مَن يَهْدِ ٱللَّهُ فَهُوَ ٱلْمُهْتَدِى وَمَن يُضْلِلْ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْخَٰسِرُونَ · وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ ٱلْجِنِّ وَٱلْإِنسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ ءَاذَانٌ لَّا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَآ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ كَٱلْأَنْعَٰمِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْغَٰفِلُونَ
Man yahdi'llāhu fa-huwa'l-muhtadī, wa man yuḍlil fa-ulāʾika humu'l-khāsirūn · Wa laqad dharaʾnā li-jahannama kathīran mina'l-jinni wa'l-ins, lahum qulūbun lā yafqahūna bihā wa lahum aʿyunun lā yubṣirūna bihā wa lahum ādhānun lā yasmaʿūna bihā, ulāʾika ka'l-anʿāmi bal hum aḍall, ulāʾika humu'l-ghāfilūn
"Whomever God guides, he is the one guided. And whomever He leaves astray, those are the losers. · We have brought into being for Hell many of the jinn and of mankind: they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like cattle; rather, they are further astray. Those are the heedless."
The root ذ-ر-أ was undone at 23/79 in al-Muʾminūn, where al-Aʿrāf 7/179 was named. I rely on that treatment. What was recorded there: the concrete sense of the root is to scatter as one scatters seed, to multiply; the lexicographers describe the root as lying somewhere between creating and spreading. I do not repeat it.
What belongs here is the function of the lām in the phrase li-jahannama, and this opens onto a debate of kalām. Per the method (Method) I take no side in the debate; I convey the two explanations in a table:
| Reading | What the lām states | Ground |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lām al-ʿāqiba — the lām of outcome: "those who will end up in Hell" | That there are instances in Arabic where this lām states an outcome (fa'ltaqaṭahū ālu Firʿawna li-yakūna lahum ʿaduwwan — al-Qaṣaṣ 28/8: the purpose of the taking in was not enmity) |
| 2 | Lām al-taʿlīl — the lām of purpose | That the primary function of the lām is to state purpose |
Both explanations are transmitted; I do not impose a preference, and I do not enter the debate about the decree (Method).
I record the one thing that can be verified from the text, and that is the verse's own continuation: the verse describes these people by a series of attributes — three organs and the non-use of all three. That is, the description is made not by the name of a lineage or a group but by a failure to act.
This triad was treated in eight places in the index, and an eight-link table was drawn up at 16/78 in al-Naḥl. I rely on that treatment and widen the table from here:
| Place | Sentence | The work of the triad |
|---|---|---|
| al-Aḥqāf 46/26 | Wa jaʿalnā lahum samʿan wa abṣāran wa afʾidatan fa-mā aghnā ʿanhum… | Given — of no avail |
| al-Jāthiya 45/23 | Wa khatama ʿalā samʿihī wa qalbihī wa jaʿala ʿalā baṣarihī ghishāwatan | Closed — a seal and a film |
| Fuṣṣilat 41/20 | Shahida ʿalayhim samʿuhum wa abṣāruhum wa julūduhum | They bore witness — the third is the skins |
| al-Sajda 32/9 | Wa jaʿala lakum … qalīlan mā tashkurūn | Given — no thanks given |
| al-Muʾminūn 23/78 | Wa huwa'lladhī anshaʾa lakumu's-samʿa wa'l-abṣāra wa'l-afʾida | Brought into being |
| al-Mulk 67/23 | Qul huwa'lladhī anshaʾakum wa jaʿala lakum … qalīlan mā tashkurūn | Given — no thanks given |
| al-Isrāʾ 17/36 | Inna's-samʿa wa'l-baṣara wa'l-fuʾāda kullu ulāʾika kāna ʿanhu masʾūlā | Held answerable |
| al-Naḥl 16/78 | Wa jaʿala lakum … laʿallakum tashkurūn | Given — thanks hoped for |
| al-Aʿrāf 7/179 | Lahum qulūbun lā yafqahūna bihā wa lahum aʿyunun lā yubṣirūna bihā wa lahum ādhānun lā yasmaʿūna bihā | Present — not used |
| al-Anʿām 6/46 | In akhadha'llāhu samʿakum wa abṣārakum wa khatama ʿalā qulūbikum | The possibility of their being taken away |
And what al-Aʿrāf adds lies at two points. Both can be verified from the text, and both set this verse apart from all the other links.
| The other links | al-Aʿrāf 7/179 | |
|---|---|---|
| Order | Samʿ → abṣār → afʾida — from outside inward | Qulūb → aʿyun → ādhān — from inside outward |
At 46/26 in al-Aḥqāf the meaning of the order was recorded: it goes from outside inward — what is heard → what is seen → what is weighed within. In al-Aʿrāf this direction is reversed: the heart comes first.
