al-Mursalāt 77:1-5 — Five oaths

Wa'l-mursalāti ʿurfā · fa'l-ʿāṣifāti ʿaṣfā · wa'n-nāshirāti nashrā · fa'l-fāriqāti farqā · fa'l-mulqiyāti dhikrā

"By those sent forth one after another · by those that blow fiercely · by those that spread wide · by those that separate decisively · by those that deliver a reminder…"

Five verses, five attributes, and the thing sworn by is never named. The sūra says only what they do.

This is the same situation treated at length in the section on al-ʿĀdiyāt, and I do not repeat here what was recorded there. In brief: in the Qurʾān's sequences of oaths, naming what is sworn by with an attribute rather than by its name is an established preference (al-ʿĀdiyāt 100/1-5, al-Nāziʿāt 79/1-5, al-Ṣāffāt 37/1-3, al-Dhāriyāt 51/1-4), and in all these sūras the same disagreement has arisen. The function of the oath was recorded there as well: what is sworn by is presented as evidence; to say "by such and such" is at the same time to say "look at such and such".

The work to be done here is different. In the section on al-ʿĀdiyāt the narrative logic of the sequence was worked out (sound → light → time → dust → contact; a scene approaching from far to near). In al-Mursalāt the real weight of the sequence lies not in the narration but in the patterns. I shall therefore look at the grammar first.

Let us set the five words side by side in terms of pattern. The table that emerges does not look like coincidence:

Two separate criteria — the form of the pattern and the root of the accusative word — give the same division: 1 and 5 on one side, 2-3-4 on the other.

What this means is:

One. The verbs of the first and fifth verses are of the ifʿāl form (أَرْسَلَ, أَلْقَى); the three in the middle are bare triliterals. In Arabic the ifʿāl form conveys causation and the bringing of something to a destination. So at the two ends of the sequence there is "sending" and "delivering"; in the middle, the movement itself.

Two. The first word is a passive participle: mursalāt — "those sent". The fifth word is an active participle: mulqiyāt — "those that deliver". That is, the sequence begins with something's being sent and ends with that thing's doing a work. Passive at the start, active at the end.

Three. In the three middle verses the accusative word is from the same root as the active participle: al-ʿāṣifāti ʿaṣfā, al-nāshirāti nashrā, al-fāriqāti farqā. This is what the grammarians call the absolute object (mafʿūl muṭlaq): the repetition of the verb's verbal noun for emphasis. In English it comes out as something like "blowing and blowing", "separating and separating". Its function is emphasis.

In the first and fifth verses, on the other hand, the accusative word comes from a different root — ʿurfā and dhikrā. These cannot be absolute objects. Dhikrā is plainly a direct object: the thing delivered, that is, the reminder itself. What ʿurfā is, on the other hand, is disputed, and I shall take it up separately below.

Fourth, and most important: the accusative words at the two ends convey a content, whereas the three in the middle convey only a manner. The middle of the sequence says how the thing is done; the two ends say what is carried.

I record this as a reading drawn from the patterns themselves. But the patterns are beyond dispute and were shown one by one above.

Now look at the heads of the verses:

In the section on al-ʿĀdiyāt the difference between fāʾ al-taʿqīb (the fāʾ of sequence) and wāw was treated: fāʾ establishes an unbroken continuity, wāw conveys no order. And the conclusion recorded there was: in al-ʿĀdiyāt there is one wāw and four fāʾ (وَ فَ فَ فَ فَ), and therefore the five verses are a single oath; not five separate objects but five moments of one thing.

In al-Mursalāt the situation is different. The third verse begins with وَ.

In grammar a wāw coming between oaths most often begins a new oath. On this reading there are two separate oaths at the head of the sūra:

• First oath: 1-2 (al-mursalāt + al-ʿāṣifāt)
• Second oath: 3-5 (al-nāshirāt + al-fāriqāt + al-mulqiyāt)

And this division is one of the strongest supports for the disagreement we shall see below: the first two of the oaths may belong to one thing and the last three to another.

But note: the two divisions do not coincide.

• The patterns divide 1 / 2-3-4 / 5.
• The particles divide 1-2 / 3-4-5.

