al-Najm 53:19-20

A-fa-raʾaytumu'l-Lāta wa'l-ʿUzzā · Wa Manāta'l-thālithata'l-ukhrā "Have you seen al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And Manāt, the third, the other?"

This pattern was treated in detail in the section al-Wāqiʿa. There it was shown in a table that all four proofs of al-Wāqiʿa begin with a-fa-raʾaytum, and the structure of the pattern was given.

The work of the pattern is this: "now tell me" — to set an object before the one addressed and require him to pass judgement on it. The English "well, what do you say to this?" is its counterpart.

And in this sūra the pattern occurs twice:

Both are sentences of display: something is set out and the one addressed is required to look at it.

There is a real disagreement about the origin of the name, and two paths are transmitted in the sources:

A variant reading is also transmitted in connection with the second explanation: it is stated that the word is read with a doubling (ٱللَّاتّ); on that reading the name is the active participle of the verb latta — "the kneader". I do not name an imam.

I make no choice. The first explanation is linguistically the neater (Allāh → al-Lāt is a feminising pattern that works in Arabic). The second rests on a narrative, and the historical value of the narrative is disputed.

But what the two explanations have in common is worth recording, and it bears directly on verse 23 of the sūra: on both explanations the name is a derived name. It derives either from ilāh or from a verb. The name, that is, does not come from the thing named; it comes from human language.

It is transmitted in the sources that al-Lāt was at Ṭāʾif and was adopted by the tribe of Thaqīf. I do not enter into the details, because this information belongs to the literature of biography and genealogy, and the Qurʾān does not give it.

Root: ع-ز-ز. This root has been treated in many places in this commentary (al-Ḥashr, al-Ḥadīd, al-Mulk, al-Burūj and others). What was recorded there:

The concrete sense of the root is hardness and durability. Arḍun ʿazāz — hard ground, difficult to dig. From here two directions come out: invincibility (unbreakable, not to be subdued) and rarity/value (ʿazza'l-shayʾu: it became rare). The two senses are linked to each other: what is hard to reach is both strong and valuable.

ٱلْعُزَّىٰ is the feminine of the elative أَعَزّ (aʿazz — the mightiest): the fuʿlā measure. The word-for-word sense of the name, then: "the mightiest (feminine)."

And this is the material of the proof that will be built two verses later.

For al-ʿUzzā is kin to ٱلْعَزِيز (ʿAzīz) from the same root — and ʿAzīz is one of the names of God in the Qurʾān. The name of the idol is thus the feminised superlative degree of an attribute of God.

I record this as a lexical observation. That the name is built in this way agrees with the ruling of verse 23, "they are nothing but names you and your fathers have given": the name has been gathered up from an existing religious vocabulary.

It is transmitted in the sources that al-ʿUzzā was near Mecca, in the valley of Nakhla. As recorded in the section al-Masad, the sources of biography give Abū Lahab's actual name as ʿAbd al-ʿUzzā — "the servant of al-ʿUzzā" — that is, the name had entered that society even into personal names.

Root: م-ن-ي. This root was treated in the section al-Qiyāma; what was recorded there:

- مَنَىٰ (manā) — he measured out, he apportioned, he determined. - مَنِىّ (manī) — what is poured out. - مَنِيَّة (maniyya), plural مَنَايَا — death; on the lexicographers' explanation, "what has been apportioned". - أُمْنِيَّة (umniyya), plural أَمَانِىّ — wishing, fancy. In the section on al-Qiyāma this kinship was transmitted as a lexical observation, with no interpretation built upon it.

Two explanations of the origin of the name are transmitted:

Both converge on the same root and both occur in the sources. I impose no preference.

But the first explanation makes a connection with verse 24, and the connection is worth recording:

Verse 24: am li'l-insāni mā تَمَنَّىٰ? — "Or shall man have whatever he wishes for?"

تَمَنَّىٰ is from the same root as Manāt. Five verses after naming an idol called "the apportioner of destiny", that is, the sūra says that man's wishing gives him nothing.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the sharing of the root. The sharing of the root is a countable datum; that a deliberate relation is established between the two verses is my inference and is not certain — for the verb tamannā is widespread in the Qurʾān and does not carry an idol's association everywhere it occurs.

A note on a variant reading: it is transmitted that the word is also read مَنَاءَة (Manāʾa, with a lengthening). I do not name an imam.

These two adjectives in the word order need dwelling on, because both look superfluous.

Three idols have already been counted; there is no need to say "third". And after saying "third", to say "the other" looks entirely excessive.

The classical commentaries dwell on this excess and generally read it as a belittling (taḥqīr). The name is mentioned but not dwelt upon: "and there is the other one."

And there is one further observation in the word order — I record this as my own reading.

The first two idols are named directly: al-Lāta wa'l-ʿUzzā. The third comes by a number and the epithet "other". The list, that is, loses its definiteness as it goes: name → name → number + "the other".

That the last item of a list should fade in this way says something about the list itself. And the continuation of the verses will confirm it: verse 23 will call all three "names".

The word ٱلْأُخْرَىٰ has one further grammatical nicety: it is the feminine of ākhar (other) and in Arabic sometimes carries the association of "lower, left behind". This usage is disputed; I do not present it as a settled ruling.

The Qurʾān names these three only here, and together. And this must be recorded:

What the Qurʾān gives is very little, and it is this: they are names (23), the feminine is ascribed to them by their owners (21), and no proof has been sent down about them from God (23). The Qurʾān does not say where these idols were, what they looked like, or by whom and when they were adopted.

That information comes from biography, genealogy and works of the "book of idols" type. In this commentary I do not enter into them, and the ground is Method: no exegesis is built upon details the Qurʾān does not give.

The one historical frame the Qurʾān does give, and which matters, is this: the same society counted these three beings the daughters of God. The Qurʾān records this in many places:

• "They ascribe daughters to God — glory be to Him — and to themselves what they desire." (al-Naḥl 16/57)
• "Has your Lord then chosen sons for you and taken daughters for Himself from among the angels?" (al-Isrāʾ 17/40)
• "Ask them: has your Lord daughters, and they sons?" (al-Ṣāffāt 37/149)

In the section al-Ikhlāṣ the function of this belief was dwelt on, and the finding recorded there is decisive here:

They counted the angels the daughters of God; and al-Lāt, Manāt and al-ʿUzzā were named within the same frame. The function of this belief matters: daughters are intermediaries, intercessors. God is far, unreachable; He is approached through His daughters. The Qurʾān records this logic too: "We serve them only that they may bring us near to God" (al-Zumar 39/3). The claim of lineage, that is, is the foundation of the institution of mediation.

And this bears directly on the structure of the sūra. At verse 26 the sūra will enter precisely the subject of intercession. The order is thus: three names (19-20) → the contradiction in the claim of lineage (21-22) → the emptiness of the names (23) → the invalidity of wishing (24-25) → and that intercession does not work (26). The sūra dismantles the institution of mediation beginning from its foundation.