7/59-93 — The sequence of prophets: al-Aʿrāf's own pattern
The sixth block of the sūra (59-102) tells of five prophets one after another: Noah, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Lot, Shuʿayb. The same five names occur in sequence in other sūras of the Qurʾān too, and two tables of pattern were drawn up in the index. I rely on those treatments and do not repeat them; I work out al-Aʿrāf's own pattern separately.
| Source | What was recorded there |
|---|---|
| al-Shuʿarāʾ — "The backbone of the sūra: seven stories, four patterns" | A four-part frame: the announcement of denial (kadhdhabat … al-mursalīn), the opening (idh qāla lahum akhūhum … alā tattaqūn), the threefold entry (innī lakum rasūlun amīn · fa'ttaqu'llāha wa aṭīʿūn · wa mā asʾalukum ʿalayhi min ajr), the closing seal (inna fī dhālika la-āyatan… · wa inna rabbaka la-huwa'l-ʿazīzu'r-raḥīm). Eight blocks, word for word the same seal. |
| Hūd — Table 3 and Table 4 | No seal, but five scattered closing patterns (jāʾa amrunā, najjaynā, buʿdan li-, ka-an lam yaghnaw fīhā, a closing of its own); and the sūra distributes its own opening call (istaghfirū rabbakum thumma tūbū ilayh, 11/3) among the mouths of three prophets. The address yā qawmi occurs sixteen times. |
The difference between the three sūras can be gathered in a single sentence, and it is a countable datum: al-Shuʿarāʾ likens its stories to one another, Hūd separates them from one another, and al-Aʿrāf stands between the two — it has a shared opening sentence but no shared closing seal.
يَٰقَوْمِ ٱعْبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ مَا لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُۥ Yā qawmi'budū'llāha mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh "O my people! Serve God; you have no god but Him."
This sentence occurs four times in the sūra, in word-for-word identical form. This is the result of a count:
| Prophet | Verse | What comes before the sentence | What comes after the sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noah | 59 | Laqad arsalnā Nūḥan ilā qawmihī fa-qāla | Innī akhāfu ʿalaykum ʿadhāba yawmin ʿaẓīm — a statement of fear |
| Hūd | 65 | Wa ilā ʿĀdin akhāhum Hūdā, qāla | A-fa-lā tattaqūn — a question |
| Ṣāliḥ | 73 | Wa ilā Thamūda akhāhum Ṣāliḥā, qāla | Qad jāʾatkum bayyinatun min rabbikum — a proof |
| Shuʿayb | 85 | Wa ilā Madyana akhāhum Shuʿaybā, qāla | Qad jāʾatkum bayyinatun min rabbikum — a proof |
| Lot | 80 | Wa Lūṭan idh qāla li-qawmihī | No sentence — directly a-taʾtūna'l-fāḥishata |
One — in the story of Lot there is no shared opening sentence. In four of the five stories yā qawmi'budū'llāha mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh is present; in Lot's it is not. And as was recorded in the section on the structure of the sūra, the word malaʾ too is absent only from the story of Lot. Two absences gather in the same story; this is a countable datum.
Two — Noah's entry is built differently from the others. Only for Noah is the verb laqad arsalnā (We sent) used; for the others there is the pattern wa ilā … akhāhum (their brother), without a verb. That is, the first link of the sequence is built with a full sentence, the later ones by attachment.
Three — the qualification akhāhum (their brother) is present in three stories (65, 73, 85), and absent in Noah's and Lot's. In al-Shuʿarāʾ Table 2 the distribution of akhūhum in al-Shuʿarāʾ was worked out, and it was recorded there that it drops out in Shuʿayb's case, the reason being that the addressees are named by a place. In al-Aʿrāf the distribution is different: with Shuʿayb akhāhum is present, because al-Aʿrāf names the addressees as Madyan — at 26/176 in al-Shuʿarāʾ the addressees were aṣḥābu'l-Ayka (the people of a place). The two sūras name the addressees of the same prophet by two different names, and the qualification akhūhum changes accordingly. This is an overlap that can be verified from the two texts, and it supports the explanation given at 26/176 in al-Shuʿarāʾ.
