7. Sūrat al-Aʿrāf

Two hundred and six verses. It is widely reported that it came down in the Meccan period; some of its verses (particularly 163-171) are also said to have come down in Medina — I adopt no firm preference. It is the second longest sūra in the Qurʾān: by number of verses it comes after al-Baqara and al-Shuʿarāʾ, but in volume of words it is second only to al-Baqara. The verses of al-Shuʿarāʾ were short (al-Shuʿarāʾ); those of al-Aʿrāf are long.

It takes its name from a word that occurs in verses 46, 47 and 48:

وَعَلَى ٱلْأَعْرَافِ رِجَالٌ يَعْرِفُونَ كُلًّۢا بِسِيمَىٰهُمْ Wa ʿala'l-aʿrāfi rijālun yaʿrifūna kullan bi-sīmāhum (46)

ٱلْأَعْرَاف — al-aʿrāf, from the root ع-ر-ف, the plural of ʿurf. The concrete sense of the root is height and ridge: the ʿurf of a horse is the ridge of the neck where the mane ends, the ʿurf of a cockerel is its comb. From this comes the sense "a raised place, a ridge, a height". The same root also carries the sense "to know, to recognise" (maʿrifa) — and that these two senses stand side by side in a single verse (ʿala'l-aʿrāfi rijālun yaʿrifūna kullan bi-sīmāhum) is the first thing to record about the name of the sūra. This passage will be treated in detail at verses 46-49, and because both what the word denotes and who those upon it are remain disputed, no preference will be imposed.

A note on naming: in the Qurʾān the names of sūras are most often not a summary of the subject but a distinctive word that occurs in the sūra — this was recorded in al-Shuʿarāʾ. Al-Aʿrāf is the same: a name taken from a scene of four verses is set at the head of a sūra of two hundred and six.

From beginning to end the sūra works on a single question: what does man do with the knowledge given to him? And it asks that question from three different places.

And the three cornerstones of the sūra — 11-25 (Adam), 172-174 (alast), 175-177 (the man who slipped out of the signs) — are three moments of the same matter:

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the verbs of the three sections themselves: nahā (he forbade), ashhada (he called to witness), ātaynāhu āyātinā (We gave him Our signs). In all three there is first a giving, and then the passing of what was given out of the hand. What is commanded at the end of the sūra is exactly the reverse of this: wa'dhkur rabbaka fī nafsika (205) — to hold, to keep in hand.

The word repeated through the sequence of prophets in this sūra is al-malaʾ, and it takes the place held in al-Shuʿarāʾ by the seal kadhdhabat … al-mursalīn.

And malaʾ does not occur in the story of Lot (80-84) — there the addressee is directly qawmuh. This is a countable datum.

The root م-ل-أ: to fill. Malaʾ means "those who fill an assembly", that is, the body that holds the word and takes the decisions. The idea of "filling" in the root was also treated in al-Mulk and Ṣād in the pattern la-amlaʾanna jahannama; I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation: in the sequence of prophets in al-Aʿrāf the opposing side is never "the people" but the deciding body within the people. And in verse 75 that body is set against alladhīna'stuḍʿifū (those made weak) — the sūra presents the opposition along a line of class.

Two lines must be recorded separately.

One — wa lā tufsidū fi'l-arḍi baʿda iṣlāḥihā (56) and wa lā tufsidū fi'l-arḍi baʿda iṣlāḥihā (85) are the same sentence. The first is said directly to the reader, the second in the mouth of Shuʿayb to Madyan. That is, the sūra puts its own command into the mouth of a prophet. In Hūd Table 4 it was tabulated that Sūrat Hūd does the same thing (istaghfirū rabbakum thumma tūbū ilayh → the third verse of the sūra and the mouths of three prophets). I rely on that treatment; al-Aʿrāf applies the same technique once.

Two — the sentence ummatun yahdūna bi'l-ḥaqqi wa bihī yaʿdilūn occurs twice word for word (159 and 181). The first is about the people of Moses, the second about all created beings. I record this as an observation: the sūra shows that it issues no blanket judgement about a community by widening its own sentence. The rule of the method that "no blanket judgement is issued" (Method) finds support here from within the text itself.

The dominant verse-ending of the sūra is ‑ūn / ‑īn (tashkurūn, yadhdhakkarūn, yaʿlamūn, muʾminīn, khālidīn). But the verse-ending of al-Aʿrāf is not single-toned as that of al-Shuʿarāʾ is: among the long verses, closings such as al-ghāfirīn (155), al-rāḥimīn (151), ḥakīm are scattered. The sūra takes its length from the length of its sentences; its sound pattern loosens accordingly. This is a record of fact; no reckoning of letters or numbers is entered into (al-Baqara).

It is widely reported that the sūra came down in the last years of Mecca. The addressees appear in three rings:

And the last section of the sūra (172-206) draws the three rings together at a single point: the scene of alast looks to all mankind, the example of insilākh to the man given a Book, the command khudhi'l-ʿafw to the messenger himself.

The basmala was treated in earlier sections; the verses are numbered without it.

Alif-Lām-Mīm-Ṣād

This is one of the two disconnected-letter sequences in the Qurʾān made up of four letters (the other being al-Mr — al-Raʿd 13/1). And the sequence al-Mṣ occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

The record concerning the disconnected letters was set down in al-Baqara at 2/1 and in Ṭāhā at 20/1: what the letters mean is not known with certainty; explanations are transmitted, none of them carrying certainty. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here. Claims resting on the reckoning of letters and numbers are not used in this commentary (Method).

The one thing that belongs here is the placement of the sequence, and that is a countable datum:

In all five of these sūras the "Book" is named immediately after the disconnected letters. This is a verifiable pattern; I make no claim about what it means.

Kitābun unzila ilayka fa-lā yakun fī ṣadrika ḥarajun minhu li-tundhira bihī wa dhikrā li'l-muʾminīn · Ittabiʿū mā unzila ilaykum min rabbikum wa lā tattabiʿū min dūnihī awliyāʾ, qalīlan mā tadhakkarūn

"It is a Book sent down to you — let there be no constriction in your breast on account of it — that you may warn by it, and as a reminder to the believers. · Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord; do not follow other guardians beside Him. How little you take to heart!"

The concrete sense of the root: tightness, a narrow place. The lexicographers describe ḥaraj as "a place where the trees are so tangled together that one cannot get in". From this comes the sense of narrowness, distress, the tightening of the breast.

The root occurs in the sūra al-Anʿām and at 22/78 in al-Ḥajj (wa mā jaʿala ʿalaykum fi'd-dīni min ḥaraj); the use in al-Aʿrāf is different, and the difference should be recorded: there ḥaraj is a weight not laid upon the one addressed by the religion, here it is the constriction in the breast of the messenger.

A point of word order should be recorded. The main construction of the verse is this:

Kitābun unzila ilayka — li-tundhira bihī wa dhikrā li'l-muʾminīn

That is, "it is a Book sent down to you, that you may warn by it." But a sentence comes in between the two parts: fa-lā yakun fī ṣadrika ḥarajun minh.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the sentence: before the purpose of the Book's descent is stated, a note is entered about the inner state of the messenger. Before the task of warning is assigned, the distress that task will cause is named.

And this finds its answer at the end of the sūra: khudhi'l-ʿafwa wa'mur bi'l-ʿurfi wa aʿriḍ ʿani'l-jāhilīn (199) — there too the messenger is told what to do in the face of the addressee's response. The sūra opens by telling the messenger "do not be distressed" and closes by telling him "turn away".

A comparison: in al-Shuʿarāʾ at 26/3 the same place was held by laʿallaka bākhiʿun nafsaka allā yakūnū muʾminīn — there the messenger's grief was described with the words destroying himself. The same sentence was also treated in al-Kahf at 18/6. Three sūras look at the same state of the messenger with three different words:

The third verse builds the whole matter of the sūra out of two verbs: ittabiʿū and lā tattabiʿū. The same root (ت-ب-ع), one an imperative and one a prohibition.

And the object of the prohibition should be recorded: awliyāʾ — "guardians", in the plural. The verse does not say "do not follow other gods"; it says "do not follow guardians".

The root و-ل-ي: nearness, adjacency. Walī — the one who is near, who takes charge of another's affair. The root was treated in al-Jāthiya and in al-Baqara at 2/257 (Allāhu waliyyu'lladhīna āmanū); I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation: the choice of the word overlaps with two later sentences of the sūra — innā jaʿalna'sh-shayāṭīna awliyāʾa lilladhīna lā yuʾminūn (27) and innahumu'ttakhadhu'sh-shayāṭīna awliyāʾa min dūni'llāh (30). That is, the prohibition of the third verse receives its ground in the twenty-seventh and thirtieth verses. This is a link that can be verified within the sūra.

Wa kam min qaryatin ahlaknāhā fa-jāʾahā baʾsunā bayātan aw hum qāʾilūn · Fa-mā kāna daʿwāhum idh jāʾahum baʾsunā illā an qālū innā kunnā ẓālimīn

"How many a town We destroyed; Our violence came upon them by night, or while they slept at noon. · When Our violence came upon them, they had nothing to say but, "We were indeed wrongdoers.""

Both words state sleep, and each is a different time.

The root ق-ي-ل: qaylūla, the short sleep taken at midday in hot regions. The word occurs also at 25/24 in al-Furqān (wa aḥsanu maqīlā) — there it is the resting place of the people of the Garden. I rely on al-Furqān.

I record this as an observation: by naming two times of sleep the verse covers the two ends of the day — and both are moments of defencelessness. The same pair will be repeated in verses 97-98 of this sūra (baʾsunā bayātan wa hum nāʾimūn / baʾsunā ḍuḥan wa hum yalʿabūn). But there the second time will not be sleep but play. The comparison of the two places will be given at 97-98.

The root د-ع-و: to call, to claim. Daʿwā is "the word put forward, the claim".

A point of word order: the sentence is built as fa-mā kāna daʿwāhum … illā an qālū — a qaṣr (restriction, ḥaṣr) construction: "their claim was nothing but this".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the word: daʿwā means a person's defence, his assertion of a right. And the verse says that when the violence came, the content of the defence was "we were wrongdoers". That is, the defence becomes a confession.

And the sentence innā kunnā ẓālimīn is in the past tense: "we were wrongdoers". The admission is a diagnosis turned towards the past; it is not a sentence of repentance. This distinction becomes visible when it is compared with verse 23 of the same sūra (rabbanā ẓalamnā anfusanā — there a request for forgiveness follows it). This comparison will be completed at 7/23.

Fa-la-nasʾalanna'lladhīna ursila ilayhim wa la-nasʾalanna'l-mursalīn · Fa-la-naquṣṣanna ʿalayhim bi-ʿilmin wa mā kunnā ghāʾibīn

"We shall certainly question those to whom messengers were sent, and We shall certainly question the messengers. · We shall certainly recount to them with knowledge; for We were never absent."

The structure of the verse must be recorded: the same verb (la-nasʾalanna) is repeated twice, with two different objects.

I record this as an observation: that the questioning takes in the messengers as well stands beside the question put to Jesus (ʿĪsā) in the sūra al-Māʾida (5/116) and beside the line of al-Shuʿarāʾ that "your task is delivery". But here there is no accusation; the verb is only suʾāl, questioning.

And the twofold repetition of la-nasʾalanna is not the same as lining up two objects in a single sentence. It does not say "We shall question both these and those"; the verb is built afresh for each of them. This is an emphasis that can be read off the word order.

The root غ-ي-ب: to disappear from sight, to be absent. *Ghāʾib: the one who is not present.

The construction of the sentence must be recorded: a negated nominal sentence. It does not say "We were present"; it says "We were not absent".

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding: the word ghayb is generally used in the Qurʾān for the region man cannot reach (al-Baqara 2/3, al-Jinn 72/26). Here the same root is used, negated, of God: man has a ghayb; He has none. And the expression fa-la-naquṣṣanna ʿalayhim bi-ʿilmin looks to the same place: the recounting is grounded not on witnessing but on knowledge.

