsirīn

"And when Moses (Mūsā) said to his people: O my people! Remember God's favour upon you: He raised up prophets among you, and made you your own masters, and gave you what He had given to no one in all the worlds. O my people! Enter the holy land God has written for you, and do not turn back on your heels, or you will turn about as losers."

The sūra had spoken at verses 12-14 of the undertakings taken. Now a concrete scene is recounted in which those undertakings are tested. The narrative stands as an instance of the sūra's theme of the contract: a command is given, a promise is recalled, and the answer is refusal.

A qualification: the event recounted in this section will not be used for any inference about any present political question. To draw a conclusion about the present day from the mention of land in the text would be to make the verse do work it does not do. This commentary takes no side in present-day politics, and this section keeps that qualification.

The sense of the word here is a classical disagreement:

I do not impose a preference. The second view fits the context — their earlier condition; I add this as an observation.

The root م-ل-ك: to have the power of disposal over something. It was treated in detail at al-Mulk 67/1; I rely on that treatment.

The root ق-د-س: cleanness, purity; and being set apart. Taqdīs — to purify, to set apart. For the concrete sense of the word the lexicographers also record a link with "bucket" (qads — a water vessel); I do not give this link as certain.

The main idea the word carries is "being set apart": a thing's being taken out of general use and assigned to a particular purpose. The root was treated at al-Ḥashr 59/23 (al-Quddūs) and at Ṭāhā 20/12 (al-wādi'l-muqaddasi Ṭuwā); I rely on that treatment.

ٱلَّتِى كَتَبَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ — "which He has written for you". The root ك-ت-ب was treated at al-Baqara 2/2: its primary sense is to bring together, to sew; and in the pattern kutiba ʿalaykum it conveys obligation. I rely on that treatment.

And the preposition here is not ʿalaykum but lakum. In the use in al-Baqara the obligation was written "upon you"; here it is written "for you". The difference of preposition settles whether what is written is a burden or a right. I record this as an observation about the word order.

لَا تَرْتَدُّوا۟ عَلَىٰٓ أَدْبَارِكُمْ — the root ر-د-د: to turn back, to send back. In Form VIII, irtidād — to turn back. This root will come again at verse 54 of the sūra (man yartadda minkum ʿan dīnih) and will be treated there.

The construction is concrete: "do not turn back upon your backs". That is, to withdraw, to turn one's face away. The same construction (irtaddū ʿalā adbārihim) was treated at Muḥammad 47/25.

Qālū yā Mūsā inna fīhā qawman jabbārīna wa innā lan nadkhulahā ḥattā yakhrujū minhā · Fa-in yakhrujū minhā fa-innā dākhilūn · Qāla rajulāni mina'lladhīna yakhāfūna anʿama'llāhu ʿalayhima'dkhulū ʿalayhimu'l-bāba fa-idhā dakhaltumūhu fa-innakum ghālibūn · Wa ʿala'llāhi fa-tawakkalū in kuntum muʾminīn · Qālū yā Mūsā innā lan nadkhulahā abadan mā dāmū fīhā fa'dhhab anta wa rabbuka fa-qātilā innā hāhunā qāʿidūn

"They said: O Moses! There is a tyrannical people in it; we will never enter it until they leave it; if they leave it, we shall enter. Two men from among those who feared, on whom God had bestowed favour, said: Go in upon them by the gate; once you have gone in you will prevail. And rely on God alone, if you are believers. They said: O Moses! We shall never enter it as long as they are in it. You and your Lord go and fight; we are sitting right here."

The sentences spoken in the three verses can be read as a single line:

And the difference between the first sentence and the last emerges only after the encouragement that comes between: at 22 it was "we shall enter on such and such a condition"; at 24 it is "we shall never enter". The encouragement did not soften the stance; it hardened it.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the order of the three sentences. A hesitation, when a call is set against it, is more often than not fixed in place by being furnished with reasons.

The primary sense of the root: to bind up and set a break right, to mend. Jabīra — the splint set on a break; jabr — setting right, forcing into place. The word "algebra" in mathematics (al-jabr) is from the same root: the operation of bringing the two sides of a disordered equation level again.

The second sense arises from this: to make someone do a thing by force. Jabbār — a tyrant; one who forces people into line as one sets a break.

There is also a place where the word is used as a name of God (al-Ḥashr 59/23), and there the sense is positive: the one who mends what is broken, who sets it right. It was treated in al-Ḥashr. That the same word is negative when used of a human being and positive when used of God is the natural consequence of the root's two branches.

This construction deserves attention. The description used of the two men is not "those who were brave" but alladhīna yakhāfūna — "those who feared".

In the classical commentaries there are two readings of this phrase:

I do not impose a preference. But if the second reading is accepted, something worth recording emerges: those who spoke against were not fearless men but men who carried the same fear and said "go" even so. I add this as an observation, not as a ruling.

ٱدْخُلُوا۟ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْبَابَ — the advice given is concrete: a gate. And the preposition ʿalayhim conveys the upper hand: "in upon them".

This is one of the harshest sentences transmitted in the Qurʾān, and its word order should be recorded.

Both verbs are in the dual: fa-qātilā — "the two of you fight". The sentence takes the form not of a refusal but of a mockery: the other party gives up its own share entirely.

وَإِنَّا هَٰهُنَا قَٰعِدُونَ — and the verb they choose for themselves in return is to sit.

The root ق-ع-د: to sit; and to stay behind. Qāʿid — one sitting; quʿūd — sitting. The Qurʾān uses this root of those who do not go out on campaign as well (al-qāʿidūn, al-Nisāʾ 4/95).

A point of word order: the word hāhunā (right here) has been slipped in. A place is specified: against the place to be gone to is set the place of standing still. In the sentence a verb of motion (idhhab) stands face to face with a verb of remaining (qāʿidūn).

Qāla rabbi innī lā amliku illā nafsī wa akhī · Fa'fruq baynanā wa bayna'l-qawmi'l-fāsiqīn · Qāla fa-innahā muḥarramatun ʿalayhim arbaʿīna sanatan yatīhūna fi'l-arḍ · Fa-lā taʾsa ʿala'l-qawmi'l-fāsiqīn

"He said: My Lord! I have power over no one but myself and my brother. Separate us from this people who have departed from the way. He said: Then it is forbidden to them for forty years; they will wander bewildered in the land. So do not grieve over the people who have departed from the way."