This is not a contradiction but a datum. And it explains exactly why the disagreement at the head of the sūra has never closed: the text itself does not give one clean division. Take one criterion and you get one result; take another and you get another. Tying the five verses to a single thing, and dividing them in two, both find support in the text.

It is important to record this, because it is the reason why, when the views are listed in the table below, none of them is decisively eliminated.

The openings of the two sūras are of the same kind, and precisely for that reason their differences are instructive:

The rule recorded in the section on al-ʿĀdiyāt works here too: a nominal sentence conveys fixity (thubūt), a verbal sentence occurrence (ḥudūth). In al-ʿĀdiyāt the fourth verse moved from noun to verb, and that transition turned the scene from a description into an event. Al-Mursalāt never makes that transition: five nouns across five verses.

The consequence is this: in al-ʿĀdiyāt a raid happens; in al-Mursalāt a work is described as a work habitually done. One is narration, the other definition.

And because it is definition, al-Mursalāt's oath does not point to a scene occurring once. The thing that is sent, that blows, that spreads, that separates and that delivers a reminder — whatever it may be — does this continually.

One further difference: al-ʿĀdiyāt's first word is active (those that run), al-Mursalāt's passive (those that are sent). Al-ʿĀdiyāt opens with something moving by its own decision; al-Mursalāt with something that has itself been sent. This implies from the outset that in the second sūra there is a sender — already in the first word of the oath.

The most disputed word in the five verses. And the cause of the dispute is that both of the two separate branches of meaning in the root fit the context.

Root: ع-ر-ف. The core of the root is to know, to recognise — but this is a kind of knowing different from ʿilm: recognising something because one has seen it before. Its derivatives:

• مَعْرِفَة — recognition, familiarity.
• مَعْرُوف — what is commonly known and recognised; and from this, good. What is good in a society is what everyone recognises.
• عُرْف — custom, established usage. In Turkish it survives as the borrowed word örf.
• تَعَارُف — mutual acquaintance. "That you may come to know one another" (al-Ḥujurāt 49/13).
• ٱلْأَعْرَاف — a high place, a ridge, the height between two sides (al-Aʿrāf 7/46).

And the second branch of the root — the concrete usage the lexicographers record:

• عُرْف — a horse's mane, a cock's comb. Hair or feathers ranged in a row along the neck, one after another.

From these two branches arise two separate readings, and both have been defended in the classical sources.

Both readings are defensible and I make no decisive choice between them. But two things should be recorded:

One. The second reading has direct support within the Qurʾān: in al-Aʿrāf 7/199, "wa'mur bi'l-ʿurf" — "enjoin what is right". That is, the word ʿurf occurs in the Qurʾān's own usage in the sense of "good". This is an advantage the first reading does not have.

Two. The first reading, on the other hand, has an advantage of word order: since the word is not from the same root as the active participle, it cannot be an absolute object; and dhikrā at the other end of the sequence is not an absolute object either. If the two end words form exceptions for the same reason, one expects them both to do similar work. Dhikrā conveys content (what is delivered); in that case it seems more consistent for ʿurfā too to convey content or purpose — that is, the second reading.

This second observation is my own inference, not a transmitted view; and it does not count as decisive evidence, since a circumstantial qualifier is also possible in terms of word order.

A third possibility. A small number of sources say that, proceeding from the "like a horse's mane" comparison, ʿurfā conveys multitude and density. This may be counted a sub-branch of the first reading.

And one last note. The two senses of the word are not wholly foreign to one another. Both maʿrūf (good) and ʿurf (custom) are what is repeated, habitual, recognised — a thing becomes recognisable only because it is repeated. The hairs of a mane too are things that repeat, ranged in the same order. I record the presence of a common idea of "regular repetition" beneath the two branches as a relation drawn by the lexicographers; I do not present it as a settled etymology.

Root: ع-ص-ف. This root has been treated earlier in this commentary — but in its nominal form.

In the section on al-Fīl, the last verse of the sūra ran: fa-jaʿalahum ka-ʿaṣfin maʾkūl — "He made them like chewed-up straw". What was recorded there:

ʿAṣf is the part of a crop other than the grain — stalk, leaf, husk, chaff. The dry residue left in the field after harvest and scattered by the wind. And from the same root comes ʿāṣif: a fierce, scattering wind. The root carries the idea of being scattered within it.