Wa'l-waznu yawmaʾidhini'l-ḥaqqu fa-man thaqulat mawāzīnuhū fa-ulāʾika humu'l-mufliḥūn · Wa man khaffat mawāzīnuhū fa-ulāʾika'lladhīna khasirū anfusahum bimā kānū bi-āyātinā yaẓlimūn

"The weighing on that day is the truth. Whoever's scales are heavy, those are the ones who prosper. · And whoever's scales are light, those are the ones who have lost themselves, because they used to wrong Our signs."

These two verses are identical in structure with 101/6-9 in al-Qāriʿa and 23/102-103 in al-Muʾminūn (fa-ammā man thaqulat mawāzīnuh… wa ammā man khaffat mawāzīnuh). The root was further treated at 21/47 in al-Anbiyāʾ (al-mawāzīna'l-qisṭ) and at 42/17 in al-Shūrā (wa anzala … al-mīzān). I rely on those treatments and do not undo the root و-ز-ن again here.

What I write is the difference that belongs here, and the table can be verified from the text:

The word al-Aʿrāf adds is khasirū anfusahum: "they have lost themselves". What answers to the measure is neither a place nor a duration, but the person himself.

The sentence is a nominal sentence and its predicate is definite (al-ḥaqq). In Arabic a definite predicate states restriction: "the weighing on that day — that is the truth."

Two readings are transmitted, and both accord with the language:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. The two readings do not exclude each other.

A point of word order must be recorded: the verb yaẓlimūn comes here with the preposition bi-.

In Arabic ẓalama is most often directly transitive (ẓalamnā anfusanā, 7/23). Its coming with bi- gives the sense "to do wrong in the matter of something, not to put a thing in its proper place".

The concrete sense of the root ظ-ل-م is "to put a thing somewhere other than its own place"; the root was treated at 31/13 in Luqmān (inna'sh-shirka la-ẓulmun ʿaẓīm). I rely on that treatment.

I record this as my own reading: the sentence does not say "they denied Our signs"; it says "they did wrong in the matter of Our signs" — that is, they put the sign somewhere other than where it stood. And precisely this verb will be used of Pharaoh and his people in verse 103 of this sūra: fa-ẓalamū bihā ("they did wrong in the matter of the signs"). The same rare construction in two places. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

Wa laqad makkannākum fi'l-arḍi wa jaʿalnā lakum fīhā maʿāyish, qalīlan mā tashkurūn

"We have established you on the earth and given you the means of livelihood in it. How little you give thanks!"

The concrete sense of the root: to provide a place for something, to settle it firmly. Makān is from the same root (some lexicographers count it from the root kawn; both views are transmitted, and I do not impose a preference). Tamkīn is to give someone the power to stand and to dispose in a place.

The root was treated at 12/21 and 12/56 in Yūsuf (wa kadhālika makkannā li-Yūsufa fi'l-arḍ) and at 18/84 in al-Kahf (innā makkannā lahū fi'l-arḍ). I rely on those treatments. I record the difference: there tamkīn was an authority given to one person; here it is a ground given to all mankind.

Maʿāyish, the plural of maʿīsha: the things by which life is lived, the means of livelihood. The root ع-ي-ش: to live. The same root was treated at 20/124 in Ṭāhā as maʿīshatan ḍankā (a straitened livelihood) — there the narrowing of livelihood is described, here its being given.

That the word comes in the plural must be recorded: not "a livelihood" but "livelihoods". What is stated is that there is on the earth not one path of living but many.

A point of word order and a link within the sūra must be recorded. The third verse ended with qalīlan mā tadhakkarūn; the tenth ends with qalīlan mā tashkurūn.

And the same closing was recorded at 32/9 in al-Sajda and at 23/78 in al-Muʾminūn — there it came after the giving of hearing, sight and heart. That triad will meet us again in verse 179 of al-Aʿrāf. A link can be drawn between the two places, and I give it as my own reading: the tenth verse names the ground that was given, the hundred and seventy-ninth the faculties that were given; the closing of both looks to the same place.

And two readings are transmitted of the pattern qalīlan mā:

Both readings are transmitted, and they do not change the meaning in any essential way.

The verse separates the giving of a possibility from the noticing of that possibility. Makkannā and jaʿalnā are in the past tense — the work is done. Tashkurūn is imperfect — it is a continuing state.

That is, the text says with a tense that what was given is complete and the answer to it is deficient. This is something that can be read off the word order; there is no need to add an interpretation to it.

There are seven tellings of this story in the Qurʾān: al-Baqara 2/30-38, al-Aʿrāf 7/11-25, al-Ḥijr 15/28-44, al-Isrāʾ 17/61-65, al-Kahf 18/50, Ṭāhā 20/115-123, Ṣād 38/71-85. That of al-Aʿrāf is the longest and the most detailed.

In this index the story has been treated three times, and in each a different layer was undone:

I rely on all three and do not repeat here what was treated there. The following in particular were exhausted there and will not be undone again here:

• That the prostration is not a prostration of worship, and that istikbār in Form X means "to reckon oneself great" (al-Baqara 2/34).
• The undoing of the syllogism anā khayrun minhu khalaqtanī min nārin wa khalaqtahū min ṭīn — the premises true, the conclusion not following from the premises; the comparison "fire burns and consumes, earth bears and brings forth"; the two-directional use of the root خ-ي-ر within Ṣād (Ṣād 38/76, al-Baqara 2/34).
• The question whether Iblīs was an angel (al-Baqara, al-Kahf 18/50).
• That the verbs come in the dual, and that the Qurʾān does not blame the woman separately (al-Baqara 2/35-36; as evidence Ṭāhā 20/120-121).
• The Qurʾān's silence about the kind of tree (al-Baqara 2/35). This commentary will be silent too; no entry is made into the Isrāʾīliyyāt.

Now I write what belongs to al-Aʿrāf. Al-Aʿrāf has four differences, and all four are countable:

And two verbs are peculiar to al-Aʿrāf: qāsamahumā (21) and dallāhumā (22). Both will be undone separately below.

Wa laqad khalaqnākum thumma ṣawwarnākum thumma qulnā li'l-malāʾikati'sjudū li-Ādama fa-sajadū illā Iblīsa lam yakun mina's-sājidīn

"We created you, then We gave you form, then We said to the angels, 'Prostrate yourselves to Adam'; and they prostrated themselves, all but Iblīs — he was not among those who prostrated."

This is the only instance among the seven tellings in the Qurʾān, and it must be recorded.

The verse does not say "We created Adam"; it says "We created you." Then within the same sentence it passes over to Adam.

Two readings are transmitted, and both have been defended by the lexicographers:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. But this is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: whichever reading is taken, the word order places the reader inside the story. And from the twenty-sixth verse on the sūra will call out yā banī Ādam — that is, the narrative begins with a pronoun that makes the reader an addressee and continues with a vocative that makes him an addressee.

The sense of the root: to give a thing form, shape, figure. Ṣūra is from the same root; muṣawwir is among the names of God (al-Ḥashr 59/24).

The root was treated at 82/7-8 in al-Infiṭār (fa-sawwāka fa-ʿadalaka fī ayyi ṣūratin mā shāʾa rakkabak) and at 40/64 in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) and 64/3 in al-Taghābun (wa ṣawwarakum fa-aḥsana ṣuwarakum). I rely on those treatments.

What belongs here is that the two verbs are separated by thumma:

khalaqnākum — thumma — ṣawwarnākum — thumma — qulnā li'l-malāʾika

The particle ثُمَّ states sequence and interval (fāʾ states immediate sequence). That is, the text counts three stages separately: creating, forming, the command to prostrate.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the particle itself: the command to prostrate comes not immediately after the creating, but after the forming. And at 38/72 in Ṣād the ground of the command was given as fa-idhā sawwaytuhū wa nafakhtu fīhi min rūḥī — there too the taswiya (the setting in order) is named before the command. The two sūras keep the same order.

The second difference of word order in al-Aʿrāf is here, and it must be recorded.

Al-Aʿrāf states not something Iblīs did but something he was not: "he was not among those who prostrated."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the comparison of the four sūras: where the other three give the act (abā, istakbara), al-Aʿrāf gives the position. And this accords with al-Aʿrāf's building the whole story as a separation: in later sections too the sūra will always name people in two groups (farīqan hadā wa farīqan ḥaqqa ʿalayhimu'ḍ-ḍalāla, 30; aṣḥābu'l-janna / aṣḥābu'n-nār, 44). The language of al-Aʿrāf is the language of groups.

Note: the debate over whether the exception in fa-sajadū illā Iblīsa is connected (muttaṣil) or disconnected (munqaṭiʿ) — that is, whether Iblīs was counted among the angels — was treated in al-Baqara and at 18/50 in al-Kahf. I rely on those treatments; I do not repeat them here.

Qāla mā manaʿaka allā tasjuda idh amartuk · Qāla anā khayrun minhu khalaqtanī min nārin wa khalaqtahū min ṭīn

"He said: 'What kept you from prostrating when I commanded you?' · He said: 'I am better than he; You created me from fire, and You created him from clay.'"

The undoing of the sentence anā khayrun minhu khalaqtanī min nārin wa khalaqtahū min ṭīn was carried out in full at 38/76 in Ṣād, and its ground was laid at 2/34 in al-Baqara. I rely on those treatments and do not repeat them here. What was treated there:

• The logical form of the syllogism: both premises are true (khalaqtanī min nār and khalaqtahū min ṭīn are each statements of fact); the error lies in a step of superiority that does not follow from the premises being added of its own accord.
• "Fire burns and consumes; earth bears and brings forth" — that the comparison resting on the quality of the materials is itself faulty.
• That Iblīs's answer says nothing at all about the command: the question was about obedience, the answer about worth.
• The table of the root خ-ي-ر: al-akhyār (Ṣād 38/47) is an attribute that has been given, anā khayrun minh an attribute that is claimed.
• Mā manaʿaka — not "why did you not prostrate" but "what kept you": the word order that shows prostration was taken as a matter of course.

The two sūras give the same sentence but build the question differently. The difference is a single letter, and it must be recorded.

That is, in al-Aʿrāf and al-Ḥijr the question takes the form "what kept you from not prostrating?" This is a construction that has drawn notice in Arabic, and two explanations are transmitted:

Both explanations have been voiced by the classical lexicographers; I do not impose a preference. Both arrive at the same result: the question is asking for a ground.

In Ṣād the note added to the question was li-mā khalaqtu bi-yadayy (treated in Ṣād with the table of tafwīḍ/taʾwīl). The note al-Aʿrāf adds is a different one: idh amartuk — "when I commanded you".

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the comparison of the two sūras:

And Iblīs's answer is the same in both: he speaks of the material. That is, in al-Aʿrāf the question expressly recalls the command, and the answer again passes over the command. This makes the observation recorded in Ṣād — "the question was about obedience, the answer about worth" — sharper in al-Aʿrāf, because in al-Aʿrāf the command is expressly named in the question.

Ṭīn: earth mixed with water, clay. The root was treated at 38/71 in Ṣād (khāliqun basharan min ṭīn). I rely on that treatment.

The Qurʾān names the substance from which man was created with more than one word, and this is a countable datum:

These words were treated separately at 55/14 in al-Raḥmān and at 23/12 in al-Muʾminūn. The one note that belongs here is this, and I give it as an observation: the word that comes out of Iblīs's mouth is ṭīn — not dry earth but clay. And with the nār (fire) he sets against it, this word forms two extremes: the most mobile and the most inert. Why the comparison is itself faulty was treated in al-Baqara and Ṣād; I rely on those treatments.

Qāla fa'hbiṭ minhā fa-mā yakūnu laka an tatakabbara fīhā fa'khruj innaka mina'ṣ-ṣāghirīn

"He said: 'Then go down from it! It is not for you to be great in it. Go out! You are among the lowly.'"

A point of word order must be recorded: the verse has three commands, and two of them do the same work.

The two verbs state two different directions: hubūṭ is vertical (downward), khurūj horizontal (outward). And the ground comes in between them.

The root ه-ب-ط: to come down from a high place. The root was treated at 2/36 and 2/61 in al-Baqara (ihbiṭū miṣran) and at 11/48 in Hūd (ihbiṭ bi-salāmin minnā). I rely on those treatments.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding: the same verb (ihbiṭū) will be said to Adam too in the twenty-fourth verse. That is, in al-Aʿrāf both Iblīs and Adam receive the command "go down" — but alongside Iblīs's there stands innaka mina'ṣ-ṣāghirīn, and alongside Adam's wa lakum fi'l-arḍi mustaqarrun wa matāʿun ilā ḥīn. The same verb, with two different endings. This is a contrast that can be verified from the text.