A sentence in which the messenger states his own limit in his own words.

The verb is amliku — a verb of ownership; here in the sense of "to have any say over, to be able to dispose". The messenger says how much of the task given him he actually "holds in his hand": only himself and his brother.

This agrees with the Qurʾān's description of messengership and has been recorded in many places in this collection: the messenger delivers the message; he does not produce the outcome. It was treated at al-Ghāshiya 88/22 (lasta ʿalayhim bi-musayṭir) and at al-Shūrā 42/48; I rely on that treatment.

And later in the sūra the same measure will be said to the Prophet: mā ʿala'r-rasūli illa'l-balāgh (5/99).

In the classical codices there are in this verse two three-dotted marks in the form ۛ: one before arbaʿīna sanatan and one after.

This is the mark of muʿānaqa (interlocking) treated at al-Baqara 2/2, and it was recorded there: one may pause at either of the two places, but not at both. I rely on that treatment.

The two pauses give two different senses:

Both are correct; they cannot both be read at once. This is an instance of the finding recorded in the section on al-Baqara: the mark in the muṣḥaf is a concrete indication of how scrupulously the tradition of variant readings has preserved differences of meaning.

The sense of the root: to lose one's way and wander bewildered; to go round and round in one place. Tīh — a broad desert in which no road can be found. The Turkish expression "tîh sahrası" (the wilderness of Tīh) comes from here.

The pattern of the verb matters: imperfect, that is, continuous. And the verb conveys not arriving anywhere but wandering.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the sense of the verb: the punishment is not immobility but motion without direction. The walking continues; there is no place arrived at. The answer given to those who in the preceding verse said "we are sitting right here" is not sitting but walking without stopping.

فَلَا تَأْسَ — root أ-س-و/أ-س-ي: to grieve, to be sorrowful. From the same root come asā (sorrow) and — according to some of the lexicographers — āsī (a physician, one who binds a wound); I do not give this second link as certain.

And the one addressed by the command is the messenger. The measure treated at al-Kahf 18/6 (fa-laʿallaka bākhiʿun nafsaka) holds here as well: the messenger is reminded that he is not responsible for the outcome.

Wa'tlu ʿalayhim nabaʾa'bnay Ādama bi'l-ḥaqq · Idh qarrabā qurbānan fa-tuqubbila min aḥadihimā wa lam yutaqabbal mina'l-ākhar · Qāla la-aqtulannak · Qāla innamā yataqabbalu'llāhu mina'l-muttaqīn

"Recite to them in truth the account of the two sons of Adam: when the two of them offered an offering, and it was accepted from one of them and not accepted from the other. He said: 'I shall certainly kill you.' The other said: God accepts only from those who are mindful of Him."

This narrative comes immediately after the preceding section (5/20-26), and there is a link between the two: there a community refused the command given to it; here one man refuses to accept an outcome that is not his to determine.

And the narrative ties into the sūra's theme of the contract: being accepted is tied neither to the quantity of what is offered nor to who the person is, but to an attribute. This is the measure the sūra has been working with from the beginning.

The qualification بِٱلْحَقّ — "in truth". The Qurʾān often enters this qualification when it recounts a narrative. What is recounted is announced as not an illustration but something that happened. No names are given — and none will be given in this commentary either, since the text gives none.

The root ق-ر-ب has been treated in many places in this collection (Qāf 50/16, al-Wāqiʿa, al-Muṭaffifīn): nearness.

The pattern كُرْبَان is on the measure فُعْلَان and gives the sense "a thing offered in order to draw near". That is, the word itself names not the animal slaughtered but the purpose of the slaughtering: a means of drawing near.

This differs from the word's present-day use. In Turkish "kurban" calls an animal to mind, whereas the word itself is an operation of closing a distance. And elsewhere the Qurʾān says so explicitly: "Neither their flesh nor their blood reaches God; what reaches Him is your mindfulness of Him" (al-Ḥajj 22/37) — treated in al-Ḥajj, and I rely on that treatment.

The root ق-ب-ل: to meet, to come face to face. Qibla — the direction one turns to; istiqbāl — reception, and the future; qabūl — meeting a thing and taking it.

The verb here is in Form V (taqabbala), and in Arabic this pattern conveys "taking a matter on willingly, with a glad heart". That is, taqabbul is not ordinary "taking" but receiving with pleasure.

And the verb is passive: tuqubbila — "it was accepted". The name of the one accepting is not mentioned, because the question is not who accepts but whether or not it was accepted.

A point of word order: fa-tuqubbila min aḥadihimā wa lam yutaqabbal mina'l-ākhar — which of the two brothers was which is not said. The account gives not the persons but the situation.

The pattern of the sentence matters: innamā — a particle of restriction. It was recorded at al-Baqara 2/173: innamā conveys that the list or the ruling is closed. I rely on that treatment.

The function of the sentence is not a defence but an explanation. The brother does not say "I am better than you"; he says where the measure lies. The answer is not made personal.

And the sentence is the first response given to the threat. The threat came from the furthest extreme, "I shall kill you"; the answer is a sentence of principle. The difference of register between the two sentences is the frame of the whole narrative.

تَقْوَىٰ — root و-ق-ي: to protect, to shield. It was treated at al-Baqara 2/2 and at al-Ḥujurāt 49/13; I rely on that treatment.

La-in basaṭta ilayya yadaka li-taqtulanī mā ana bi-bāsiṭin yadiya ilayka li-aqtulak · Innī akhāfu'llāha rabba'l-ʿālamīn

"Even if you stretch out your hand against me to kill me, I am not one to stretch out my hand against you to kill you. I fear God, the Lord of all the worlds."

This is one of the most carefully built sentences in the Qurʾān in point of word order. Its two halves must be set side by side:

What the difference means, and the classical commentaries dwell on it:

The other party's act is given with a verbal sentence — in Arabic a verbal sentence conveys occurrence and renewal; a thing that happens once, that comes about.

