al-Ḥāqqa 69:44-47

Wa law taqawwala ʿalaynā baʿḍa'l-aqāwīl · La-akhadhnā minhu bi'l-yamīn · Thumma la-qaṭaʿnā minhu'l-watīn · Fa-mā minkum min aḥadin ʿanhu ḥājizīn "And had he invented against Us some sayings, We would surely have seized him by force; then We would surely have cut his life-vein. And not one of you could have held Us off from him."

These four verses do something with few parallels in the Qurʾān: they frame a hypothesis, and the protagonist of the hypothesis is the Prophet himself.

The expected defence would have been: "he would not invent this, because he is a trustworthy man." Evidence from character, that is. Sūrat al-Takwīr did this to a degree (ṣāḥibukum — "your companion").

Here no evidence from character is offered. Instead a scenario is framed: what would have happened had he invented it?

And the outcome of the scenario is the killing of the inventor.

This shifts the ground of the defence. The sentence does not say "he does not invent"; it says "had he invented, he would not have lived." That the text is still going on, that is, is itself offered as evidence.

The structure of this argument must be recorded, because it is out of the ordinary: the truth of the claim is tied to the claimant's still being alive.

I record this as my own reading; the steps of the argument are in the text.

Root: ق-و-ل. To say. And the pattern here is Form V (تَفَعُّل).

One of this form's functions in Arabic is affectation (takalluf): to do a thing by forcing it, straining out of oneself, to make it appear that one is doing what one is not. Taṣabbara (he forced himself to be patient), tajāhala (he feigned ignorance).

تَقَوَّلَ is on this pattern: to make a word appear to have been said that was not said, to ascribe to someone a speech that is not his.

The verb is not ordinary "lying", then. There is an ascription inside the verb: taqawwala ʿalaynā — "had he invented against Us." That is, had he laid it to Our charge.

And the particle ʿalā here conveys harm: "against Us". Inventing is positioned as an act committed to the detriment of the one it is fathered upon.

ٱلْأَقَاوِيل is a striking word: it is the plural of a plural.

Qawl (a saying) → aqwāl (sayings) → aqāwīl (sayings of sayings).

In Arabic this is called jamʿ al-jamʿ. And what is recorded in the classical sources is this: the pattern generally conveys belittlement and scatteredness. Aqāwīl carries a tone like "talk said here and there", "odds and ends of speech".

And when it is joined with بَعْضَ (some), the tone drops further still: "a few remarks."

The verse, that is, deliberately makes the hypothetical offence small.

The sentence might have been framed: "Had he invented a lie against Us…" A grave offence. Instead: "had he invented a few remarks."

And the requital is death.

The disproportion is deliberate, and the force of the argument lies there: the smallest addition earns the heaviest penalty. Not the text as a whole, that is, but even one of its sentences cannot belong to the man.

I record this as my own reading. The belittling tone of aqāwīl is recorded in the classical sources; the interpretation of the disproportion is mine.

And here there is one of the finest internal links in the sūra.

The expression بِٱلْيَمِين has three readings, and all three occur in the classical sources:

There is no practical difference in sense: all three convey a decisive and irresistible seizure.

But the word's other occurrence in the sūra is worth recording:

The same word, two scenes. In the one, receiving; in the other, being seized. In the one a hand is held out; in the other a hand is held fast.

I record this as a verbal link within the sūra; the two occurrences are in the text. I do not claim that the link is deliberate — yamīn is an ordinary word in Arabic and is in place in both contexts.

The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here.

وَتِين, as the lexicographers describe it, is the main vessel attached to the heart; when it is cut death is instantaneous. The English equivalent is "the aorta".

Some lexicographers describe it as "the vessel from which the heart hangs". I make no firm determination about the anatomical detail; the common point given in the sources is this: the vessel whose cutting brings instant death.

Two things about the choice of the word are worth recording.

One — the manner of execution. The verse does not say "We would have killed him", nor "We would have destroyed him". It names a particular vessel.

And this makes the penalty instantaneous. When the life-vein is cut a man cannot speak; the speech ends. The penalty, that is, prevents the invention from continuing: the man cannot frame a second sentence.

Two — its attachment to the heart. The vessel is the one that feeds the heart. And what is charged is speech.

The Qurʾān ties the source of the speech to the heart: "He brought it down upon your heart" (al-Baqara 2/97); "He brought it down upon your heart, that you might be of the warners" (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/193-194).

The place chosen in the penalty, that is, is what feeds the place where the revelation came down. If the speech comes from the heart, the penalty comes down on the heart's vessel.

I record this as my own reading and enter a note of caution: I do not claim that the verse intends this link. Watīn is the ordinary Arabic word for describing instantaneous death, and its choice may be explained by that alone.

There is a point of grammar here, and it has been much discussed in the classical sources.

In the sentence أَحَد (one person) is singular; but حَٰجِزِينَ (those who hold off) is plural. Normally an attribute agrees with what it qualifies.

The grammarians' solutions:

The first solution is the most widespread and is a recognised phenomenon in Arabic: aḥad in a negative context conveys a class and may therefore be treated as plural.

And there are two occurrences of مِن: fa-mā minkum min aḥadin. The second is redundant and conveys totality. The same phenomenon was recorded in the sections on al-Ṭāriq and at al-Ḥāqqa 69/8.

The sentence is thus: "Not one of you could have held Us off from him." The negation is opened to its limit.

To whom does the pronoun عَنْهُ refer? In the classical sources the majority say the pronoun refers to the Prophet: "not one of you could have protected him from Us." Some exegetes refer the pronoun to the punishment: "not one of you could have warded off that punishment."

It makes no great difference to the sense. I express no preference.

حَاجِز — Root: ح-ج-ز. Ḥajz — to separate, to put a barrier between, to hold back. In the Qurʾān: "He set a barrier between the two seas" (al-Naml 27/61) — ḥājizan, the divider that keeps the two waters from mixing.

The word conveys coming in between, that is. And the sentence says there is no one to come in between.

And this is a rejection of the whole notion of who might come in between. In pre-Islamic Arabia what protected a man was, as was recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn, the men behind him: "A person's safety depended on the existence of people who would call to account anyone who harmed him."

The verse says exactly this to the one addressed: the system of protection does not work here. And the one addressed knows that system, because his own life rests upon it.

I record this as my own reading; the working of the system of protection is recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn.

Let us read the four verses together:

1. The hypothesis: had he invented a few remarks (44). 2. The consequence: he would have been seized by force (45). 3. The execution: his life-vein would have been cut (46). 4. The close: no one could have prevented it (47).

The logic of the argument is this: the text ties its claim to the life of its own carrier. Had it been an invention, the carrier would not be alive; the carrier is alive, therefore it is not an invention.

And this argument has a particular feature: it does not work in the carrier's interest.

A similar observation was recorded in the section on al-Takwīr, and the same note was entered there: "the text contains elements that do not work in its carrier's interest." There it was built on the fact that knowledge of the unseen is not withheld.

Here it is plainer still: the text contains a threat of death against its own carrier. A man who wished to strengthen his own position would not put such a sentence into his text.

I record this as an observation, not as a proof — with the same note as in the section on al-Takwīr.