The sense of the root: smallness. *Ṣaghār is explained by the lexicographers as "abasement, being brought low" — that is, not smallness of size but smallness of position.

The word will occur a second time in this sūra: wa'nqalabū ṣāghirīn (119) — used of Pharaoh's side when the sorcerers are defeated.

I record this as an observation: the sūra uses the same word both at the beginning of the story and in the middle of it. And in both places the word comes as the answer to takabbur (making oneself great) — expressly in verse 13 (an tatakabbara fīhā → mina'ṣ-ṣāghirīn), indirectly in verse 119 (fa-ghulibū hunālika wa'nqalabū ṣāghirīn).

The sentence does not forbid by saying "do not be great"; it says "being great is not a thing that is to be yours".

The pattern mā yakūnu laka an… in Arabic gives the sense "this is not for you, this does not befit you". The same pattern was treated at 19/35 in Maryam (mā kāna li'llāhi an yattakhidha min walad) and at 33/36 in al-Aḥzāb.

I record this as my own reading: the sentence is not a prohibition but a statement of impossibility. What Iblīs did is named not as a thing forbidden to be done but as a thing that will not be. And the finding recorded in al-Baqara, that pride is not a reality but a supposition, finds its counterpart here at the level of word order — the "to reckon it so" sense of Form X / Form V and the "not a thing that will be" sense of the pattern mā yakūnu laka look to the same place.

Qāla anẓirnī ilā yawmi yubʿathūn · Qāla innaka mina'l-munẓarīn

"He said: 'Give me respite until the day they are raised.' · He said: 'You are among those given respite.'"

The primary sense of the root is "to look"; in Form IV (anẓara) it means "to grant someone a span of looking", that is, to give a reprieve. The three occurrences of the root were tabulated at 38/79-80 in Ṣād (Ṣād 38/15, 79, 80). I rely on that treatment.

This is a difference that must be recorded, and it was tabulated as a disagreement in Ṣād. Here I only repeat the datum:

Al-Aʿrāf does not give the note (ilā yawmi'l-waqti'l-maʿlūm) found in the other two sūras. This is a countable absence, and the disagreement "are the two expressions the same" was tabulated in Ṣād; I do not impose a preference.

I record this as an observation: the answer does not say "as much as you asked", it says "you are among those given respite". The request contains a date; the answer contents itself with including him in a group. And al-Aʿrāf, by not naming here the limit the other two sūras set, keeps this indefiniteness of the answer.

Qāla fa-bimā aghwaytanī la-aqʿudanna lahum ṣirāṭaka'l-mustaqīm · Thumma la-ātiyannahum min bayni aydīhim wa min khalfihim wa ʿan aymānihim wa ʿan shamāʾilihim, wa lā tajidu aktharahum shākirīn

"He said: 'For Your having led me astray, I shall certainly sit for them upon Your straight path. · Then I shall come at them from before them and from behind them and from their right and from their left. And You will not find most of them thankful.'"

This sentence is peculiar to al-Aʿrāf, and it is treated in this index here for the first time.

The root غ-و-ي: to stray from the right path, to go astray, to miss the mark. The lexicographers define ghayy as the opposite of rushd (rightness). The root was treated at 20/121 in Ṭāhā (wa ʿaṣā Ādamu rabbahū fa-ghawā); I rely on that treatment.

And this root has four occurrences in this sūra:

Four occurrences; the first in verse 16, the last in verse 202. The sūra uses the root both at its beginning and at its end.

Two readings are transmitted of the bāʾ in the phrase fa-bimā aghwaytanī, and each changes the meaning:

The ground of the second reading is that the answer comes as la-aqʿudanna, with the lām and the emphatic nūn; this is the pattern of the response to an oath in Arabic. Both readings have been voiced by the classical lexicographers; I do not impose a preference.

And the comparison recorded at 2/37 in al-Baqara is completed here: there Adam's prayer (rabbanā ẓalamnā anfusanā) was compared with Iblīs's sentence, and it was recorded that "Iblīs too spoke, but he gave a ground and laid the blame on God (al-Aʿrāf 7/16)". I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this, and I give it as an observation: Iblīs's first sentence (12) put forward his own superiority; his second sentence (16) hands off his own responsibility. There is an inconsistency between the two sentences, and the text leaves it without repair: the superiority is his own, the going astray another's.

The root ق-ع-د: to sit. That this verb is the one chosen here must be recorded: not "I shall attack" or "I shall obstruct", but "I shall sit".

A point of word order: la-aqʿudanna lahum ṣirāṭaka'l-mustaqīm — ṣirāṭ comes in the accusative, that is, in the position of an adverbial: "upon the path / along the path". In Arabic a noun of place put in the accusative without fī gives the sense "in that place, along that place".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the verb and of the position: sitting is an act of waiting and of cutting off the road; it is an act not of moving but of taking up a position. And the place chosen is not a crooked road — it is ṣirāṭaka'l-mustaqīm, "Your straight path".

And this overlaps with verse 86 of the same sūra: Shuʿayb says to his people wa lā taqʿudū bi-kulli ṣirāṭin tūʿidūna wa taṣuddūna ʿan sabīli'llāh — word for word the same verb, word for word the same work.

I record this as an observation, and the table can be verified from the text: the sūra shows in the eighty-sixth verse the threat uttered in the sixteenth carried out by human hands. There are seventy verses between the two; but the verb and the object are the same.

This is the most distinctive sentence of al-Aʿrāf, and it is treated in full in this index here for the first time.

Three things must be recorded.

One — the particle changes. In the first two directions min comes, in the last two ʿan. In Arabic min states a starting point, "out of / from the side of"; ʿan states moving away and lateral position, "over, alongside". This is a datum of word order. The lexicographers have recorded this difference and given various explanations for it; I am not in a position to transmit any of them as certain, so I record only the datum.

Two — the pair bayna yadayh / khalfah was treated earlier in the index. At 41/25 in Fuṣṣilat this pair occurred as the extent of the adorning done by the qarīns, and at 41/42 as the extent of the Book's being guarded, and it was recorded there: "in Arabic this pair is used to cover all the sides of a thing." I rely on that treatment.

And the difference of al-Aʿrāf becomes visible here:

In two places two directions suffice for "all directions"; al-Aʿrāf counts four.

Three — and this must be recorded: up and down are not counted.

I record this as an observation. The text counts four directions and does not complete the six: fawq (above) and taḥt (below) are not in the sentence. And this is not a claim of deficiency; it is the datum of the text.

Explanations of this gap are transmitted in the classical commentaries — it is widely said that "above was not counted because it is the direction from which mercy comes". This is a transmitted view; I make no firm preference and do not use it as a proof. All I record is this: the text counts four directions, not six.

And two verses can be set side by side; this is a verifiable overlap:

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the comparison of the three verses: the Qurʾān uses the directions above and below in other contexts — there the agent is God. In al-Aʿrāf 7/17 the agent is Iblīs, and the directions he counts are man's horizontal surroundings. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

The last part of the sentence must be recorded, and it establishes a link that can be verified within the sūra.

The tenth verse ended with qalīlan mā tashkurūn. The seventeenth ends with wa lā tajidu aktharahum shākirīn.

I record this as an observation: there are seven verses between the two, and both end with the same root (ش-ك-ر). One is a finding, the other a forecast. And the text does not correct Iblīs's forecast — as was also recorded at 38/82-85 of Ṣād (Ṣād), the judgement is tied not to who Iblīs is but to who follows him. I rely on that treatment.

And the choice of the word is worth recording: Iblīs does not say "they will not believe", he says "they will not give thanks". I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the word itself: shukr is the noticing of what has been given. The tenth verse had counted what was given (the earth, the means of livelihood); the seventeenth says that what was given will not be noticed.

Qāla'khruj minhā madhʾūman madḥūrā, la-man tabiʿaka minhum la-amlaʾanna jahannama minkum ajmaʿīn

"He said: 'Go out from it, despised and driven away! Whoever of them follows you — I shall surely fill Hell with the whole lot of you.'"

Both words are on the pattern of the passive participle (مَفْعُول) — that is, both state "the one to whom it is done", not "the one who does".

The root د-ح-ر: to push, to drive off, to send away. The root was treated at 37/9 in al-Ṣāffāt (duḥūran) — there the driving off of those who would eavesdrop on heaven was described. I rely on that treatment.

The root ذ-ء-م occurs in this index here for the first time, and it is found only in this verse in the Qurʾān. The lexicographers explain dhaʾama as "to fault, to find defective" and record its kinship with the word dhamm (blame). This kinship is a relation drawn by the lexicographers; I do not give it as a settled etymological ruling.

A point of word order must be recorded: both words stand in the position of a circumstantial accusative (ḥāl), and there is no conjunction between them. Madhʾūman madḥūrā — "despised, driven away." Sequence without a conjunction shows in Arabic that the two attributes join into a single state.

And the order of the two words is worth recording: first being despised (loss of worth), then being driven away (loss of place). I give this as my own reading: the command to leave had already been given in the thirteenth verse (fa'khruj); as it is repeated here, two attributes are added to it. That is, the second command to leave specifies the character of the first.

This sentence occurs in four places in the Qurʾān, and it was treated at 38/85 in Ṣād. I rely on that treatment.

The difference of al-Aʿrāf is in the pronoun: minkum — plural, "of you". In Ṣād the two parts were counted separately, minka wa mimman tabiʿaka (of you and of those who follow you); al-Aʿrāf gathers both into a single pronoun.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: la-man tabiʿaka minhum is a conditional clause, and its answer is directly the announcement of Hell. That is, the judgement is tied not to Iblīs but to those who follow him. The same note was entered in Ṣād — there the link of the root ت-ب-ع between 38/26 and 38/85 was established. I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this: in al-Aʿrāf the same root (ت-ب-ع) occurred in the third verse as a command — ittabiʿū mā unzila ilaykum / wa lā tattabiʿū min dūnihī awliyāʾ. The eighteenth verse states what answers to that prohibition: la-man tabiʿaka minhum. The sūra brings its own command to its conclusion fifteen verses later. This is a link that can be verified from the text.

Wa yā Ādamu'skun anta wa zawjuka'l-jannata fa-kulā min ḥaythu shiʾtumā wa lā taqrabā hādhihi'sh-shajarata fa-takūnā mina'ẓ-ẓālimīn

"And, O Adam, dwell you and your wife in the Garden; eat from wherever you wish; but do not go near this tree, or you will be among the wrongdoers."

A point of word order must be recorded: the verse begins with a wāw. Wa yā Ādam — that is, this address is built as the continuation of the preceding speech.

I record this as an observation: what is said to Iblīs and what is said to Adam are given as a single sequence of speech. In al-Baqara the two scenes were built separately (2/34 and 2/35); al-Aʿrāf joins them with a wāw.

This pattern was treated at 2/35 in al-Baqara, and it was recorded there: the prohibition is placed not on the act but on the distance that leads to the act; from this the principle of "closing the means" has been derived, and the parallel of al-Isrāʾ 17/32 (wa lā taqrabu'z-zinā) was given. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

And it was recorded at 2/187 in al-Baqara that the same pattern returns in the form tilka ḥudūdu'llāhi fa-lā taqrabūhā. I rely on that treatment as well.

The difference that belongs here is this, and the table can be verified from the text:

Al-Baqara and al-Aʿrāf are word for word identical at this point. Ṭāhā, however, builds the prohibition not upon the tree but upon Iblīs, and names the outcome shaqāwa (hardship) — this was treated in Ṭāhā as the backbone of that sūra.

And the expression fa-takūnā mina'ẓ-ẓālimīn must be recorded: the outcome is given as belonging to a group — exactly like lam yakun mina's-sājidīn in the eleventh verse. The group language of al-Aʿrāf is at work here too.

And this expression overlaps with the confession in the twenty-third verse: rabbanā ẓalamnā anfusanā. The root used in the warning (ظ-ل-م) is used in the confession too. That is, the confession is made with the word of the warning. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

A point of word order: the permission comes as min ḥaythu shiʾtumā ("from wherever you wish"), the prohibition as hādhihi'sh-shajarata ("this tree") — the one open-ended, the other bounded by a demonstrative.