His own stance is given with a nominal sentence — in Arabic a nominal sentence conveys fixity and continuity. Moreover an emphatic bāʾ has been placed at the head of the predicate (bi-bāsiṭin), and it is negated with mā.

That is, the sentence does not say "I shall not kill you". It says "I am not a man who stretches out his hand against you". What is refused is not an act but a position.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two halves are built as different kinds of sentence.

The root was treated in al-Shūrā and al-Isrāʾ: to spread, to open. I rely on that treatment.

And this root occurs in three places in the sūra; the three must be set side by side:

The same root, in the same sūra, in three different directions. I record this as a repetition within the sūra; each time, the value of the word is settled by its preposition and its agent.

This is the ground given, and the kind of ground should be recorded.

The sentence does not say "you are my brother", "killing is wrong", "I am afraid of you". The ground is drawn not from his relation to the man before him but from his own relation to God.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the form of the reasoning: had the reason for not striking back been laid down as incapacity or as an emotional bond, both of these are things that can change. When the ground is tied to a place that does not change, the stance too is fixed. This agrees with the sentence's having been built as a nominal sentence.

رَبَّ ٱلْعَٰلَمِينَ — and the name is invoked in its widest form. It was treated in al-Fātiḥa. That the Owner of all the worlds is invoked while something done to one's brother is being spoken of settles the scale of the matter.

Innī urīdu an tabūʾa bi-ithmī wa ithmika fa-takūna min aṣḥābi'n-nār · Wa dhālika jazāʾu'ẓ-ẓālimīn · Fa-ṭawwaʿat lahū nafsuhū qatla akhīhi fa-qatalahū fa-aṣbaḥa mina'l-khāsirīn

"I would have you carry my sin and your own, and be of the people of the Fire. That is the recompense of the wrongdoers. His own soul made the killing of his brother easy for him; he killed him, and became one of the losers."

The concrete sense of the root: to settle in a place, to take up lodging; and to take a thing upon oneself and return with it. Mabwāʾ — a shelter, a place settled in. The Qurʾān uses the verb tabawwaʾū of settling (al-Ḥashr 59/9 — wa'lladhīna tabawwaʾu'd-dāra, treated in al-Ḥashr).

The use here is "to return bearing a load". That is, sin is described not as a load carried but as a place a person settles into.

What the expression "my sin and your sin" means is a classical disagreement:

I do not impose a preference. But it is recorded in the classical commentaries that the second view has to be reconciled with the Qurʾān's principle wa lā taziru wāziratun wizra ukhrā (Fāṭir 35/18; treated in Fāṭir). I transmit this note; I do not settle it.

إِنِّىٓ أُرِيدُ — and the verb's being "to want" is also dwelt upon. How is a person's "wanting" another to be of the Fire to be understood? The explanations given in the classical commentaries: (a) this is not a wish but the preferring of one of two bad outcomes to the other; (b) the verb has the sense "I would consent"; (c) this is the announcing of an outcome, not a wish. I transmit all three; I do not impose a preference.

The root ط-و-ع: to submit, to obey; and for a thing to come easily. Ṭāʿa — obedience; ṭawʿan — willingly; istiṭāʿa — to be able.

The verb is here in Form II (ṭawwaʿa) and is transitive: "it made him yield to it, it made it look easy to him."

The case structure of the sentence should be recorded, and it is surprising:

That is, the subject of the sentence is not the person himself but his soul. In the sentence the person stands in the position of object: his own soul made him yield to the killing of his brother.

This is the very same pattern as lā yajrimannakum shanaʾānu qawmin, treated at 5/2 and 5/8: there too rancour was the subject and the person the object. The sūra uses the same grammatical structure twice.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the case structure of the two sentences: in recounting evil, the sūra does not make the human being the subject. It recounts something pushing the human being. And this does not lift responsibility — the outcome is still his (fa-qatalahū, fa-aṣbaḥa mina'l-khāsirīn) — but it shows how the process works.

فَقَتَلَهُ — and the verb is bare. How the murder was committed, where, when — none of it is recounted. The account looks not at the detail of the event but at what came before and after it.

فَأَصْبَحَ مِنَ ٱلْخَٰسِرِينَ — the verb أ-ص-ب-ح: to come into the morning; and "to become, to come to be in such a state". The concrete sense is still inside it: a night passes and in the morning he wakes as someone else.

The root خ-س-ر: loss in trade, the diminishing of one's capital. It was treated in al-ʿAṣr; I rely on that treatment. The word describes not something gained but something lost: the murder gained him nothing.

Fa-baʿatha'llāhu ghurāban yabḥathu fi'l-arḍi li-yuriyahū kayfa yuwārī sawʾata akhīh · Qāla yā waylatā a-ʿajaztu an akūna mithla hādha'l-ghurābi fa-uwāriya sawʾata akhī · Fa-aṣbaḥa mina'n-nādimīn

"Then God sent a raven scratching in the earth, to show him how to cover over his brother's body. He said: Woe to me! Am I unable to be even like this raven, and cover over my brother's body? And he became one of the regretful."

The concrete sense of the root: to scratch at the soil, to scrape, to turn over what is underneath.

And the root's second sense arises from this: to investigate, to examine. The Turkish words "bahis", "bahsetmek", "mebhas" (a topic, to discuss, a treatise) come from this root; in Arabic today "baḥth" (scholarly research) is the same word.

That is, in Arabic the word for "research" comes from the motion of an animal scratching at the earth. To open up the top of something and look underneath.

And this fits the scene of the verse exactly: the raven scratches (yabḥathu), and this scratching becomes a teaching (li-yuriyahū).

The sense of the root: to put a thing behind oneself, to conceal it, to cover it. Warāʾ — behind, beyond (the Turkish "verâ" and "mâverâ" are from this root: what lies beyond). Tawāriya — to be hidden.

That the word belongs to this root is interesting: on the word's own logic, to bury is to put something behind — to take it out of the field of sight.

سَوْءَة — root س-و-أ: to be bad, to be ugly. Sawʾa — what is not pleasant to see, what ought to be covered. The word is used in the Qurʾān both of bodily privacy (al-Aʿrāf 7/20-22) and, here, of a corpse.