Four — what follows the opening sentence is different in every story: fear, question, proof, proof. What is shared is the call; what changes is the ground placed behind the call.
| Prophet | Closing | Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Noah (64) | Fa-kadhdhabūhu fa-anjaynāhu wa'lladhīna maʿahū fi'l-fulki wa aghraqnā'lladhīna kadhdhabū | Deliverance + drowning |
| Hūd (72) | Fa-anjaynāhu wa'lladhīna maʿahū bi-raḥmatin minnā wa qaṭaʿnā dābira'lladhīna kadhdhabū | Deliverance + cutting off the line |
| Ṣāliḥ (78) | Fa-akhadhathumu'r-rajfatu fa-aṣbaḥū fī dārihim jāthimīn | The quaking |
| Lot (83-84) | Fa-anjaynāhu wa ahlahū … wa amṭarnā ʿalayhim maṭarā | Deliverance + a raining down |
| Shuʿayb (91) | Fa-akhadhathumu'r-rajfatu fa-aṣbaḥū fī dārihim jāthimīn | The quaking |
One — the seventy-eighth and ninety-first verses are word for word identical. This repetition was counted in the section on the structure of the sūra; here it falls into place: al-Aʿrāf's only word-for-word repeated closing is between Thamūd and Madyan.
Two — in three stories anjaynā (We delivered) is present, in two it is absent (Ṣāliḥ and Shuʿayb). And in exactly those two stories the rajfa is present. That is, where deliverance is named the quaking is not, and where the quaking is named deliverance is not. I record this as the result of a count; the text does not say the reason, and I invent no reason.
| Verse | Who | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| 79 | Ṣāliḥ | Fa-tawallā ʿanhum wa qāla yā qawmi laqad ablaghtukum risālata rabbī wa naṣaḥtu lakum wa lākin lā tuḥibbūna'n-nāṣiḥīn |
| 93 | Shuʿayb | Fa-tawallā ʿanhum wa qāla yā qawmi laqad ablaghtukum risālāti rabbī wa naṣaḥtu lakum, fa-kayfa āsā ʿalā qawmin kāfirīn |
The only difference is singular against plural: risālata (singular) and risālāti (plural). This is a difference that can be verified from the text, and the lexicographers explain risālāt by "the multiplicity of the messages sent".
And the second difference is at the end of the sentence: Ṣāliḥ says lā tuḥibbūna'n-nāṣiḥīn (you do not love those who counsel) — he describes the addressee; Shuʿayb says fa-kayfa āsā ʿalā qawmin kāfirīn (how then should I grieve?) — he states his own condition.
I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the endings of the two sentences: the same pattern is used twice, and in both the final sentence is a note of feeling, and the two look in different directions.
The root ن-ص-ح: purity, freedom from admixture; and from this, to counsel out of a wish for another's good. The lexicographers tie the root to the pictures of the clarifying of honey (nāṣiḥu'l-ʿasal — pure honey) and the soundness of a seam (niṣāḥ — sewing thread). That is, counsel is both unmixed and something that joins parts together.
| Verse | Expression | Who |
|---|---|---|
| 62 | Wa anṣaḥu lakum | Noah |
| 68 | Wa anā lakum nāṣiḥun amīn | Hūd |
| 79 | Wa naṣaḥtu lakum … lā tuḥibbūna'n-nāṣiḥīn | Ṣāliḥ |
| 93 | Wa naṣaḥtu lakum | Shuʿayb |
And the same root had occurred once more in the second block of the sūra — but in the opposite direction: wa qāsamahumā innī lakumā la-mina'n-nāṣiḥīn (21) — in the mouth of Iblīs.
This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra, and I record the following as my own reading: al-Aʿrāf puts the sentence "I am one who counsels you" first into the mouth of a liar, then into the mouths of four prophets. And the difference between them is given in the sūra's own words: Iblīs's is built with an oath (wa qāsamahumā), the prophets' without one. This is an explanation, not a ruling.