In al-Baqara 2/35 the permission was raghadan ḥaythu shiʾtumā ("in plenty, from wherever you wish"). Al-Aʿrāf does not give the word raghadan. This is a countable difference.

I record this as an observation: both texts give the permission before the prohibition, and the permission is wider than the prohibition. The prohibition is one tree; the permission is all the rest.

Fa-waswasa lahumā'sh-shayṭānu li-yubdiya lahumā mā wūriya ʿanhumā min sawʾātihimā wa qāla mā nahākumā rabbukumā ʿan hādhihi'sh-shajarati illā an takūnā malakayni aw takūnā mina'l-khālidīn · Wa qāsamahumā innī lakumā la-mina'n-nāṣiḥīn

"Then Satan whispered to them, to make plain to them what had been covered from them of their shameful parts, and he said: 'Your Lord forbade you this tree only lest you become two angels or become of those who abide for ever.' · And he swore to them: 'I am indeed one of those who wish you well.'"

The root و-س-و-س: a very light, continuous sound, a sound at the level of a whisper. The lexicographers explain waswasa by "the faint sound made by ornaments touching one another". In respect of its pattern it counts as a sound-imitating word (onomatopoeia). The root was treated in al-Nās (al-waswāsi'l-khannās) and at 20/120 in Ṭāhā. I rely on those treatments.

What belongs here is a difference of particle, and it must be recorded:

There are two differences: the number of those addressed, and the particle.

Ilā states direction ("towards him"); the lām here means "for them, to them". The lexicographers record that the usage waswasa lahū carries the tone "he whispered for him, as though on his side". This is a transmitted report; I do not give it as a settled ruling.

And the number of those addressed must be recorded: in al-Aʿrāf the whispering is to the two of them at once. At 2/35-36 in al-Baqara the coming of the verbs in the dual and the Qurʾān's not blaming the woman separately were treated; I rely on that treatment. Al-Aʿrāf strengthens that datum: the addressee of the whispering is dual as well.

Sawʾa is the singular of sawʾāt; the root س-و-أ: to be bad, to be ugly. Sūʾ, sayyiʾa, aswaʾ are from the same root. Sawʾa is used in the sense of "the place whose exposure is not welcome", and this is a covering that comes from the word itself.

A point of word order must be recorded: the word is not directly the name of an organ. That is, the Qurʾān names the place that is to be covered not by its name but by its quality.

I record this as an observation: the word is itself a covering. And the word occurs five times in this sūra — 20, 22, 26, 27 (twice). Three of the five occurrences are in the yā banī Ādam section. That is, what is named in the story is bound immediately afterwards to the reader.

The root و-ر-ي: to cover, to conceal. The same root will be repeated in verse 26 as yuwārī sawʾātikum.

A point of word order: wūriya is a passive verb — "that which had been covered". The agent is not stated.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the voice of the verb: the text does not say "what they had covered" or "what God had covered"; it says only "what had been covered". And in the twenty-sixth verse the same root will come back in the active: libāsan yuwārī sawʾātikum — there what covers is clothing, and that clothing has been sent down (anzalnā). A relation of answer can be drawn between the two verses; but I give this not as a certainty, only as a possible reading.

The twentieth verse gives Iblīs's sentence in full, and this sentence is found nowhere else in the Qurʾān:

Mā nahākumā rabbukumā ʿan hādhihi'sh-shajarati illā an takūnā malakayni aw takūnā mina'l-khālidīn

The construction of the sentence is a restriction (ḥaṣr, qaṣr): mā … illā — "He did not forbid it, except for this".

That is, Iblīs alters the ground of the prohibition: the prohibition is presented not as protection but as obstruction.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the grammatical structure of the sentence: Iblīs does not deny the prohibition. He accepts that it exists, and renames its intention. And this is an operation of the same kind as the syllogism in the twelfth verse: there a false conclusion was added to true premises; here a false ground is added to a true piece of knowledge (that there is a prohibition).

There is a variant reading in this word that changes the meaning, and it must be recorded:

The first reading is the widespread one; the second is also transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

As ground for the second reading the sentence at 20/120 in Ṭāhā is cited: hal adulluka ʿalā shajarati'l-khuldi wa mulkin lā yablā — "the tree of immortality and a kingdom that does not decay". That is, the two things promised in Ṭāhā are immortality and kingship.

The two sūras can be compared, and the table can be verified from the text:

In both sūras the second thing is the same: immortality. In the first thing the widespread reading of al-Aʿrāf says "angel", that of Ṭāhā says "kingdom". This promise was treated at 20/120-123 in Ṭāhā; I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation: both promises are promises of crossing man's limit — one of kind (to become an angel or a king), the other of duration (to become deathless). And read together with the four directions of the seventeenth verse, it becomes visible that Iblīs's offers are always a promise of widening. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

The root ق-س-م: to divide, to apportion; qasam is an oath. Qāsama is a verb of Form III (فَاعَلَ), and this form in Arabic states reciprocity.

A point of word order must be recorded, and the lexicographers have recorded it: qāsamahumā — "he exchanged oaths with them". The verb is in a pattern that implies not merely that Iblīs swore, but as though there were a mutual swearing.

Two explanations are transmitted:

Both explanations are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding: the choice of the verb shows that the deception is built not like a one-way assault but like an exchange. And the verb dallāhumā in the next verse will look to the same place.

The root ن-ص-ح: to make a thing pure and unmixed (honey is called nāṣiḥ, "unmixed") and to sew up a tear (niṣāḥa — sewing). Both branches are recorded: counsel carries both the idea of sincerity and the idea of mending.

And this must be recorded — it is a pattern that can be verified within the sūra: the same root occurs four times in the sequence of prophets in al-Aʿrāf, and in all four it is used of true prophets.

Five occurrences: one in the mouth of Iblīs, four in the mouths of prophets.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the five verses themselves: the sūra puts the same claim into the mouth of the liar and of the truthful alike — and shows what separates them not in the words but in the outcome. Ṣāliḥ's sentence in the seventy-ninth verse is the ground of this reading: wa lākin lā tuḥibbūna'n-nāṣiḥīn — "but you do not love those who wish you well." That is, the truth of the words is not measured by their being accepted.

Fa-dallāhumā bi-ghurūr, fa-lammā dhāqā'sh-shajarata badat lahumā sawʾātuhumā wa ṭafiqā yakhṣifāni ʿalayhimā min waraqi'l-janna, wa nādāhumā rabbuhumā a-lam anhakumā ʿan tilkumā'sh-shajarati wa aqul lakumā inna'sh-shayṭāna lakumā ʿaduwwun mubīn

"So he lowered them down by deception. When they had tasted the tree, their shameful parts became apparent to them, and they set about patching over themselves with the leaves of the Garden. And their Lord called out to them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree, and say to you that Satan is an open enemy to you?'"

This is the most striking verb in al-Aʿrāf, and that the deception is told with this verb must be recorded separately.

The root د-ل-و was undone in full at 53/8 in al-Najm (thumma danā fa-tadallā). I rely on that treatment and do not undo the root again. A summary of what was recorded there:

• Dalw = bucket — the vessel tied to a rope and let down to draw water from a well; Yūsuf 12/19 (fa-adlā dalwahū) was given as evidence.
• Table of derivatives: adlā (Form IV, transitive — he let down) / tadallā (Form V, reflexive — he let himself down).
• The key image: "the bucket is let down into the well; what goes down goes down while remaining attached to what is above."
• The relation dalīl–dalāla ("evidence is the rope let down towards the unknown") was transmitted with a note of caution.

And at 2/188 in al-Baqara the same root occurred in the form wa tudlū bihā ila'l-ḥukkām — there, the letting down of property to a judge like a bucket. I rely on both places.

Now I write what belongs here.

The verb dallā is of Form II (فَعَّلَ) and is transitive: "he let them down".

Three patterns, one root: one lowers an object, one lowers itself, one lowers two people.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the concrete sense of the root: the deception is told here not as "he tricked" or "he misled" but as he let them down. And the picture of the bucket carries three things at once:

The third line is especially worth recording, and it overlaps with the twentieth verse: Iblīs's promise was a promise of gain (to become angels, to become deathless). The bucket too does not go down empty; it goes down to take water. I give this as a reading, not as a certainty.

And a second sense recorded by the lexicographers is transmitted: the sense of tadliya as "to embolden someone, to egg him on". This is a transmitted view; the primary sense (to let down) is the more widespread and accords with the concrete sense of the root.

The concrete sense of the root: the surface of a thing, its outward look — and from this, to be taken in by the look of a thing. Ghurra is the bright white of the forehead, gharīr an inexperienced youth, ghurūr delusion.

The root was treated at 31/33 in Luqmān and at 35/5 in Fāṭir (wa lā yaghurrannakum bi'llāhi'l-gharūr); also at 57/20 in al-Ḥadīd (matāʿu'l-ghurūr). I rely on those treatments.

A point of word order: bi-ghurūr comes indefinite, and the bāʾ here states either instrument or state. Both readings are possible: "he let them down with a deception" or "they went down deluded". The first is the widespread one.

And the second occurrence of the same root in this sūra is in verse 51: wa gharrathumu'l-ḥayātu'd-dunyā — "the life of this world deluded them". I record this as an observation: the sūra uses the same verb both at the beginning of the story (Satan's deception) and in the scene of the gathering (the world's deception).

The verb ط-ف-ق is an auxiliary verb in the sense "to set about a thing, to begin" (one of the verbs of inception, afʿāl al-shurūʿ). In Arabic the predicate of such verbs comes in the imperfect — and here yakhṣifāni is imperfect.

The root خ-ص-ف: to add one thing to another, to patch. The lexicographers explain khaṣf as the verb used for the mending of shoes: khaṣafa'n-naʿl — "he patched the sandal, he stitched layer on layer."

And this sentence occurs in Ṭāhā as well. The two sūras can be compared:

The two sūras overlap word for word in this sentence. It was treated at 20/120-123 in Ṭāhā; I rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this, and I give it as an observation: the verb is not "they covered" but "they set about patching". Leaf on leaf, layer on layer — that is, not a ready covering but a covering in the making. And in the twenty-sixth verse its opposite will come: qad anzalnā ʿalaykum libāsan — a covering sent down, ready made.

There are four verses between the two, and both describe the same act (covering oneself); but their sources differ. I record this as my own reading and it is not binding.

A point of word order must be recorded: God's word comes as a question, not as an accusation.

A-lam anhakumā ʿan tilkumā'sh-shajarati wa aqul lakumā inna'sh-shayṭāna lakumā ʿaduwwun mubīn

The question has two parts, and it recalls two different things:

The second part must be recorded: God recalls a word He had said earlier; but al-Aʿrāf had not told that word. The same warning occurs at 20/117 in Ṭāhā: yā Ādamu inna hādhā ʿaduwwun laka wa li-zawjika.

I record this as an observation, and the table can be verified from the two texts: al-Aʿrāf gives the warning Ṭāhā tells only in the form of a reminder. That is, the two sūras complete one another — and this is a countable datum about the way the Qurʾān tells its stories. The same phenomenon (different parts of the same story being given in different sūras) was tabulated in detail in Hūd and al-Shuʿarāʾ; I rely on those treatments.

And the demonstrative must be recorded: tilkumā'sh-shajarah — "that tree". In the nineteenth verse it was hādhihi'sh-shajarah ("this tree"). Hādhā points to what is near, dhālika/tilka to what is far.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference of the two demonstratives: when the prohibition was laid down the tree was near; when the reckoning is asked for it is named as having grown distant. This is an observation about the word order; I draw no further conclusion from it.

Qālā rabbanā ẓalamnā anfusanā wa in lam taghfir lanā wa tarḥamnā la-nakūnanna mina'l-khāsirīn

"They said: 'Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we shall surely be among the lost.'"

The structure of this prayer was treated at 2/37 in al-Baqara, and three elements of it were counted there:

1. Taking the fault on oneself (without producing an excuse) 2. Producing no excuse 3. An unconditional request

And it was compared there with Iblīs's sentence: "Iblīs too spoke, but he gave a ground and laid the blame on God (al-Aʿrāf 7/16)." I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

Further, in al-Baqara the expression talaqqā Ādamu min rabbihī kalimāt was treated, and it was recorded that "Adam does not find the words himself, he receives them; the door of repentance had already been left open". Al-Aʿrāf does not give this piece of information; in al-Aʿrāf the prayer itself comes directly. This is a countable difference between the two sūras.