Now the same root stands, in this verse, on the verbal side: al-ʿāṣifāti ʿaṣfā — those that blow, blowing fiercely.

So a single root yields two words at two ends:

The single idea beneath the root is this: a movement that tears a thing from its place and disperses it. On one side of the root stands the movement itself (the wind), on the other the object of the movement (the scattered stalk). Arabic does not separate the two; it names the scattering and the scattered with the same root.

Drawing this connection makes both sūras read better:

• In al-Fīl the army stood at the passive end of the root: the side that is scattered.
• In al-Mursalāt what is sworn by stands at the active end of the root: the side that scatters.

And if we recall that in the tenth verse of this sūra the mountains will be dispersed with the word nusifat (they were scattered), the choice of root becomes more meaningful still. I record this as my own reading.

The root's other uses in the Qurʾān:

• "A fierce wind came upon them" (Yūnus 10/22) — rīḥun ʿāṣif.
• "And to Solomon [We subjected] the fiercely blowing wind" (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/81) — al-rīḥa ʿāṣifa.
• "Their deeds are like ashes that the wind blows fiercely away on a stormy day" (Ibrāhīm 14/18) — fī yawmin ʿāṣif.

The last verse is particularly noteworthy: there too the wind is on the scattering side, and what is scattered is deeds. Setting the three verses together, the root's field in the Qurʾān becomes clear: ʿaṣf appears where something cannot hold on and disperses.

In grammar. ʿAṣfā is an accusative verbal noun from the same root as the active participle: an absolute object. Its function is emphasis — "it blows and blows", "when it blows it blows fiercely". The closest English rendering is an adverb that redoubles the verb.

Root: ن-ش-ر. This root was treated in this commentary in the sections on ʿAbasa and al-Takwīr. The definition recorded there:

Its concrete sense is to open what has been folded, to spread, to lay out. Nashara'th-thawba — he opened out the cloth. Its opposite is طَوَى (ṭayy) — to fold.

In al-Takwīr this root was used for the opening of the pages: wa idha'ṣ-ṣuḥufu nushirat (81/10) — what was closed was opened. In ʿAbasa it occurred in the إِنشَار pattern (raising to life): thumma idhā shāʾa ansharah (80/22).

The root has three separate fields in the Qurʾān, and all three can be made to work here:

The third field is especially important for this sūra. For nashr is also a name of the resurrection; and this sūra is about resurrection from beginning to end. The root of the word pronounces the subject of the sūra already in the third verse of the oath.

I record this as an association. The root's sense of resurrection is beyond dispute in the Qurʾān (nushūr, anshara, munshir); but I do not claim that this sense is intended in the verse — the accusative word nashrā, as an absolute object, only emphasises the verb.

On the wind reading this is the verse that sits most easily: in al-Rūm 30/48 and Fāṭir 35/9 this is exactly the wind's work — to raise a cloud and to spread it. The Qurʾān's own expression answers the attribute directly.

On the angel reading two explanations are given: the angels spread out the pages/books, or they spread mercy. These explanations too have been defended.

Root: ف-ر-ق. This root was treated in this commentary in the section on al-Bayyina, and the tension framed there is here exactly reversed. Let us first recall the finding there:

The core of the root: to separate two things from one another, to open a space between them. Its derivatives: farq, firāq (parting), farīq (one party), firqa (a company), iftirāq, tafriqa. And most important, فُرْقَان (furqān) — that which separates; one of the names of the Qurʾān. From the same root come both furqān (praised separation) and tafriqa (blamed division). Where lies the difference? Furqān separates truth from falsehood — it opens a space between right and wrong. Tafriqa separates people from one another — it opens a space between one human being and another. The first is necessary; the second is a disaster.

In al-Bayyina the root occurred with its blamed face: tafarraqa — they split apart. Here it occurs with its praised face: al-fāriqāti farqā — those that separate decisively.

The same root carries two opposite values in two sūras. And this is no inconsistency; it is the direct consequence of the root's logic.

The act of separating is in itself neither good nor bad. Its value depends on what is separated from what:

And the tragedy recorded in the section on al-Bayyina was exactly the confusion between these two lines: the thing that came so that truth might be separated from falsehood (bayyina/furqān) had become the cause of people being separated from one another (tafriqa). They had divided along the wrong axis.