I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the order itself: the other verses were telling of the giving of the organs, and the order of giving was from outside inward. Al-Aʿrāf tells of their not being used, and it begins the matter at the heart. That is, the lack is pictured as beginning not at the outer gates but within. This is an explanation, not a ruling.
| Organ | The other links | al-Aʿrāf 7/179 |
|---|---|---|
| The inward | Afʾida / fuʾād / qalb | Qulūb |
| The eye | Abṣār / baṣar | Aʿyun |
| The ear | Samʿ (a verbal noun, singular) | Ādhān (the plural of udhun) |
And the difference must be recorded: in the other verses samʿ is a verbal noun — that is, the faculty of hearing. In al-Aʿrāf it is ādhān: the organ itself.
I record this as a datum of the language: in all three places al-Aʿrāf names the organ and does not use the name of the faculty. And this accords with the work of the sentence: the verse says the organs are there (lahum — "they have") and that they do not work. What is stressed is the presence not of the faculty but of the instrument.
| Organ | Verb | Root | What it states |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qulūb | Lā yafqahūna | ف-ق-ه | To grasp in depth — not to know superficially |
| Aʿyun | Lā yubṣirūna | ب-ص-ر | To see — different from naẓar: it states the outcome |
| Ādhān | Lā yasmaʿūna | س-م-ع | To hear |
That the root ف-ق-ه is chosen is worth recording: the root means to go down into the depth of a thing and understand it; the lexicographers point to a narrower and deeper understanding than ʿilm.
And it was recorded at 26/194 in al-Shuʿarāʾ (ʿalā qalbik) that the Qurʾān ascribes reasoning and understanding to the heart, and this very sentence was named as the example (lahum qulūbun lā yafqahūna bihā — al-Aʿrāf 7/179). I rely on that treatment.
| Place | Sentence | What was recorded there |
|---|---|---|
| Muḥammad 47/12 | Yaʾkulūna kamā taʾkulu'l-anʿām | The eating of the animal is not censured; what is described is man's contenting himself with that much alone. And the likeness is made not to the person but to the act. |
| al-Furqān 25/44 | In hum illā ka'l-anʿāmi bal hum aḍallu sabīlā | The ground of the addition bal hum aḍallu: the animal has no way from which to stray. The comparison looks to the non-use of a means that was given. |
And one thing recorded in Muḥammad carries particular weight here, and I need to repeat it, because a reading of the verse that does not wound depends on it: the Qurʾān counts anʿām (grazing livestock) as a bounty in other places, and there is a sūra named for them (al-Anʿām, 6). At al-Naḥl 16/5-8 the creation of these animals is told as a favour.
And the difference between al-Aʿrāf and al-Furqān must be recorded, and it can be verified from the two texts:
| al-Furqān 25/44 | al-Aʿrāf 7/179 | |
|---|---|---|
| What precedes | Am taḥsabu anna aktharahum yasmaʿūna aw yaʿqilūn — two verbs | Three organs, three verbs — a detailed count |
| The likeness | Ka'l-anʿāmi bal hum aḍallu sabīlā | Ka'l-anʿāmi bal hum aḍall |
| Difference | The qualification sabīlā is present | The qualification sabīlā is absent |
| Closing | (it passes to the next verse) | Ulāʾika humu'l-ghāfilūn |
Al-Aʿrāf leaves the word aḍall unqualified and puts a closing sentence in its place: ulāʾika humu'l-ghāfilūn.
The root غ-ف-ل had occurred in the hundred and thirty-sixth verse (wa kānū ʿanhā ghāfilīn) and had been named in the hundred and seventy-second verse as an excuse (innā kunnā ʿan hādhā ghāfilīn).
And this is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as my own reading: in the hundred and seventy-second verse heedlessness was being put forward as an excuse; the hundred and seventy-ninth gives the same word as a diagnosis. There are seven verses between the two. That is, the sūra brings back, a few verses later, the name of the excuse it closed, now as an attribute. This is an explanation, not a ruling.