The same sentence occurs once more in the Qurʾān in the mouth of a prophet, and this comparison has been called for.

Three differences must be recorded.

One — number. In al-Aʿrāf the sentence is dual (ẓalamnā anfusanā), in al-Qaṣaṣ singular (ẓalamtu nafsī). At 2/35-36 in al-Baqara it was recorded that the coming of the verbs in the dual distributes the responsibility; I rely on that treatment.

Two — the form of the request. Moses asks directly: fa'ghfir lī (imperative). Adam and his wife build a conditional clause: wa in lam taghfir lanā… la-nakūnanna mina'l-khāsirīn — the request comes indirectly, by saying what will happen if forgiveness is withheld.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the grammatical structure of the two sentences: both prayers take the fault upon themselves; but one asks in the imperative, the other asks by stating the outcome. The second is more indirect, and a condition stands in between. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

Three — the answer. As was recorded at 28/16 in al-Qaṣaṣ, in al-Qaṣaṣ the answer is given at once in the same verse: fa-ghafara lahū. In al-Aʿrāf there is no such sentence. In al-Aʿrāf, in place of an answer, the command to go down comes (24).

I record this as an observation and rely on the table: al-Baqara 2/37 has an announcement of forgiveness that al-Aʿrāf does not have (fa-tāba ʿalayh); Ṭāhā 20/122 has one too (thumma'jtabāhu rabbuhū fa-tāba ʿalayhi wa hadā). Al-Aʿrāf does not give it.

This is a countable difference, and it does not break the frame recorded in al-Baqara — "the fall has been forgiven, it is not inherited, it is not a loss of standing but the beginning of a task" — because the announcement of that same event is expressly present in the other two sūras. The telling of al-Aʿrāf breaks off here and passes straight to the earth. I make no claim about the reason for this; I record only the datum.

The root خ-س-ر: diminution, loss. The root was treated in detail at 103/2 in al-ʿAṣr (inna'l-insāna la-fī khusr); I rely on that treatment.

And the same root had occurred in the ninth verse: fa-ulāʾika'lladhīna khasirū anfusahum. There is an overlap between the two verses, and it must be recorded:

In both verses the same two words stand side by side: nafs and khusrān. And in both, the loss is inflicted not on another but on the person himself.

I record this as an observation: in the ninth verse this is a verdict (a finding delivered from outside); in the twenty-third it is a fear (from the person's own mouth). The same word, in two different mouths.

Qāla'hbiṭū baʿḍukum li-baʿḍin ʿaduww, wa lakum fi'l-arḍi mustaqarrun wa matāʿun ilā ḥīn · Qāla fīhā taḥyawna wa fīhā tamūtūna wa minhā tukhrajūn

"He said: 'Go down, some of you an enemy to others. On the earth there is for you a place of settlement and provision for a time.' · He said: 'There you will live, there you will die, and from it you will be brought forth.'"

Both the twenty-fourth and the twenty-fifth verses begin with qāla, and there is no conjunction between them.

In Arabic, two qālas belonging to the same subject coming one after another without a conjunction is a construction worth recording. The lexicographers generally explain it as showing that the second speech is a separate, self-standing announcement, distinct from the first.

I record this as an observation: the first speech states the going down and the conditions of the going down; the second states the frame of life on the earth. The two are separate subjects, and the text too puts them into separate sentences.

The twenty-fifth verse is built on three imperfect verbs:

A point of word order must be recorded: the first two verbs are active, the third passive.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the voice of the verbs: living and dying are built as man's own act; being brought forth as the act of another. That is, at the third step the subject changes.

And the same structure was built with three verbs at 20/55 in Ṭāhā: minhā khalaqnākum wa fīhā nuʿīdukum wa minhā nukhrijukum tāratan ukhrā. The two verses can be compared:

I record this as an observation, and the table can be verified from the two texts: Ṭāhā tells the event from the side of the one who does it, al-Aʿrāf from the side of the one who lives it. And al-Aʿrāf, by making its third verb passive, joins the two tellings.

The root م-ت-ع was undone at 47/12 in Muḥammad: enjoyment + "stretching on, continuing" (mataʿa'n-nahāru). I rely on that treatment.

Ilā ḥīn — "until a time". The root ح-ي-ن states an indefinite span. The same phrase occurs at 2/36 in al-Baqara as well (wa lakum fi'l-arḍi mustaqarrun wa matāʿun ilā ḥīn) — word for word the same sentence in the two sūras.

I record this as an observation: the verse gives two things — a place and a span. The limit of the place is not stated; the limit of the span is stated but its measure is not given. And the thirty-fourth verse will repeat the same matter for communities: wa li-kulli ummatin ajal.

When the story ends the sūra turns directly to the reader and calls out four times, yā banī Ādam. This address occurs five times in the Qurʾān; four of them are in al-Aʿrāf (26, 27, 31, 35), the fifth is at Yā Sīn 36/60.

Four of them in four different moods: statement, prohibition, command, condition. This is a countable order.

And all four have a link with the story — I record this as an observation:

Yā banī Ādama qad anzalnā ʿalaykum libāsan yuwārī sawʾātikum wa rīshā, wa libāsu't-taqwā dhālika khayr, dhālika min āyāti'llāhi laʿallahum yadhdhakkarūn

"O children of Adam! We have sent down upon you clothing to cover your shameful parts, and adornment as well. But the clothing of God-fearing is better. That is among the signs of God; perhaps they will take it to heart."

The root ل-ب-س and the likeness of libās were treated at 2/187 in al-Baqara (hunna libāsun lakum wa antum libāsun lahunn). I rely on that treatment. Five functions of clothing were counted there:

1. It covers — it does not show the flaw to the outside 2. It protects 3. It is the nearest thing — nothing stands in between 4. It adorns 5. It takes shape according to the wearer — it is not a ready-made mould

And the negative branch of the same root was recorded there too: talbīs at 2/42 — "to dress falsehood in the clothing of truth". The root states both covering and confusing.

What belongs here is this: al-Aʿrāf uses the word libās in three different senses within three verses.

Three uses, two verses. And if the fourth use in al-Baqara (spouses are clothing to one another) is added to these three, the four distinct works of the root in the Qurʾān are complete.

A point of word order must be recorded, and this is the place the lexicographers have dwelt on: the verb used for clothing is anzalnā (We sent down).

Clothing does not come down from the sky. The Qurʾān uses the same verb elsewhere too for material things:

This usage was treated at 57/25 in al-Ḥadīd; I rely on that treatment. A summary of the explanations recorded there: the verb is also used in the sense "to be given as apportioned from a source", not "physical descent from above to below". The classical commentaries further transmit the explanation that "the raw material of clothing (plants that grow with the rain, the wool of animals) depends on water that comes from above". This is a transmitted explanation; I make no firm preference.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding: in the twenty-second verse the covering had been patched together by their own hands (yakhṣifāni); here the covering is sent down. The choice of the verb carries the difference between the two verses.

The concrete sense of the root: the feather of a bird. Rīsh is the feather and the wing of a bird. From this the senses of adornment, beauty, well-being, abundance of livelihood derive; when the Arabs said rāshahū they meant "he equipped him, he bettered his condition".

The word occurs only in this verse in the Qurʾān.

A variant reading must be recorded:

The second reading is also transmitted; it does not change the meaning in any essential way (a plural, or the sense "wealth and clothing"). I do not impose a preference.

And the choice of the word is worth recording: a bird's feather covers, adorns and lifts into flight all at once. I give this as an observation and build no firm claim of meaning on it: the verse counts two things — that which covers (libāsan yuwārī) and that which adorns (rīshā). And in the thirty-second verse the lawfulness of adornment will be expressly defended (qul man ḥarrama zīnata'llāhi'llatī akhraja li-ʿibādih). That is, adornment is named in the twenty-sixth verse and defended in the thirty-second.

The phrase occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

The root و-ق-ي: to guard, to be guarded. Taqwā is to take up a barrier that will guard a thing from harm. The root was treated at 2/2 in al-Baqara and in al-Layl; I rely on those treatments.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the root itself: libās covers and guards; taqwā guards too. That is, the likeness is built on the function the two words share. This is a datum of word order showing at which point the likeness works.

A point of word order: wa libāsu't-taqwā dhālika khayr — the subject is named again by a demonstrative. In Arabic this serves for emphasis and for drawing attention: "the clothing of God-fearing — that is better."

And khayr here is an elative ("better"), and the side of the comparison is not stated. The sentence does not say "better than that"; it says only "better". I record this as an observation; what is understood from the context is the two garments named in the preceding sentence.

One further note: two readings are transmitted of the phrase libāsu't-taqwā — libās as nominative (subject) or as accusative (as the second object of anzalnā: "and We sent down the clothing of God-fearing too"). The second reading is also reported. I do not impose a preference; but one consequence of the second reading is worth recording: on that reading the clothing of God-fearing enters among the things "sent down".

A point of word order must be recorded: the verse begins in the second person plural (yā banī Ādam, ʿalaykum, sawʾātikum) and ends in the third person plural (laʿallahum yadhdhakkarūn).

This is iltifāt (a shift in the direction of address), and it was treated in many places in the index (al-Fātiḥa, the sections of Yūnus; al-Shuʿarāʾ). I rely on those treatments.

I record this as an observation: while the address is "you", the judgement is delivered about "them". And the same shift was present in the third verse too (ittabiʿū… qalīlan mā tadhakkarūn — there it remained in the second person). Here it passes to the third person.

The verse divides dressing into two functions: covering and adorning. It counts both as lawful. Then it names a third thing and calls it "better".

What must be recorded is this: the verse does not exalt the third by rejecting the first two. All three are in the same sentence. And the thirty-second verse will expressly question the attitude that sets out to forbid adornment. When these two verses of the sūra are read together, what is given is not the rejection of adornment but its ordering. This is something that can be read off the arrangement of the two verses themselves.

Yā banī Ādama lā yaftinannakumu'sh-shayṭānu kamā akhraja abawaykum mina'l-jannati yanziʿu ʿanhumā libāsahumā li-yuriyahumā sawʾātihimā, innahū yarākum huwa wa qabīluhū min ḥaythu lā tarawnahum, innā jaʿalna'sh-shayāṭīna awliyāʾa lilladhīna lā yuʾminūn

"O children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you as he brought your parents out of the Garden, stripping from them their clothing to show them their shameful parts. He and his tribe see you from where you do not see them. We have made the satans the guardians of those who do not believe."

The root ن-ز-ع: to pull a thing out of the place where it stands, to strip it away. The root was treated at 79/1 in al-Nāziʿāt (wa'n-nāziʿāti gharqā) and at 3/26 in Āl ʿImrān (wa tanziʿu'l-mulk). I rely on those treatments.

A point of word order must be recorded: the sentence has two verbs, and their tenses differ.

The imperfect coming here tells the event as though it were going on before one's eyes. In Arabic this is called ḥikāyat al-ḥāl: a past event is brought to life in the present tense.

I record this as an observation: the verse puts an event that happened in the past inside a warning that looks to the present — and the mood of the verb does the same work.

And the object of the verb must be recorded: libāsahumā. In the twenty-second verse the covering was told as being made afterwards (patching with leaves); here a libās is said to have been stripped away.

Two readings are transmitted, and both accord with the language:

The Qurʾān gives no detail on this. Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference, and I do not add the detail the Qurʾān does not give.

The construction of the sentence must be recorded: the same verb (ر-أ-ي) twice, once affirmative and once negative, with the subjects exchanged.

innahū yarākum huwa wa qabīluhū min ḥaythu lā tarawnahum

And there is a disagreement of pronouns: innahū yarākum (singular) → lā tarawnahum (plural). This is explained by the intervening huwa wa qabīluhū: the sentence, beginning in the singular, passes to the plural once the tribe has been added. This is a datum of word order.

قَبِيل — the root ق-ب-ل: to be opposite, to face towards. Qabīl is "those who come together and face the same way" — a tribe, a company.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the one-sidedness of the verb of seeing: the verse states an asymmetry — one side sees, the other does not. And the thirtieth verse will state the consequence of this asymmetry: wa yaḥsabūna annahum muhtadūn — "and they suppose themselves to be rightly guided." Not seeing joins with not knowing that one does not see.