The choice of word should be recorded: the verse does not say "corpse" or "his brother"; it says "what ought to be covered". That is, the covering of the dead is named not as a matter of hygiene but as a matter of decency. I record this as my own reading.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the scene itself:

The man who commits the first murder does not know what to do with the body. That is, murder is not something man is ready for. And a raven is sent as the teacher — a creature he counts as beneath himself.

The sentence itself writes down this lowliness: a-ʿajaztu an akūna mithla hādha'l-ghurāb — "could I not manage even as much as this raven?"

غُرَاب — root غ-ر-ب: to go far off, to depart, to separate. Ghurba — being far away; gharīb — a stranger; maghrib — the place from which the sun goes off, the west. The root was treated at al-Muzzammil 73/9 (rabbu'l-mashriqi wa'l-maghrib).

The lexicographers explain the word's being used for the raven in two ways: (a) because its colour has darkened, has gone off; (b) because it is a bird that goes far away, that migrates. I make no firm preference.

The preceding verse ended with fa-aṣbaḥa mina'l-khāsirīn; this verse ends with fa-aṣbaḥa mina'n-nādimīn. The same pattern, in two consecutive verses.

And the order should be recorded: the loss comes before the regret. The person loses first and regrets afterwards.

The root ن-د-م: regret. Some of the lexicographers connect the word with nadīm (a table companion) — I do not give this link as certain; the lexicographers do not agree.

And the verse does not say what the regret brought. No pardon, no repentance, no return is recounted in the narrative. Regret stands as the last word of the sentence. I record this as an observation about the word order.

Min ajli dhālika katabnā ʿalā banī Isrāʾīla annahū man qatala nafsan bi-ghayri nafsin aw fasādin fi'l-arḍi fa-ka-annamā qatala'n-nāsa jamīʿā · Wa man aḥyāhā fa-ka-annamā aḥya'n-nāsa jamīʿā · Wa laqad jāʾathum rusulunā bi'l-bayyināti thumma inna kathīran minhum baʿda dhālika fi'l-arḍi la-musrifūn

"For this reason We wrote for the Children of Israel: whoever kills a soul — other than for a soul or for corruption in the land — it is as though he had killed all mankind; and whoever gives one life, it is as though he had given life to all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear proofs; then, even after that, many of them went to excess in the land."

This verse contains one of the most cited sentences of the Qurʾān, and for that very reason it is often quoted cut loose from its frame. The verse itself lays down three elements of frame, and all three are in the text:

I treat all three one by one.

The root أ-ج-ل: the end of a thing, its term; and a cause. Ajal — an appointed span. Min ajli — "on account of…".

The phrase ties the verse directly to the preceding narrative: to one brother's killing of another.

And this link explains the scale of the sentence. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the connective itself: in the narrative a single person was killed. The sentence that comes immediately after says "all mankind". That is, the sentence draws a generalisation from the event before it: the first murder is not a single event but the opening of a door.

The verse says openly for whom it wrote the ruling. This qualification usually drops out when the sentence is quoted, and it ought not to.

There is disagreement in the classical commentaries about what this means, and I transmit it:

I do not impose a preference. But this much can be seen from the text: the continuation of the verse (wa laqad jāʾathum rusulunā…) returns to the same addressee. That is, the sentence does not stand cut off from its context.

The root ك-ت-ب and the pattern katabnā ʿalā were treated at al-Baqara 2/2 and 2/183: this pattern conveys obligation. I rely on that treatment.

This is the part of the sentence most often passed over, and passing it over turns the sentence into a different sentence.

The verse does not say "whoever kills a soul". It says "whoever kills a soul other than for a soul or for corruption in the land".

That is, the sentence does not proclaim an absolute prohibition of killing; its subject is killing that falls outside the law. Two exceptions are named:

The scope of these two exceptions and the conditions of their application are the subject of law and are not settled in this section. What is recorded here is only this: the one that enters the qualification is the verse itself.

The root ف-س-د: a thing's going bad, its order breaking down. Its opposite is iṣlāḥ — setting right. The word was treated in detail at al-Baqara 2/11-12 (innamā naḥnu muṣliḥūn); I rely on that treatment. And the construction fasād fi'l-arḍ will come again in the next verse (5/33).

The predicate of the sentence comes with fa-ka-annamā, and this is a linguistic detail that must be recorded.

كَأَنَّ — a particle of comparison: "as though". The sentence establishes not an equality but a likeness.

The difference is not unimportant. I record this as my own reading:

• Had it been a sentence of equality, no distinction at all would remain between one who kills a single person and one who kills a thousand — a conclusion untenable both in law and in morals.
• A sentence of likeness takes the measure out of number and moves it to the kind of the act. What is said is this: to take a life is to take at what is called "the human being". The number may change; the kind of the act is the same.

The classical commentaries give several explanations of how this likeness is to be understood, and I transmit them:

I do not impose a preference. None of the three excludes the others.

The second half of the sentence is usually left in the shadow of the first; yet in point of word order the real emphasis lies there.

أَحْيَا — root ح-ي-ي, Form IV: to keep alive, to give life. The scope of the word here is a classical disagreement:

I do not impose a preference. What the four views share is this: to give life is to be the cause of a life's continuing.

And the pronoun is striking: aḥyā-hā — "gives it life". The pronoun returns to the word nafs; that is, "a soul".

A point of word order — I record this as my own reading: the two halves are exactly symmetrical; the same structure, the same particle, the same close. The only difference is in the verb: qatala / aḥyā.

What the symmetry means is this: the sentence does not only lay down a prohibition; it opens a door to the same extent. Giving one person life is weighed on the same scale. And in the second half there is no qualification at all — there is no counterpart in the second half to the bi-ghayri nafsin aw fasādin of the first. No exception is written for the giving of life.

Having laid down the ruling, the verse also says that the ruling was not kept. And it says this with two qualifications:

• Kathīran minhum — "many of them". Partitive. Not all of them.
• Baʿda dhālika — "after that". That is, after the knowledge.

The root س-ر-ف: to overstep the measure, to go beyond what is needed. Isrāf — passing beyond the limit. The word does not concern property alone; in the Qurʾān it is used of excess of every kind. The root was treated at Ṭāhā 20/127 and at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/28.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the last sentence of the verse: the verse lays down a ruling and then says that the ruling was trampled. This shows not that the ruling is void but that a ruling does not do its work merely by being written. The text draws its own limit: what is written is not what is obeyed.

