al-Dhāriyāt 51:52-53

Kadhālika mā ata'lladhīna min qablihim min rasūlin illā qālū sāḥirun aw majnūn · A-tawāṣaw bih; bal hum qawmun ṭāghūn "So it is: no messenger came to those before them but they said, 'A magician, or a madman.' Did they enjoin this on one another? No — they are an insolent people."

I built this link above in the discussion of 51/38-40; I do not repeat it. In summary: the two words Pharaoh said (sāḥirun aw majnūn) are recorded here as the word of every age — the same two words, in the same order, with the same particle aw.

And it was shown there that the charges of sāḥir and majnūn are contradictory, and so the diagnosis of qawlin mukhtalif in the sūra's eighth verse finds an example here.

The same pattern as the one seen in the forty-second verse: mā … illā. Two negations, an absolute inclusiveness.

And the min in the construction min rasūlin is redundant — in a negative sentence it is used for generalising. In English it is answered by "no messenger at all".

The sentence, that is, leaves no exception: to every messenger who came the same two words were said.

This absoluteness may look exaggerated at first sight. But there is a counterpart to it in the Qurʾān's own telling: similar charges are levelled at Noah (al-Qamar 54/9: majnūn), at Moses (the thirty-ninth verse of this sūra), at Ṣāliḥ, at Shuʿayb. And the charges levelled at the Prophet were itemised in the section on al-Inshirāḥ.

And this is one of the most finely ironic questions in the Qurʾān.

Root: و-ص-ي. This root was treated in the discussion of al-ʿAṣr 103/3 and this verse was named there. I do not repeat it. The summary of the finding there: tawāṣaw is mutual enjoining; and this verse is surprising because the same pattern is used here in a negative context — that past communities all said the same two things, as though they had enjoined it on one another. And the conclusion recorded there: "the mechanism of mutual enjoining works in both directions… The mechanism is neutral; what is decisive is the content."

What is to be added here is the question itself.

The question is an istifhām inkārī: its answer is "no", and the answer is given in the next sentence in any case (bal).

And the logic of the question has to be seen. The text makes an observation: for centuries, communities who knew nothing of one another answered messengers who knew nothing of one another with the same two words.

There can be two explanations of this:

1. They agreed on it. But this is impossible — centuries and distances lie between them. 2. There is a common cause. And the text gives this second one: bal hum qawmun ṭāghūn.

The question performs an elimination, that is: the first possibility falls because it is absurd, and the second remains.

And in point of logic this is the same structure we shall see at al-Ṭūr 52/35. There too possibilities will be enumerated, the impossible ones eliminated, and a single explanation left. al-Ṭūr will do it with three possibilities; al-Dhāriyāt does it here with two.

This is the most striking similarity of method between the two sūras and will be taken up separately in the section on al-Ṭūr.

I record this as my own reading; the structures of the two verses are plain in the text.

Root: ط-غ-ي. This root was treated in the discussion of al-Shams 91/11 (ṭaghwā); I do not repeat it. In summary: the concrete sense of the root is water's swelling and overflowing — going beyond a bound. And it was recorded there that ṭaghwā and taqwā are on the same measure and end in the same sound: one is guarding oneself, the other going beyond the bound.

And both words are in this sūra:

Verse 15: inna'l-muttaqīna fī jannātin wa ʿuyūn. Verse 53: bal hum qawmun ṭāghūn.

The sūra's two main groups are tied to two roots: those who guard themselves and those who overflow. The similarity of sound recorded in the section on al-Shams holds here as well.

I record this as a link within the sūra.

And the work of the particle bal. بَلْ is in Arabic a particle of iḍrāb: it drops the preceding judgement and puts another in its place. In English it is answered by "no, on the contrary".

The sentence does this, that is: it rejects the question asked and sets down the real cause. The common word arises not from an agreement but from a common state.