And this establishes a line with verses 179 and 198 of the sūra:

Three verses, three different failures to see. The first an impossibility, the second a non-use, the third an absence. I record this as an observation, and the table can be verified from the text.

The construction of the sentence must be recorded, and it must be compared with the thirtieth verse.

The same relation is tied in two verses to two different agents: in 27 "We made", in 30 "they took".

This is a place that falls within a debate of kalām (the divine decree, the creation of acts), and no polemic of kalām is entered into in this commentary (Method). All I record is this: the text builds both sentences and does not resolve the relation between them. The two verses stand three verses apart and are given to the reader together.

And this datum of word order must be recorded: in the twenty-seventh verse the judgement is qualified as lilladhīna lā yuʾminūn (for those who do not believe) — that is, it is not general, it is tied to an attribute. Per the method (Method) I record that this is an attribute and not an identity (the same note was entered at 47/12 in Muḥammad).

Wa idhā faʿalū fāḥishatan qālū wajadnā ʿalayhā ābāʾanā wa'llāhu amaranā bihā, qul inna'llāha lā yaʾmuru bi'l-faḥshāʾ, a-taqūlūna ʿala'llāhi mā lā taʿlamūn · Qul amara rabbī bi'l-qisṭ, wa aqīmū wujūhakum ʿinda kulli masjidin wa'dʿūhu mukhliṣīna lahu'd-dīn, kamā badaʾakum taʿūdūn · Farīqan hadā wa farīqan ḥaqqa ʿalayhimu'ḍ-ḍalāla, innahumu'ttakhadhu'sh-shayāṭīna awliyāʾa min dūni'llāhi wa yaḥsabūna annahum muhtadūn

"When they commit an indecency they say, 'We found our forefathers upon it, and God commanded it of us.' Say: God does not command indecency. Do you say about God what you do not know? · Say: My Lord commanded justice. Set your faces towards Him at every place of prayer, and call upon Him, making the religion His alone. As He brought you forth in the beginning, so you will return. · One party He guided, and upon another party going astray became due. For they took the satans as guardians instead of God, and they suppose themselves to be rightly guided."

The twenty-eighth verse gives the two grounds of the addressee side by side, and the word order must be recorded:

And the answer is given only to the second: qul inna'llāha lā yaʾmuru bi'l-faḥshāʾ.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the answer: the first excuse (the forefathers) is dealt with elsewhere in the sūra (7/70 — wa nadhara mā kāna yaʿbudu ābāʾunā; 7/173 — innamā ashraka ābāʾunā min qablu). What is answered here is the second excuse: the ascription of a behaviour to God.

And the answer has two steps:

The expression in the second step must be recorded: mā lā taʿlamūn — "what you do not know". And the same expression will come back in the thirty-third verse as the last item in the list of what is forbidden: wa an taqūlū ʿala'llāhi mā lā taʿlamūn.

The same expression five verses apart, one a question and one a ruling. This is a link that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be completed at verse 33.

The sense of the root: an indecency that exceeds the bound. The lexicographers explain fuḥsh as "an ugliness that exceeds the measure, in word or in deed". The word is not of sexual content alone; the root's own idea is the coming together of excess and ugliness.

The root was treated at 24/19 in al-Nūr and at 33/30 in al-Aḥzāb; I rely on those treatments.

And in this sūra the root occurs three times: 28 (fāḥishatan), 33 (al-fawāḥisha), 80 (a-taʾtūna'l-fāḥisha — Lot's question to his people).

The root carries a curious double sense, and it must be recorded:

That is, the same root gives two opposed senses according to the form. The lexicographers explain this by "the privative sense of Form IV": aqsaṭa = "to remove wrong". The root was treated at 55/9 in al-Raḥmān (wa aqīmu'l-wazna bi'l-qisṭ) and at 57/25 in al-Ḥadīd (li-yaqūma'n-nāsu bi'l-qisṭ). I rely on those treatments.

A point of word order must be recorded, and it is a contrast:

The same verb (أمر) stands facing itself in two verses: one a claim, the other an announcement. And the objects are opposites: fāḥisha (an indecency that exceeds the bound) ↔ qisṭ (that which is in its proper place).

Aqīmū wujūhakum — "set your faces straight".

A point of word order: ʿinda kulli masjid — "at every place of prayer". And the same phrase will be repeated in the thirty-first verse: khudhū zīnatakum ʿinda kulli masjid.

The same adverbial two verses apart. I record this as an observation: both commands concern the place of prayer — one a turning towards, the other a preparing.

And the expression mukhliṣīna lahu'd-dīn must be recorded. The root خ-ل-ص: to be pure, unmixed. The distinction between mukhliṣ (active participle) and mukhlaṣ (passive participle) was tabulated at 38/83 in Ṣād; I rely on that treatment. Here mukhliṣīna is the active participle: the work the person does himself.

The sentence is short and dense: "as He began you, so you will return."

Two readings are transmitted:

Both readings are transmitted and they do not exclude each other; I do not impose a preference.

And the making of the first creation into a proof of the raising was treated in many places in the index (Yāsīn 36/79, al-Qiyāma 75/40, al-Rūm 30/27, al-Anbiyāʾ 21/104). I rely on those treatments.

The word order of this sentence must be recorded, and it is striking.

The two sides are not built symmetrically. In the first the verb is active and the agent plain (hadā — "He guided"); in the second the verb is ḥaqqa (became due) and its subject is al-ḍalāla, that is, it does not say "He led astray".

I record this as an observation, and it is a new link in a pattern treated in the index. Similar asymmetries were recorded in al-Zumar and al-Muddaththir. And no polemic of kalām is entered into in this commentary (Method); all I record is the datum of word order.

And the continuation of the verse shows that the condition of the second party is grounded in their own acts: innahumu'ttakhadhu'sh-shayāṭīna awliyāʾa min dūni'llāh — "for they took the satans as guardians."

The sentence must be recorded: "they suppose themselves to be rightly guided."

The same idea occurs elsewhere in the Qurʾān too and was treated in the index:

Four places, the same verb (ح-س-ب) and the same structure. I rely on those treatments and do not repeat them here.

What belongs here is this, and I give it as an observation: al-Aʿrāf and al-Zukhruf 43/37 are word for word the same sentence. And in al-Aʿrāf this sentence, read together with min ḥaythu lā tarawnahum ("from where you do not see them") in the twenty-seventh verse, forms a whole: not seeing, and supposing that one sees.

Yā banī Ādama khudhū zīnatakum ʿinda kulli masjidin wa kulū wa'shrabū wa lā tusrifū, innahū lā yuḥibbu'l-musrifīn

"O children of Adam! Take your adornment at every place of prayer; eat and drink, but do not go to excess. He does not love those who go to excess."

The sense of the root: to adorn, to make beautiful. Zīna is what makes a thing look fair. The root was treated at 18/7 in al-Kahf (innā jaʿalnā mā ʿala'l-arḍi zīnatan lahā) and at 20/59 in Ṭāhā (yawmu'z-zīna). I rely on those treatments.

And in this sūra the root occurs three times:

This sentence is a new link in a line of measure built up in the index.

A summary of what was treated at 25/67 in al-Furqān (I rely on it and do not repeat it):

• Isrāf and iqtār (stinting) are both rejected as two extremes.
• The root ق-ت-ر: to narrow, to stint.
• Qawām — the root ق-و-م: "the point between two extremes".
• The line had been tied to these verses: Fāṭir 35/32, Luqmān 31/19 and 31/32 (qaṣd), al-Baqara 2/219 (quli'l-ʿafw).

Al-Aʿrāf 7/31 is added to this line as a new link, and its difference must be recorded:

In al-Aʿrāf only one extreme is forbidden. And the reason for this becomes visible in the next verse: verse 32 will deal separately with the other extreme (setting out to forbid). That is, the two extremes have been divided between two verses. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the arrangement of the two verses.

The root س-ر-ف: to exceed the bound, to lose the measure. The lexicographers record that the word carries not only the sense "to spend much" but also "not to use a thing in its place". The root was treated at 20/127 in Ṭāhā (man asrafa wa lam yuʾmin) and at 40/28 and 40/43 in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin). I rely on those treatments.

And in this sūra the root occurs twice more, and both are striking:

I record this as an observation: the sūra uses the same word both for the measure of eating and drinking and for the conduct of Lot's people. The shared idea of the word is "exceeding the bound", and that idea is at work in both places. I draw no equivalence between the two behaviours from this; all I record is the shared root and the shared idea of the word.

A point of word order must be recorded: the pronoun innahū refers back to God, whose name is not expressly mentioned in the preceding sentences.

The name "God" does not occur in the verse. It will come in the thirty-second verse: zīnata'llāh. That is, the pronoun rests on the expression amara rabbī several verses earlier (29).

And the pattern lā yuḥibbu must be recorded. In the Qurʾān this pattern is a particular way of rejecting a behaviour, and it was treated in the index (al-Baqara 2/190 — inna'llāha lā yuḥibbu'l-muʿtadīn; Luqmān 31/18 — lā yuḥibbu kulla mukhtālin fakhūr). I rely on those treatments.

And in this sūra the same pattern occurs twice:

Both are in the same pattern, and both end with a word that carries the idea of "exceeding the bound" (isrāf and iʿtidāʾ). One concerns eating and drinking, the other supplication. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

The verse gives three commands and one prohibition: take, eat, drink — but do not exceed. The commands are three times the number of the prohibition.

What must be recorded is this, and it can be read off the word order: the prohibition comes after the commands and sets a limit within them; it does not cancel them. And the next verse will question the attitude that sets out to turn this limit into a prohibition.

Qul man ḥarrama zīnata'llāhi'llatī akhraja li-ʿibādihī wa'ṭ-ṭayyibāti mina'r-rizq, qul hiya lilladhīna āmanū fi'l-ḥayāti'd-dunyā khāliṣatan yawma'l-qiyāma, kadhālika nufaṣṣilu'l-āyāti li-qawmin yaʿlamūn

"Say: Who has forbidden the adornment God has brought forth for His servants, and the good things of provision? Say: These are for those who believe, in the life of this world; on the Day of Resurrection they will be theirs alone. Thus do We set out the signs in detail for a people who know."

A point of word order must be recorded: the sentence is a question opening with a command (qul), and the question is built with man (who).

In Arabic this pattern — man ḥarrama… — is a rhetorical question of denial (istifhām inkārī): no answer is expected, the question is itself a rejection. "Who has forbidden it?" = "No one has forbidden it."

And the verse contains two quls: one for the question, one for the answer. That is, it makes the messenger utter both the question and the answer.

I record this as an observation: in the twenty-eighth verse the other side ascribed something to God (wa'llāhu amaranā bihā); here the other side ascribes a prohibition to God. The two verses show the same error in two directions: presenting something as God's command, and presenting something as God's prohibition.

The three verses are a whole, and the thirty-third verse is the answer of the sequence.

The sense of the root: to be pleasant, clean, good. Ṭayyib is used in the sense "both agreeable to the senses and harmless". The root was treated at 2/168 in al-Baqara (kulū mimmā fi'l-arḍi ḥalālan ṭayyibā); I rely on that treatment.

And the root will occur twice more in this sūra:

Three occurrences: provision, land, what is made lawful. And in the hundred and fifty-seventh verse the word comes together with its opposite (khabāʾith — foul things), just as ṭayyib meets khabutha in verse 58.

The answering sentence (qul hiya lilladhīna āmanū fi'l-ḥayāti'd-dunyā khāliṣatan yawma'l-qiyāma) has been read differently among the lexicographers. The disagreement is given in a table; I do not impose a preference.

Both readings are transmitted and both come close to the same result: in this world the bounty is shared, in the hereafter it is not. I do not impose a preference.

A variant reading must also be recorded:

Both are transmitted; the meaning is not changed in any essential way.

The root خ-ل-ص had occurred in the twenty-ninth verse as mukhliṣīna lahu'd-dīn. The same root two verses apart: one the servant's making the religion unmixed, the other the bounty's being unmixed. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

The verse says that to hold a thing forbidden is also a claim. The twenty-eighth verse asked for the ground of saying "God commanded this"; the thirty-second asks for the ground of saying "God forbade this".