This verse is very often quoted in present-day political debate, and usually without its qualifications. This section does not enter those debates.

What is recorded here is the following, and all of it follows from the text:

1. The verse writes its own exception (bi-ghayri nafsin aw fasādin fi'l-arḍ); dropping this part when quoting turns the verse into a different sentence. 2. The verse establishes a likeness (ka-annamā), not an equality. 3. The verse says that it wrote the ruling for a particular addressee, and it does not hide this. 4. The second half of the verse (giving life) is as important as the first, and it carries no qualification. 5. The close of the verse also records that the ruling was trampled — and in doing so it divides again, saying kathīran minhum.

None of these five points is an interpretation; all five are the verse's own sentences.

Innamā jazāʾu'lladhīna yuḥāribūna'llāha wa rasūlahū wa yasʿawna fi'l-arḍi fasādan an yuqattalū aw yuṣallabū aw tuqaṭṭaʿa aydīhim wa arjuluhum min khilāfin aw yunfaw mina'l-arḍ

"The recompense of those who make war on God and His messenger and hasten about the land to corrupt it is only this: that they be killed, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this world; and in the hereafter there is a great punishment for them."

The preceding verse counted the taking of one life as equal to the taking of all humanity (5/32). This verse regulates the other end of the same subject: organised violence aimed at life and at the safety of the roads.

I record this as an observation about the word order, and it is not binding: immediately after the sentence proclaiming the sanctity of life, the text lays down the recompense for the one who violates that sanctity. The two verses complete one another.

The root ح-ر-ب: war; and also ḥarb — a place plundered and emptied. Muḥāraba (Form III) conveys reciprocity.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the form itself: the verse describes not a state of belief but a state of armed and reciprocal conflict.

There is a difference of view on the application of this verse, and it is not concealed:

No preference is adopted in this commentary and no legal ruling is issued. That the application belongs to state authority and to the courts, and is not left to individuals, is the common position of the classical sources.

Illa'lladhīna tābū min qabli an taqdirū ʿalayhim.

I record this as an observation: having set out the heaviest of recompenses, the verse does not close the door — and it puts the condition in terms of time: before being caught. And the sentence, following a verse of punishment, ends with ghafūrun raḥīm.

The same sequence will be repeated in the next penalty as well (5/38-39): the ruling, then repentance, then ghafūrun raḥīm. This repetition can be verified from the text.

"O you who believe! Be mindful of God, and seek a means of approach to Him, and strive in His way, that you may prosper."

The root و-س-ل: to draw near to a thing, to take hold of what brings one near. The lexicographers explain wasīla as "that by which a thing is reached"; they also record the sense of raghba, desire.

The word occurs in two places in the Qurʾān: here and at al-Isrāʾ 17/57 (yabtaghūna ilā rabbihimu'l-wasīlata ayyuhum aqrab) — treated there. And there, those seeking a wasīla were the very beings being prayed to.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verb of the verse: the sentence says ibtaghū — "seek". That is, a means of approach is not something given but something sought. And what comes before the sentence is ittaqu'llāh and what comes after it is wa jāhidū fī sabīlih — there is a verb on either side of it.

The exegetes differ on what the means of approach is — obedience and good works, the seeking of nearness, everything that endears one to God. No preference is adopted; but it is recorded that the context of the verse is an act.

The root of fidya (ف-د-ي): to ransom by paying a price. And the amount is given twice over: all that is on the earth, and as much again.

The same pattern was treated at al-Raʿd 13/18 and at al-Zumar 39/47; I rely on that treatment.

يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَخْرُجُوا۟ مِنَ ٱلنَّارِ وَمَا هُم بِخَٰرِجِينَ مِنْهَا (37) — the same root twice, once as a verb and once as an active participle: an yakhrujū / bi-khārijīn. The wish is voiced and negated in the same breath.

"As for the man and the woman who steal, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they have earned, an exemplary penalty from God. God is mighty, wise."

And here too the sequence of 33-34 is repeated: ruling → repentance → ghafūrun raḥīm. Both verses of punishment carry the same structure, and this can be verified from the text.

On the conditions for applying this ruling there is a wide debate in classical law, and it is not concealed:

No view is preferred in this commentary and no legal ruling is issued. That the application belongs to the courts, and is not left to individuals, is the common position.

But one observation about the word order can be recorded: the verse names the penalty nakāl (an exemplary penalty), not vengeance; and the verse that comes immediately after opens the door of repentance and putting right, while the verse after that (40) recalls to whom the ruling belongs: yuʿadhdhibu man yashāʾu wa yaghfiru li-man yashāʾ.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the three verses separate the one who issues the ruling from the one who applies it.

Yā ayyuha'r-rasūlu lā yaḥzunka'lladhīna yusāriʿūna fi'l-kufri mina'lladhīna qālū āmannā bi-afwāhihim wa lam tuʾmin qulūbuhum

"O Messenger! Let those who race one another into denial not grieve you — those who say 'we believe' with their mouths while their hearts have not believed, and those who have become Jews. They are listeners to falsehood, listeners to another people who have not come to you. They shift the words from their places."

The verse speaks of two parties — alladhīna qālū āmannā bi-afwāhihim and alladhīna hādū — but the act is shared: yusāriʿūna fi'l-kufr.

The opposition ب-ف-و-ه / ق-ل-ب should be recorded: qālū āmannā bi-afwāhihim wa lam tuʾmin qulūbuhum. The distance between mouth and heart was treated at al-Fatḥ 48/11 (yaqūlūna bi-alsinatihim mā laysa fī qulūbihim) and at Āl ʿImrān 3/167.

سَمَّٰعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ سَمَّٰعُونَ لِقَوْمٍ ءَاخَرِينَ لَمْ يَأْتُوكَ — sammāʿ: an intensive form — one who listens much. And it is repeated twice: once to falsehood, once to a people who have not come to you.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the second phrase: the verse says that the party seeking the ruling has itself come on behalf of someone else — the one asking is not asking his own question.

يُحَرِّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ مِن بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِۦ — taḥrīf (ح-ر-ف): to shift a thing towards its edge, to its side. The root was treated at al-Nisāʾ 4/46 and at al-Baqara 2/75; I rely on that treatment.

يَقُولُونَ إِنْ أُوتِيتُمْ هَٰذَا فَخُذُوهُ وَإِن لَّمْ تُؤْتَوْهُ فَٱحْذَرُوا۟ — and the working of distortion is described: the ruling is chosen in advance, and the authority is sought to match it.

I record this as an observation: the verse takes as its subject not recourse to arbitration but fixing the desired outcome beforehand and then looking for an arbiter.

أَكَّٰلُونَ لِلسُّحْتِ (42) — suḥt (س-ح-ت): to scrape out by the root, to dry up the root of a thing. The lexicographers explain the word as "gain that tears out the blessing of its owner by the root". And again an intensive form: akkālūn.

فَإِن جَآءُوكَ فَٱحْكُم بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ — and the one addressed is given two options. The exegetes differ on whether this choice was later removed; no preference is adopted.

وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَٱحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِٱلْقِسْطِ — but if judgement is given, the condition is one: bi'l-qisṭ. And this is on the same line as al-Nisāʾ 4/135.

وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِندَهُمُ ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ (43) — and the question shows the contradiction: to turn to someone else while their own Book is beside them, and then to turn away from the ruling that comes out as well.

In three verses the same sentence is repeated with three different endings, and this repetition is one of the most discussed places in the sūra.

No preference is adopted in this commentary, no ruling is issued, and no attribute is assigned to any person or community by these verses. Per the method (Method): a verse describes an attribute; determining who falls under that attribute is not this commentary's business.

But there are three notes that can be verified from the text, and they should be recorded:

Five pairings are counted: nafs–nafs, ʿayn–ʿayn, anf–anf, udhun–udhun, sinn–sinn — and a sixth, al-jurūḥu qiṣāṣ.

I record this as an observation about the language: the sentence is built with the preposition ب — an-nafsa bi'n-nafs — and this preposition conveys requital, an equivalent. That is, the list is a list of equivalences; not an encouragement but an upper limit.

And immediately after: fa-man taṣaddaqa bihī fa-huwa kaffāratun lah — "whoever remits it as charity, it is an expiation for him".

The same structure was treated at al-Baqara 2/178 (fa-man ʿufiya lahū min akhīhi shayʾun fa'ttibāʿun bi'l-maʿrūf); I rely on that treatment. Both verses fix the requital and then immediately bring pardon to the front.

Taqfiya (ق-ف-و): to follow behind someone, in his tracks; qafā — the nape of the neck. That is, "We sent one after another behind them".

And the Gospel is qualified by the same two words: fīhi hudan wa nūr — the same phrase used of the Torah at 44. This repetition can be verified from the text.

"And We have sent down the Book to you in truth, confirming what was before it and standing guard over it."

The word occurs in two places in the Qurʾān: here and at al-Ḥashr 59/23 among the names of God — treated there.

The lexicographers explain muhaymin thus: watching over, protecting, bearing witness, being trustworthy. They differ about its root (from ه-م-ن, or altered from أ-م-ن); no preference is adopted in this commentary.

And the standing of the two descriptions side by side should be recorded:

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the first conveys confirmation, the second oversight. When the two stand together, the position that emerges is neither wholesale rejection nor wholesale acceptance.

Shirʿa (ش-ر-ع): the path down which one goes to water, a watercourse. Minhāj (ن-ه-ج): an open, well-trodden road.

I record this as an observation about the language: both words mean a way, but both are tied to water and to openness — what is described is not the place arrived at but the line travelled.

وَلَوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَٰحِدَةً وَلَٰكِن لِّيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِى مَآ ءَاتَىٰكُمْ — and the same pattern was treated at Hūd 11/118; I rely on that treatment. Here the ground of the difference is given openly: li-yabluwakum fī mā ātākum — "to test you in what He has given you".

فَٱسْتَبِقُوا۟ ٱلْخَيْرَٰتِ — istibāq (س-ب-ق): to race, to get ahead.

I record this as my own reading: the sentence sets against difference not conflict but racing. And the subject of the race is specified: al-khayrāt.

The same verb occurred forty-one verses earlier in a negative sense: yusāriʿūna fi'l-kufr (5/41). Two races, in two directions.

Jāhiliyya (ج-ه-ل): the word means not merely "ignorance" but, as the lexicographers record, also acting on anger and whim, want of measure. The root was treated at al-Fatḥ 48/26 (ḥamiyyata'l-jāhiliyyati) and at al-Aḥzāb 33/33.

And the final qualification of the sentence should be recorded: li-qawmin yūqinūn — "for a people who have certainty". That is, the claim of superiority is presented as something that can be seen only from within a particular way of looking.

"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as protectors. They are protectors of one another. Whoever among you takes them as protectors is one of them. God does not guide a wrongdoing people."

The root و-ل-ي: to be near, to be adjoining. Walī — one who stands near, who takes on another's affairs, who stands behind him. The word was treated at al-Tawba 9/71 (baʿḍuhum awliyāʾu baʿḍ) and at al-Mumtaḥana 60/1.

I record this as an observation about the language and transmit it as the lexicographers give it: walāya — the bond of mutual protection — covers not an ordinary human relationship but tying one's affairs to someone, entering his protection, taking his side. The word describes a legal and political bond.

Per the method (Method) a limit must be drawn here: no blanket verdict about a community is drawn from this verse. The ground for this is not an outside consideration but the text's own sentences:

These four notes are inside the same Book. And 5/82 is inside the same sūra. That is, the sūra itself enters a qualification at verse eighty-two on what it said at verse fifty-one.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is these internal qualifications: the verse does not set up a stance against a religious affiliation; it forbids entering into a relation of protection with the opposing side in a state of conflict. And 5/52 transmits the reasoning of those who do so in their own words: taking sides according to which party will win.

Dāʾira (د-و-ر): what turns, the turning of fortune. The word was treated at al-Tawba 9/98 (yatarabbaṣu bikumu'd-dawāʾir); I rely on that treatment. In both places the same calculation is described: waiting for the outcome and standing accordingly.

وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمْ فَإِنَّهُۥ مِنْهُمْ — and the ruling is tied to an act: man yatawallahum. An attribute, not an identity; the subject of the sentence is an act.

"O you who believe! Whoever among you turns back from his religion — God will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him: humble towards the believers, unyielding towards the deniers; they strive in the way of God and fear no reproacher's reproach."

The order of the sentence should be recorded: He loves first, then they love. The verb is the same root (ح-ب-ب), in two directions, and which side is given priority is plain.

A note on the language of the root ذ-ل-ل is needed: the root gives both dhill (humiliation) and dhalūl (docile, a broken-in mount). The lexicographers distinguish the first as by force and the second as willing. Here the preposition is ʿalā — adhillatin ʿala'l-muʾminīn — and the lexicographers record that this gives the sense "gentle towards them, bending towards them".

The same pair was treated in other words at al-Fatḥ 48/29 (ashiddāʾu ʿala'l-kuffāri ruḥamāʾu baynahum); I rely on that treatment. The two verses build the same two-directional stance.

وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوْمَةَ لَآئِمٍ — and the fourth attribute is the condition of the one before it: a man who fears reproach cannot hold in two directions.

And the prohibition of verse fifty-one finds its positive counterpart here. Innamā is a particle of restriction: your protector is only this.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the text first says which bond of protection is not to be formed, then which one is. The prohibition is not left in a void.

ٱلَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَ — the exegetes differ on whom this phrase points to, and the disagreement is not concealed:

No preference is adopted in this commentary and the detail of the reports is not entered into. But that the word rukūʿ is used in the Qurʾān both for the bowing in prayer and for submission in general is a fact of the language.

فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ ٱللَّهِ هُمُ ٱلْغَٰلِبُونَ (56) — ḥizb (ح-ز-ب): a group that has come together, a party. The phrase was treated at al-Mujādala 58/22 (ulāʾika ḥizbu'llāh).

"O you who believe! Do not take as protectors those who make a mockery and a game of your religion — from among those who were given the Book before you — nor the deniers."

This verse shows within the text itself how verse fifty-one is to be read.

Alladhīna'ttakhadhū dīnakum huzuwan wa laʿiban min alladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba min qablikum.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the preposition: min here is partitive (separating a part from a whole) — "those of those who were given the Book", that is, not the whole of that community but those among them who carry this quality.

And the subject of the prohibition is not an affiliation but a behaviour: ittakhadhū dīnakum huzuwan wa laʿibā.

The same use of min was treated at al-Tawba 9/97-99 (wa mina'l-aʿrābi man…) and was recorded there too as the element that blocks a blanket verdict.

وَإِذَا نَادَيْتُمْ إِلَى ٱلصَّلَوٰةِ ٱتَّخَذُوهَا هُزُوًا وَلَعِبًا (58) — and a concrete instance is given: the attitude towards the call to prayer. Dhālika bi-annahum qawmun lā yaʿqilūn — the ground is tied to a failure to reason.

The root ن-ق-م: to find a thing offensive and take a stand against it, to vent one's spite.

And the construction of the question is worth recording: hal tanqimūna minnā illā an āmannā… — "is there any reason for your stand against us other than that we have believed?"

I record this as an observation: the sentence gives the list of what is objected to, and on the list stands belief in what came before as well (wa mā unzila min qabl). That is, what is put forward as the point of division is presented as a point of union.

On what the expressions in the verse (al-qirada wa'l-khanāzīr) point to there is the discussion treated at al-Baqara 2/65 and at al-Aʿrāf 7/166 — whether it is a real transformation or a figure has been debated in classical exegesis. No preference is adopted.

Per the method (Method) it is recorded plainly here: these expressions are not a quality of the whole of a community. The verse itself says wa jaʿala minhum — again min, again partitive. And the verbs are in the past tense: a particular event is being recounted.

No attribute is assigned to any community by this verse in this commentary — and this qualification follows from the verse's own wording.

And again the qualification: kathīran minhum — "many of them". Not all of them.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the subject of the sentence: the last verse turns the reproach away from those who do the thing and towards those who do not prevent it — and those expected to prevent it are that same community's scholars (al-rabbāniyyūn wa'l-aḥbār, the two groups named at verse 44 as those entrusted with the Torah).

And the one-letter difference between the closings of the two verses should be recorded:

The root of ṣunʿ (ص-ن-ع), unlike ʿamal, conveys doing something with craft, in an orderly way. The lexicographers record this difference.

I record this as an observation about the language, and it is not binding: ʿamal is used of the one who commits the evil, ṣunʿ of the one who says nothing about it — keeping silent is not a thing done once but an order maintained.

"They said, 'God's hand is tied.' Their own hands are tied, and they are cursed for what they said. No; both His hands are open; He gives as He wills."

Per the method (Method) this should be recorded: the verse does not load an attribute onto a community; it transmits an utterance that was made and answers that utterance. The subject of the sentence is qālat — a verb.

The root غ-ل-ل: a ring or fetter put on the neck or the hand; to bind tightly. Ghull — a shackle.

The lexicographers record the hand's being tied as an established idiom in Arabic for miserliness — and the same idiom occurs as counsel at al-Isrāʾ 17/29: wa lā tajʿal yadaka maghlūlatan ilā ʿunuqika wa lā tabsuṭhā kulla'l-basṭ. Treated there; I rely on that treatment.

That is, the objection is a claim that divine generosity has been cut off.

The answer turns the same idiom around — and gives it in the dual: yadāhu.

This commentary's stance on ambiguous expressions is settled in Method and is applied here as well: the question of modality is not entered into. The stance of the early generations — "accept as it stands, refer the manner to God" — and the interpretive reading — "a figure for power and generosity" — stand side by side in classical exegesis; no preference is adopted.

But at the level of language this can be recorded: the sentence answers from inside the idiom the objector used — against the tied hand, the open hand. And with yunfiqu kayfa yashāʾ the sense of the idiom is said openly: giving.

The same sentence occurs twice in this sūra — at 5/14 it was said of another community too. And this repetition can be verified from the text.