7/59-64 — Noah
Laqad arsalnā Nūḥan ilā qawmihī fa-qāla yā qawmi'budū'llāha mā lakum min ilāhin ghayruh, innī akhāfu ʿalaykum ʿadhāba yawmin ʿaẓīm · Qāla'l-malaʾu min qawmihī innā la-narāka fī ḍalālin mubīn · Qāla yā qawmi laysa bī ḍalālatun wa lākinnī rasūlun min rabbi'l-ʿālamīn · Uballighukum risālāti rabbī wa anṣaḥu lakum wa aʿlamu mina'llāhi mā lā taʿlamūn · A-wa ʿajibtum an jāʾakum dhikrun min rabbikum ʿalā rajulin minkum li-yundhirakum wa li-tattaqū wa laʿallakum turḥamūn · Fa-kadhdhabūhu fa-anjaynāhu wa'lladhīna maʿahū fi'l-fulki wa aghraqnā'lladhīna kadhdhabū bi-āyātinā innahum kānū qawman ʿamīn
"We sent Noah to his people. He said: 'O my people! Serve God; you have no god but Him. I fear for you the punishment of a mighty day.' · The notables of his people said: 'We see you in plain error.' · He said: 'O my people! There is no error in me; I am a messenger from the Lord of all the worlds. · I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I counsel you, and I know from God what you do not know. · Do you find it strange that a reminder from your Lord should come to you through a man from among yourselves, to warn you, that you may guard yourselves and be shown mercy?' · They called him a liar; so We delivered him and those with him in the ark, and drowned those who called Our signs lies. They were indeed a blind people."
The relation between the words of the other side and the words of the answer must be recorded, and this is a point of word order:
| Who | Expression | Pattern of the word |
|---|---|---|
| The notables (60) | Innā la-narāka fī ḍalālin mubīn | Ḍalāl — verbal noun |
| Noah (61) | Laysa bī ḍalālatun | Ḍalāla — feminine verbal noun |
The two words are from the same root (ض-ل-ل) but their patterns differ. The lexicographers explain this difference thus: the pattern ḍalāla lends itself, as against ḍalāl, to a negation that takes in even the smallest amount — that is, the answer means not "I am not in a great error" but "there is no straying in me at all".
I convey this explanation as it is transmitted, and the difference of pattern is a datum that can be read from the text.
And the construction of the answer must also be recorded: laysa bī ḍalālatun wa lākinnī rasūlun min rabbi'l-ʿālamīn. The objection is rejected and something is put in its place. I record this as an observation about word order: the answer is not a defence but a statement of identity.
And the same two-step answer will be repeated word for word in the story of Hūd (66-67: the objection safāha → laysa bī safāhatun wa lākinnī rasūlun min rabbi'l-ʿālamīn). The same structure in two stories, with two different words of objection. This is a countable datum and will be tabulated at Hūd.
The limit of the sentence must be recorded: aʿlamu mina'llāhi mā lā taʿlamūn — the source of the knowledge is stated.
That is, the sentence does not say "I know more than you"; it says "I know something that comes from God". I record this as an observation about word order, and its ground is the particle min.
The sentence begins with a question, and the subject of the question is not what has come but through whom it has come: ʿalā rajulin minkum.
| Verse | Who | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| 63 | Noah | A-wa ʿajibtum an jāʾakum dhikrun min rabbikum ʿalā rajulin minkum li-yundhirakum wa li-tattaqū wa laʿallakum turḥamūn |
| 69 | Hūd | A-wa ʿajibtum an jāʾakum dhikrun min rabbikum ʿalā rajulin minkum li-yundhirakum |
The difference: with Noah three purposes are counted (warning, guarding, mercy), with Hūd only one (warning). This is a difference that can be verified from the text.
And the subject of the objection is worth recording: what is objected to is not the message but the messenger's being a human being. The same objection will be turned back on the addressee in the last block of the sūra (7/184: a-wa lam yatafakkarū mā bi-ṣāḥibihim min jinna). This link will close at verse 184.
The root ع-م-ي: blindness. ʿAmīn is the plural of ʿamā, and the lexicographers record a difference of emphasis between aʿmā (one whose eye does not see) and ʿamī: ʿamī is used more for blindness of heart.
And the place of the word in the sūra must be recorded: the theme of blindness will return in the last block of the sūra — 7/179 (lahum aʿyunun lā yubṣirūna bihā) and 7/198 (wa tarāhum yanẓurūna ilayka wa hum lā yubṣirūn). The word the sūra uses to close the first story of the sequence it turns at the end into a general diagnosis. I record this as an observation.