No legal ruling is issued in this commentary (Method). All I record is the verse's own construction: the question asks for the source of the prohibition.

Qul innamā ḥarrama rabbiya'l-fawāḥisha mā ẓahara minhā wa mā baṭan, wa'l-ithma wa'l-baghya bi-ghayri'l-ḥaqq, wa an tushrikū bi'llāhi mā lam yunazzil bihī sulṭānan, wa an taqūlū ʿala'llāhi mā lā taʿlamūn

"Say: My Lord has forbidden only these: indecencies, open and hidden; sin; wrongful transgression; that you associate with God that for which He has sent down no warrant; and that you say about God what you do not know."

This verse gives a list, and per the method (Method) no legal ruling is built here. What I shall do is to work out how many items the list has and what those items are.

A point of word order must be recorded: the sentence begins with innamā — the particle of restriction (ḥaṣr) in Arabic: "He has forbidden only these."

The list has five items, and it falls into two groups:

The division of the two groups can be read off the word order and must be recorded: the first three items come as nouns (with the definite article: al-fawāḥish, al-ithm, al-baghy); the last two come with an + verb (an tushrikū, an taqūlū). That is, the first three are things, the last two are acts.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the word order itself.

ف-ح-ش — treated at verse 28; I rely on that treatment.

أ-ث-م — ithm: the root carries the idea of "lagging behind, being late"; the lexicographers explain ithm as "an act that holds its doer back from good". The root was treated at 2/219 in al-Baqara (fīhimā ithmun kabīr), where the variant reading kabīr/kathīr was recorded. I rely on that treatment.

ب-غ-ي — baghy: the concrete sense of the root is "to exceed, to overflow"; a wound that festers is also said to baghā'l-jurḥ. From this comes the sense "to exceed the bound, to do wrong". And the same root occurs twice more in this sūra: at 45 and 86 (wa yabghūnahā ʿiwajā — "they seek to make it crooked").

And the qualification bi-ghayri'l-ḥaqq must be recorded. A point of word order: of the three items, a qualification is placed only on baghy. The lexicographers give two explanations of this:

Both are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The root س-ل-ط: to prevail, to have mastery. Sulṭān is generally used in the Qurʾān in the sense "proof, evidence, warrant" — because a proof is what gives mastery in a dispute.

And the same phrase will occur in this sūra in the seventy-first verse, in the mouth of Hūd: a-tujādilūnanī fī asmāʾin sammaytumūhā antum wa ābāʾukum mā nazzala'llāhu bihā min sulṭān.

I record this as an observation: the sūra applies in the seventy-first verse, in the mouth of a prophet, the measure it laid down in the thirty-third. The same technique was tabulated in Hūd Table 4; I rely on that treatment.

The last item of the list is word for word the same expression as the question in the twenty-eighth verse.

And its being placed last in the list must be recorded. I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the arrangement of the three verses:

In the twenty-eighth verse the other side ascribed an indecency to God; in the thirty-second it ascribed a prohibition to God. The thirty-third verse makes that very act the last item of the list. That is, the list ends with an item that takes in the list itself: if "saying what is forbidden on God's authority" enters the list, then adding to the list falls under that item too.

This is an explanation, not a ruling. And I draw no legal conclusion from it.

Wa li-kulli ummatin ajal, fa-idhā jāʾa ajaluhum lā yastaʾkhirūna sāʿatan wa lā yastaqdimūn

"Every community has its term. When their term comes, they cannot delay it by an hour, nor bring it forward."

A point of word order must be recorded: the verse comes immediately after the list (33) and immediately before the address yā banī Ādam (35).

I record this as an observation: once the list of what is forbidden is finished, an announcement of a term comes directly. And in the twenty-fourth verse the term of the individual was named (wa matāʿun ilā ḥīn); here that of the community is named.

Both verbs are of Form X, and this form generally carries the sense of seeking.

The lexicographers give two readings here:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And the structure of the sentence must be recorded: both directions are closed at once — it neither goes back nor forward. This is a pattern repeated in the Qurʾān's announcements of the term (Yūnus 10/49, al-Naḥl 16/61, al-Muʾminūn 23/43, al-Munāfiqūn 63/11). It was treated in al-Naḥl and al-Munāfiqūn; I rely on those treatments.

Sāʿatan — "an hour, a moment" — comes indefinite, and an indefinite in a context of negation covers the smallest quantity: "not even a moment".

Yā banī Ādama immā yaʾtiyannakum rusulun minkum yaquṣṣūna ʿalaykum āyātī, fa-mani'ttaqā wa aṣlaḥa fa-lā khawfun ʿalayhim wa lā hum yaḥzanūn · Wa'lladhīna kadhdhabū bi-āyātinā wa'stakbarū ʿanhā ulāʾika aṣḥābu'n-nāri hum fīhā khālidūn

"O children of Adam! If messengers come to you from among yourselves, recounting My signs to you — whoever guards himself and sets himself right, no fear shall be upon them and they shall not grieve. · But those who called Our signs lies and were too great for them, those are the people of the Fire; they will remain in it."

A point of word order must be recorded: immā is in fact in (the conditional) + mā (redundant), and the verb has taken the emphatic nūn (yaʾtiyanna).

In Arabic, adding mā to the conditional in and giving the verb the emphatic nūn is a construction implying that the condition will certainly come to pass.

And the same pattern occurred at al-Baqara 2/38: fa-immā yaʾtiyannakum minnī hudā. It was treated at 2/38 in al-Baqara; I rely on that treatment. The ring closing back to al-Fātiḥa was recorded there.

The two verses can be compared:

Al-Baqara says "if guidance comes", al-Aʿrāf "if messengers come". The same pattern, two different agents. I record this as an observation, and the table can be verified from the two texts.

And the qualification minkum must be recorded: the messengers will be "from among you". The same emphasis will be repeated twice in the sequence of prophets in this sūra: ʿalā rajulin minkum (63, Noah) and ʿalā rajulin minkum (69, Hūd). The same note in three places.

This pattern was treated at 2/38 in al-Baqara, and a table was drawn up there:

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

What belongs here is this: the same pattern occurs twice in this sūra, and the second is in the section on the people of al-Aʿrāf.

The first is in the third person, the second in the second person — that is, at 49 the word is said directly to the addressee. This is an overlap that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be taken up again at 46-49.

The protasis of the conditional clause is two verbs: ittaqā (he guarded himself) and aṣlaḥa (he set right).

The root ص-ل-ح: the going away of a defect, becoming useful and fit. The verb here is of Form IV (aṣlaḥa) and is transitive; its object is not stated.

I record this as an observation: the verse does not say "he set himself right" or "he set his affair right"; it leaves the object open. And the same root occurs seven times in this sūra, the four most striking being these:

The root is one of the words the sūra carries from beginning to end.

This block is one of the most detailed dialogues of the gathering in the Qurʾān, and it contains five separate turns of speech:

Five turns, six parties. And the sūra takes its name from the fourth turn.

Fa-man aẓlamu mimmani'ftarā ʿala'llāhi kadhiban aw kadhdhaba bi-āyātih, ulāʾika yanāluhum naṣībuhum mina'l-kitāb, ḥattā idhā jāʾathum rusulunā yatawaffawnahum qālū ayna mā kuntum tadʿūna min dūni'llāh, qālū ḍallū ʿannā wa shahidū ʿalā anfusihim annahum kānū kāfirīn

"Who is more wrongdoing than one who invents a lie against God or calls His signs lies? Their share of the Book reaches them. Then, when Our messengers come to take their souls, they say, 'Where are those you used to call upon beside God?' They say, 'They have gone astray from us,' and they bear witness against themselves that they were deniers."

This pattern occurs in close to fifteen places in the Qurʾān and was treated in the index (al-Kahf 18/57, al-Sajda 32/22, al-Zumar 39/32). I rely on those treatments.

What belongs here is this: the verse counts two acts, and the two are joined by aw (or).

I record this as an observation: the two acts run in opposite directions — one adds, the other subtracts. And the last item of the thirty-third verse (an taqūlū ʿala'llāhi mā lā taʿlamūn) corresponds to the first act. That is, there are four verses between the list and this verse, and the same act is named twice.

Two readings are transmitted of the expression naṣībuhum mina'l-kitāb:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

A point of word order: yanāluhum naṣībuhum — the verb is nāla (ن-ي-ل), "to reach". And the same root will return in the forty-ninth verse: lā yanāluhumu'llāhu bi-raḥma. Two occurrences: one the reaching of a share, the other the not reaching of mercy.

Rusul here are not messengers (prophets) but those charged with taking the soul — this is understood from the context and from the verb (yatawaffawnahum). The same usage is present at al-Anʿām 6/61 too (tawaffathu rusulunā).

The root و-ف-ي: to be complete, to render in full. Tawaffā is "to take a thing in full" — hence "to take the soul". The root was treated at 39/42 in al-Zumar (Allāhu yatawaffa'l-anfus); I rely on that treatment.

The construction of the sentence must be recorded: shahidū ʿalā anfusihim — "they bore witness against themselves".

And the same structure will return in the hundred and seventy-second verse — but there the direction differs:

There are a hundred and thirty-five verses between the two, and both use the structure shahida ʿalā nafsih.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the shared word order of the two verses: the sūra makes man a witness about himself twice — once at the beginning (172), once at the end (37). And the two testimonies face one another: the first an acknowledgement, the second a confession. This will be completed at 172-174.

Qāla'dkhulū fī umamin qad khalat min qablikum mina'l-jinni wa'l-insi fi'n-nār, kullamā dakhalat ummatun laʿanat ukhtahā, ḥattā idha'ddārakū fīhā jamīʿan qālat ukhrāhum li-ūlāhum rabbanā hāʾulāʾi aḍallūnā fa-ātihim ʿadhāban ḍiʿfan mina'n-nār, qāla li-kullin ḍiʿfun wa lākin lā taʿlamūn · Wa qālat ūlāhum li-ukhrāhum fa-mā kāna lakum ʿalaynā min faḍlin fa-dhūqu'l-ʿadhāba bimā kuntum taksibūn

"He says: 'Enter the Fire among communities of jinn and men that have passed away before you.' Every time a community enters, it curses its fellow. Then, when they have all caught up with one another there, the last of them will say of the first: 'Our Lord! These led us astray; give them a double punishment of the Fire.' He says: 'For each there is double, but you do not know.' · And the first of them will say to the last: 'You have no advantage over us; taste then the punishment for what you earned.'"

A point of word order must be recorded: the verse does not say "it curses the one before it", it says "ukhtahā" — "its sister".

In Arabic a thing's like, one of the same kind, is called its ukht (hādhihi ukhtu hādhih — "this is the like of this"). The word states not kinship but likeness.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the word: the side cursed is the like of the side that curses. And the thirty-ninth verse will say this outright: fa-mā kāna lakum ʿalaynā min faḍl — "you have no advantage over us."

The sense of the root: to catch up, to reach, to overtake. Iddāraku is originally tadāraku (Form VI); the tāʾ has been assimilated into the dāl. Form VI states reciprocity: "they caught up with one another".

And the same root was treated at 27/66 in al-Naml (bali'ddāraka ʿilmuhum fi'l-ākhira); I rely on that treatment.

The structure of the dialogue must be recorded, and it is symmetrical:

And the form of the answer must be recorded: the request was "give them double"; the answer becomes "for everyone there is double".

Wa lākin lā taʿlamūn — "but you do not know." That is, the one who makes the request does not know that what he asks for takes him in as well.

I record this as an observation: in the scene a transfer of responsibility is attempted and refused. And the same attempt will be repeated in the hundred and seventy-third verse of the sūra: innamā ashraka ābāʾunā min qablu wa kunnā dhurriyyatan min baʿdihim, a-fa-tuhlikunā bimā faʿala'l-mubṭilūn. The two scenes do the same work: laying the load on the past.

This is an overlap that can be verified within the sūra, and it will be taken up again at 172-174.

The root ض-ع-ف carries both the sense "weakness" and the sense "fold, multiple". Ḍiʿf means "as much again of a thing"; it is understood as "double" or as "many times over".

The lexicographers have disagreed over the exactness of the quantity; I build no claim about a number. What I record is that the answer corrects not the quantity but the distribution: li-kullin — "for each".