I record this as an observation: the verse names as the requital not a punishment coming from outside but an internal division.

كُلَّمَآ أَوْقَدُوا۟ نَارًا لِّلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا ٱللَّهُ — kulla-mā: every time. A pattern conveying continuity.

And again the qualification: wa la-yazīdanna kathīran minhum — "many of them". It does not say all; the sūra keeps this qualification up insistently (kathīr at 5/62, 5/64, 5/66, 5/71; ummatun muqtaṣida at 5/66).

"Had they kept up the Torah, the Gospel and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet."

Iqāma (ق-و-م): to set upright, to keep standing. When it is used of a book the lexicographers explain it as "to apply it giving it its due, to keep it standing without bending it". That is, it does not say to read the book but to keep it standing.

La-akalū min fawqihim wa min taḥti arjulihim — "they would have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet".

The exegetes generally explain this phrase as rain from the sky, plants from the earth — that is, the two sources of provision.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the verse gives as the return for keeping up the Book not an inward outcome but material abundance. The same link was treated at al-Aʿrāf 7/96 (la-fataḥnā ʿalayhim barakātin mina's-samāʾi wa'l-arḍ) and at Nūḥ 71/10-12; I rely on that treatment.

The root ق-ص-د: to aim at what is right, to keep measure, not to go to excess. Qaṣd — both intention and the middle way.

And this phrase forms the counterpart to the kathīrun minhum qualifications repeated in this part of the sūra.

The two sentences are inside the same verse. This is one of the plainest textual grounds for the prohibition of blanket verdicts in Method, and it should be recorded.

Balligh (ب-ل-غ): to convey, to bring to its destination.

And the conditional sentence should be recorded: wa in lam tafʿal fa-mā ballaghta risālatah — "if you do not, you will not have conveyed His message".

I record this as an observation about the language: the sentence counts leaving a part undone as leaving the whole undone — a partial delivery does not count as delivery.

وَٱللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ — ʿiṣma (ع-ص-م): to hold fast, to protect. The root was treated at Hūd 11/43 (lā ʿāṣima'l-yawma min amri'llāh).

There are various reports in the classical sources about the occasion of this verse's revelation; no preference among the reports is adopted in this commentary.

And the same verb (tuqīmū) for the second time within three verses. The measure does not change: whether what is in hand is kept standing.

The same verse was treated at al-Baqara 2/62; I rely on that treatment.

The structure of the sentence should be recorded here: four communities are named by name, and then the ruling is tied not to a name but to the condition man āmana … wa ʿamila ṣāliḥā. That is, the names enumerated are not the subject of the ruling; they are named in order to show how wide its scope is.

The exegetes differ on the scope of this verse; no preference is adopted, and no ruling is issued in this commentary as to who will be saved and who will not. This is a deliberate limit, per the method (Method).

Note: on the case of the word al-ṣābiʾūn here there is a detailed discussion in the books of grammar (the reason for its coming in the nominative). The matter is at the level of language, and no preference is adopted here.

The tenses of the verbs should be recorded: farīqan kadhdhabū (past) / wa farīqan yaqtulūn (imperfect).

I record this as an observation about the language and transmit it as the lexicographers record it: the shift to the imperfect is explained as bringing the scene before the eyes.

The same pair (ʿamū wa ṣammū — they went blind and went deaf) occurs twice, and between them stands thumma tāba'llāhu ʿalayhim.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the qualification at the third link: even in the repeating cycle the verse does not say "all of them". The sūra lays down this qualification for the fifth time.

"Those who said 'God is the Messiah, son of Mary' have fallen into denial. Yet the Messiah had said: 'O Children of Israel! Serve God, my Lord and your Lord.'"

Per the method (Method) this should be recorded: the subject of the sentence is alladhīna qālū — "those who say this". That is, the ruling is tied not to a community but to a particular utterance.

And the verse brings its counter-proof from the Messiah's own words: wa qāla'l-Masīḥu yā banī Isrāʾīla'ʿbudu'llāha rabbī wa rabbakum.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the objection is grounded not in an outside source but in the declaration of the very person the claim is about.

The expression is given as an utterance transmitted, and it is answered with wa mā min ilāhin illā ilāhun wāḥid.

This commentary does not enter into the theological debates and distinctions of terminology internal to the Christian tradition; the proposition the verse rejects is transmitted in the verse's own wording, and it is recorded that the Qurʾān answers it with its own proposition (ilāhun wāḥid). No blanket verdict is issued about anyone — and the textual ground for this is 5/82-83, ten verses later.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the verse: the sentence that comes immediately after the two sharpest rejections is an invitation — and it closes with ghafūrun raḥīm.

The sūra had set up this sequence twice before: 5/33-34 and 5/38-39. Ruling → the door of return → ghafūrun raḥīm. The third repetition is here.

Kānā yaʾkulāni'ṭ-ṭaʿām — "they both used to eat food".

I record this as an observation about the language: the proof is given not by way of an abstract attribute but by way of the body's need — the difference between being in need and being beyond need.

Ṣiddīqa (ص-د-ق): an intensive form — utterly truthful, one who confirms. This description of Mary was treated at al-Taḥrīm 66/12 (wa ṣaddaqat bi-kalimāti rabbihā).

The root غ-ل-و: to overstep the bound, to go beyond the limit; the rising of a price (ghalā) is from this root too.

And it should be recorded: the prohibition comes with the qualification ghayra'l-ḥaqq — that is, not an absolute "do not go far" but a going far that passes outside what is right.

The same command occurs at al-Nisāʾ 4/171 (lā taghlū fī dīnikum) and was treated there.

وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوٓا۟ أَهْوَآءَ قَوْمٍ قَدْ ضَلُّوا۟ مِن قَبْلُ وَأَضَلُّوا۟ كَثِيرًا وَضَلُّوا۟ عَن سَوَآءِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ — the root of ḍalāl (ض-ل-ل) three times in a single verse: they strayed, they led astray, they strayed.

I record this as an observation: of the three verbs the middle one is transitive. The straying itself repeats, and along the way it takes in others as well — and this is given as the ground for the prohibition of ghuluww.

"They did not restrain one another from the wrong they did. Evil indeed was what they used to do!"