Al-Mursalāt, on the other hand, shows the right axis. And in the later sections of the sūra this separating will become the name of a day — but this time with a different root. I shall take up this internal link separately at verse 13.

The root's relevant uses in the Qurʾān:

• ٱلْفُرْقَان — one of the names of the Qurʾān (al-Furqān 25/1; al-Baqara 2/185).
• يَوْمُ ٱلْفُرْقَان — used of the day of Badr (al-Anfāl 8/41): the day on which the two sides were separated.
• "On that night every wise matter is distinguished" (al-Dukhān 44/4) — yufraqu. This verse was treated in the section on al-Qadr: that night is the night on which matters pass from a mixed state to a separated one.

The last item is particularly meaningful for this verse. In al-Dukhān what separates is a particular night; here what separates is that unnamed plural sworn by. The work of separating is once again attached in the Qurʾān to an agent who is not named.

This is the strongest verse for the angel reading, because in al-Dukhān 44/4-5 the work of separating comes together with the expression "by a command from Us", and this has been taken as the work of the angels. On the wind reading, on the other hand, this is the verse that strains most; the explanation given runs to the wind's dispersing and separating the cloud, or to the rain's separating soils. The second explanation is close to the reading framed in the section on al-Ṭāriq: "Rain falls on all soil in the same way; but not every soil yields the same thing. Water is a measure, and it separates soils."

Root: ل-ق-ي. Laqiya — he met, he found. أَلْقَى (the ifʿāl form) — he threw, he set down, he put before.

The concrete sense of the verb is a movement of setting down: to let go of what is in one's hand, to cast it before someone. In the Qurʾān it is used with both material and immaterial objects:

• "Throw down your staff" (al-Aʿrāf 7/117; Ṭāhā 20/69) — concrete.
• "He set firm mountains on the earth, lest it shake with you" (al-Naḥl 16/15) — alqā fi'l-arḍi rawāsiya. The same object and the same verb family as verse 27 of this sūra.
• "We shall deliver to you a weighty word" (al-Muzzammil 73/5) — innā sa-nulqī ʿalayka qawlan thaqīlā. This is the verb used for revelation.
• "He delivers the spirit from His command upon whom He wills of His servants" (Ghāfir 40/15) — yulqi'r-rūḥa min amrihī ʿalā man yashāʾu min ʿibādih.

The last two verses are decisive: this is the verb of revelation's descent. And the verse also names what is delivered: ذِكْر.

ذِكْر — this root was treated in detail in this commentary in the sections on al-Aʿlā and al-Ghāshiya, and I do not repeat what was recorded there. In brief: beneath the root lie both to mention and to remember, and the Qurʾān names itself with this word (innā naḥnu nazzalna'dh-dhikra, al-Ḥijr 15/9).

So the fifth verse partly names what was left unnamed in the first four verses of the sequence: what is carried is a reminder.

This changes how the whole sequence reads. Look back:

1. They are sent — by whom is not said. 2. They blow fiercely. 3. They spread and lay out. 4. They separate. 5. They deliver a reminder.

At the end of the sequence an addressee appears. A reminder is left for someone who will remember. In the first four verses there was no human being at all; in the fifth, the human being enters the scene without being named — because he is the recipient of the dhikr.

A comparison with al-Ṣāffāt. Almost exactly the same structure occurs once more in the Qurʾān:

"By those ranged in ranks · by those that drive · and by those that recite a reminder" (al-Ṣāffāt 37/1-3) — fa'l-tāliyāti dhikrā.

The last verse of the two sequences ends with the same word: ذِكْرًا. And in both sequences this is the final verse; and in both, that word, unlike the accusatives before it, conveys a content.

I record this shared feature as an observation. I do not claim a deliberate reference between the two sūras; but it does show that the Qurʾān's oath sequences tend to close with the carrying of a reminder.

A difference of pattern should be recorded too: in al-Ṣāffāt the verb is talā (to recite, to follow after), here alqā (to set down). Reciting is done with the voice, setting down with the hand. In al-Ṣāffāt the reminder is recited, in al-Mursalāt it is set down — that is, it is put somewhere and stays there. I record this distinction as my own reading.