Inna'lladhīna kadhdhabū bi-āyātinā wa'stakbarū ʿanhā lā tufattaḥu lahum abwābu's-samāʾi wa lā yadkhulūna'l-jannata ḥattā yalija'l-jamalu fī sammi'l-khiyāṭ, wa kadhālika najzi'l-mujrimīn · Lahum min jahannama mihādun wa min fawqihim ghawāsh, wa kadhālika najzi'ẓ-ẓālimīn

"As for those who called Our signs lies and were too great for them: the gates of heaven will not be opened for them, and they will not enter the Garden until the camel passes through the eye of the needle. Thus do We recompense the guilty. · For them there is a bed of Hell and coverings above them. Thus do We recompense the wrongdoers."

A point of word order must be recorded: the verb is the passive of Form II (tufattaḥu), not tuftaḥu. Form II here carries the sense of multiplicity and of one by one: "the gates are not opened one by one."

And the same pattern occurs in this sūra in the affirmative as well:

The same root (ف-ت-ح), in two directions. And verse 96 is the counterpart of this passage: there, on the condition of faith and God-fearing, blessings will be opened from heaven and earth. I record this as an observation, and the two verses can be verified from the text.

Two readings are transmitted about what the expression "the gates of heaven are not opened" refers to:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference. And the Qurʾān gives no detail here; I invent no detail.

This is one of the best-known expressions of impossibility in the Qurʾān.

Ḥattā here means "until", and in Arabic, used together with a condition impossible of fulfilment, it gives the sense "never". This is a known pattern in the language (taʿlīq bi'l-muḥāl).

The root و-ل-ج: to enter a narrow place. Wulūj is "to be thrust inside". The root was treated in Luqmān 31/29 and al-Ḥadīd 57/6 (yūliju'l-layla fi'n-nahār), where the sense "to pass one thing inside another" was recorded. I rely on those treatments.

I record this as an observation: the choice of the verb is worth recording — not yadkhulu (to enter) but yaliju (to be thrust into a narrow place). That is, the verb already carries narrowness, and it joins with the narrowness of the hole.

The root س-م-م was undone at 52/27 in al-Ṭūr (ʿadhāba's-samūm) and at 56/42 in al-Wāqiʿa. I rely on those treatments. A summary of what was recorded there:

• The root carries two branches: pore/hole, and poison.
• Samūm is "the scorching hot wind that works into the pores".
• Masāmm — the pores of the body; the relation with samm (poison) was conveyed as a relation drawn by the lexicographers, not as a settled etymological ruling.

What belongs here is this: the same root comes here with its first branch. Sammu'l-khiyāṭ — "the hole of the needle".

The root خ-ي-ط: to sew. Khiyāṭ is the sewing needle; khayṭ is thread. And the same root occurs at al-Baqara 2/187: al-khayṭu'l-abyaḍu mina'l-khayṭi'l-aswad — "the white thread, the black thread". It was treated at 2/187 in al-Baqara; I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation, and the two verses can be verified from the text: the same root gives the thread in al-Baqara and the needle in al-Aʿrāf. Both come from the picture of sewing.

There is a variant reading in this word that changes the meaning, and it must be given in a table.

The widespread reading, transmitted by mass transmission, is the first: al-jamal — camel. The other readings have been transmitted and are held to be anomalous (shādhdh). I do not impose a preference; both have been transmitted.

The effect of the two readings on the meaning must be recorded:

I record this as an observation: the second reading has an inner consistency — needle and cable are the two ends of one work (sewing); thread passes through the needle, a cable does not. But the first reading is both the widespread one and the one transmitted by mass transmission, and it builds the likeness more sharply. I do not impose a preference.

One further note: the lexicographers record that the words jamal and jummal are from the same root (ج-م-ل: to gather together, to amass — jumla, ijmāl are from the same root). A cable is threads twisted together; and the camel is the animal that gathers up a load and carries it. This is a relation drawn by the lexicographers; I do not give it as a settled etymological ruling.

The forty-first verse builds the picture of a bed with two words:

The root م-ه-د was treated at 20/53 in Ṭāhā (jaʿala lakumu'l-arḍa mahdā) and at 78/6 in al-Nabaʾ (a-lam najʿali'l-arḍa mihādā). I rely on those treatments. And the difference must be recorded: there the mihād was the earth's being spread out for man; here it is Hell's being spread out.

The root غ-ش-و: to cover, to envelop. The root was treated in al-Ghāshiya (al-ghāshiya) and at 45/23 in al-Jāthiya (ghishāwatan). I rely on those treatments. And the same root will occur in the fifty-fourth verse of this sūra: yughshi'l-layla'n-nahār.

I record this as an observation: the verse counts below and above — and these were exactly the two directions Iblīs did not count in the seventeenth verse (fawq and taḥt). There is an overlap between the two verses, and I give it as a possible reading, not as a certainty.

A point of word order must be recorded: both verses end with the same pattern but with a different word.

The root ج-ر-م: to cut, to sever — hence jurm, "the evil act one earns". The root ظ-ل-م: to put a thing somewhere other than its place (treated at 8-9).

The two words come one after another and name the same group by two different attributes. This accords with the sūra's manner, sustained from the beginning, of defining by attribute (Method: "it is the attributes the verse describes").

Wa'lladhīna āmanū wa ʿamilu'ṣ-ṣāliḥāti lā nukallifu nafsan illā wusʿahā ulāʾika aṣḥābu'l-jannati hum fīhā khālidūn · Wa nazaʿnā mā fī ṣudūrihim min ghillin tajrī min taḥtihimu'l-anhār, wa qālu'l-ḥamdu li'llāhi'lladhī hadānā li-hādhā wa mā kunnā li-nahtadiya lawlā an hadāna'llāh, laqad jāʾat rusulu rabbinā bi'l-ḥaqq, wa nūdū an tilkumu'l-jannatu ūrithtumūhā bimā kuntum taʿmalūn

"Those who believe and do righteous deeds — We charge no soul beyond its capacity — those are the people of the Garden; they will remain in it. · We have pulled out whatever rancour was in their breasts. Rivers run beneath them. They say: 'Praise be to God, who guided us to this. We would never have found the way had God not guided us. The messengers of our Lord did come with the truth.' And they are called to: 'This is the Garden you have been made to inherit for what you used to do.'"

A point of word order must be recorded, and it is striking: the sentence lā nukallifu nafsan illā wusʿahā comes in between the subject (wa'lladhīna āmanū wa ʿamilu'ṣ-ṣāliḥāt) and its predicate (ulāʾika aṣḥābu'l-janna).

This is a construction seen in the second verse too (there fa-lā yakun fī ṣadrika ḥarajun minh had come in between two parts). In both places the intervening sentence is an announcement that lightens a load.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two sentences stand in the same position of word order.

Wusʿ — the root و-س-ع: breadth. Wusʿ is "a person's breadth", that is, his capacity. The same sentence occurs at al-Baqara 2/286 (lā yukallifu'llāhu nafsan illā wusʿahā) and was treated in al-Baqara; I rely on that treatment.

And the same root will occur twice more in this sūra, and both are striking:

Three occurrences: one the breadth of man, two the breadth of God (knowledge and mercy).

The root ن-ز-ع was treated at the twenty-seventh verse (yanziʿu ʿanhumā libāsahumā). And the same verb comes back here.

I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the two occurrences of the verb: the same verb is in one place the taking away of a covering, in the other the taking away of a burden. One a loss, the other a gain.

The root غ-ل-ل: a thing's seeping in between, entering secretly. Ghill is "rancour that has seeped into the breast"; from the same root come ghull (the ring or fetter put on the neck) and ghulūl (secretly filching from the spoils).

And the other branch of the root will occur in the hundred and fifty-seventh verse of this sūra: wa'l-aghlāla'llatī kānat ʿalayhim — "the fetters that were upon them".

Two words from one root, and both carry the idea of a binding. And both are lifted: one in the Garden (nazaʿnā), the other by the messenger (wa yaḍaʿu ʿanhum). This is an overlap that can be verified within the sūra.

A point of word order must be recorded: the sentence contains the lām of denial (lām al-juḥūd) — mā kunnā li-nahtadiya.

In Arabic the pattern mā kāna + li- + imperfect states negation in its strongest form: "it was not a thing that could be, there was no possibility of it." This pattern was treated in al-Shuʿarāʾ and in the sections of Yūnus.

And it is akin to the pattern mā yakūnu laka an tatakabbara in the thirty-third verse — there too an impossibility was being stated.

I record this as an observation: the first sentence of the people of the Garden is a praise, the second a withdrawal of themselves. And the third is the confirmation of the messengers' truthfulness (laqad jāʾat rusulu rabbinā bi'l-ḥaqq). Three sentences: thanks, humility, confirmation.

The root و-ر-ث: to come into an inheritance. The verb here is passive: "you have been made to inherit it."

And the same root occurs twice more in this sūra:

Four occurrences: one the Garden, three the earth.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the sentence ends with bimā kuntum taʿmalūn — "for what you used to do." In the same verse, "you were made to inherit" (a giving without return) and "for what you used to do" (a giving in return) stand side by side. I record this as an observation; the text joins the two and does not resolve the relation between them.

Wa nādā aṣḥābu'l-jannati aṣḥāba'n-nāri an qad wajadnā mā waʿadanā rabbunā ḥaqqan fa-hal wajadtum mā waʿada rabbukum ḥaqqā, qālū naʿam, fa-adhdhana muʾadhdhinun baynahum an laʿnatu'llāhi ʿala'ẓ-ẓālimīn · Alladhīna yaṣuddūna ʿan sabīli'llāhi wa yabghūnahā ʿiwajan wa hum bi'l-ākhirati kāfirūn

"The people of the Garden call out to the people of the Fire: 'We have found what our Lord promised us to be true. Have you found what your Lord promised you to be true?' They say, 'Yes.' Then a crier calls out among them: 'The curse of God be upon the wrongdoers!' · Those who bar others from the way of God and seek to make it crooked, and who deny the hereafter."

A point of word order must be recorded: the question is built so as to carry its own answer within it.

Qad wajadnā mā waʿadanā rabbunā ḥaqqā · fa-hal wajadtum mā waʿada rabbukum ḥaqqā

The same verb (و-ج-د), the same specifying accusative (ḥaqqan), two different subjects. And the answer is a single word: naʿam — "yes".

I record this as an observation: there is no argument in the scene. The other side does not object; it confirms. And this looks to the same place as shahidū ʿalā anfusihim in the thirty-seventh verse: the admission comes from the other side.

And it must be recorded that the verb nādā occurs four times in this block:

Four calls, three different parties. And the people of al-Aʿrāf call out twice — the group that gives the sūra its name is the group that speaks most in the block. This is a countable datum.

The root أ-ذ-ن: ear (udhun), and from this to announce, to proclaim (adhān). Muʾadhdhin is "one who announces".

A point of word order must be recorded: muʾadhdhin comes indefinite — "a crier". Who he is is not stated.

I record this as an observation, and I do not add the detail the Qurʾān does not give: explanations of who this crier is are transmitted in the classical commentaries; none of them can be verified from the text, and none is certain knowledge. I content myself with transmitting them.

And baynahum — "among them" — must be recorded: the crier is not on either of the two sides, but between them. And two verses later "a veil between them" (wa baynahumā ḥijāb) will be named. There is an overlap between the two expressions; but I give it not as a certainty, only as a possible reading.

The root ع-و-ج was treated at 39/28 in al-Zumar (ghayra dhī ʿiwaj) and at 18/1 in al-Kahf (wa lam yajʿal lahū ʿiwajā). I rely on those treatments. The distinction recorded there: ʿiwaj is crookedness that is not seen, ʿawaj crookedness that is seen.

And this sentence occurs twice in al-Aʿrāf:

The two sentences use exactly the same verbs: ṣadda and baghā … ʿiwajan. One a general description, the other a concrete community.

I record this as an observation, and the table can be verified from the text: the sūra applies in the eighty-sixth verse to a people the description it gave in the forty-fifth. And this is the third instance in al-Aʿrāf of the technique tabulated in Hūd Table 4 (the others: lā tufsidū fi'l-arḍi baʿda iṣlāḥihā 56→85, and mā lam yunazzil bihī sulṭānan 33→71).