al-Mursalāt 77:35-36

Hādhā yawmu lā yanṭiqūn · Wa lā yuʾdhanu lahum fa-yaʿtadhirūn

"This is a day on which they will not speak · Nor will they be permitted, that they might offer an excuse."

The shortest section of the sūra (two verses) and the place where its tightest internal link is completed.

هَٰذَا — a demonstrative: "this". The scene is no longer told from a distance; it is shown by pointing.

And a grammatical detail: the word yawmu here is not in the genitive, and what it is annexed to is a clause (lā yanṭiqūn). In Arabic the annexation of an adverb of time to a clause is ordinary, and two syntactic readings are recorded (yawmu / yawma). It makes no difference to the sense: "the day on which they do not speak".

The extraordinary side of the expression is this: the day is named by something that is not on that day. Not "the day of reckoning", not "the day of separation", but "the day on which they cannot speak".

A day is named by an absence.

Root: ن-ط-ق. And the choice of word here is decisive.

Arabic has more than one word for speaking, and they do not say the same thing:

Nuṭq is being able to pronounce a word. This is why logic is called مَنْطِق in Arabic: the correct articulation of speech. And the definition used of man is ḥayawān nāṭiq — "the speaking animal".

• مَنْطِق — speech, language. "We have been taught the speech of birds" (al-Naml 27/16) — ʿullimnā manṭiqa'ṭ-ṭayr.
• أَنْطَقَ — to make speak. "God, who makes everything speak, has made us speak" (Fuṣṣilat 41/21).

The nicety in the choice of word: the verse does not say "they are silent", nor "they say nothing". It says "they cannot articulate" — that is, the sound is not formed.

This differs from silence. One who is silent can speak but does not. What is told here is that the capacity itself does not work.

And the Qurʾān uses this verb in a very meaningful place: of idols.

"Do you worship things that hear you, or profit you, or harm you?" … "Ask it, if they can speak." (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/63) "What is the matter with you, that you do not speak?" (al-Ṣāffāt 37/92)

In both verses Abraham uses this verb while mocking the idols. The definition of an idol is: that which cannot speak.

And in this sūra the same verb is used of the people on that day.

I record this as an observation. I do not claim a deliberate reference between the two sūras; but the verb's field of use in the Qurʾān sets the tone of this verse.

There are many verses in the Qurʾān stating that people speak on that day:

• "By God our Lord, we were not mushrikūn" (al-Anʿām 6/23).
• "On that day every soul comes pleading for itself" (al-Naḥl 16/111) — tujādilu ʿan nafsihā.
• The disputes of the people of the Fire with one another (al-Aʿrāf 7/38-39; Sabaʾ 34/31-33).

This is a known question of classical exegesis, and the solutions put forward are these:

The second solution is the one that best fits the verse's own structure, because verse 36 explains verse 35: not speaking is defined as not being able to offer an excuse.

The first solution is also widespread and rests on the observation that the Qurʾān's scenes of the resurrection tell of different moments. The two do not exclude one another.

I impose no preference; but the verses' internal structure (the wāw linking 35 and 36 and the relation of explanation) supports the second solution.

Root: أ-ذ-ن. And this root was treated in detail in this commentary in the section on al-Inshiqāq. What is to be taken from there makes this verse read quite differently:

At the centre of this root there is an organ: أُذُن (udhun) — the ear. All the root's derivatives come out of that organ: | أُذُن | Ear | | أَذِنَ لِـ | He gave ear, he listened | | أَذِنَ لَهُ فِى | He permitted | | إِذْن | Permission | | أَذَان | The call to prayer; the call brought to the ear | And it was recorded there: "In English 'permission' and 'ear' have no link; in Arabic they are the same word. In Arabic to permit someone is in fact to listen to him: the request has reached the ear and been accepted. Permission is the outcome of listening."

Now return to the verse: wa lā yuʾdhanu lahum.

Taking the root of the word into account, the verse says: no ear is given to them.

That is, the problem is not a procedural obstacle. The possibility of speech is absent because there is no one listening. If the root of idhn is the ear, the withholding of permission is the closing of the ear.

I record this reading as an interpretation I draw from the sense of the root. The root's relation to the ear is the lexicographers' datum and was treated with its source in the section on al-Inshiqāq.

And a contrast with al-Inshiqāq arises. There the sky adhinat to its Lord — it gave ear. Here to man lā yuʾdhanu — no ear is given.

The same root, in two sūras, in two directions: the sky listens, man is not listened to. I record this as an observation.

An indication within the Qurʾān:

"On that day no one will speak except him whom the Most Merciful permits and who speaks rightly." (al-Nabaʾ 78/38)

This verse is the best explanation of the two verses before us: speech depends on permission. And the permission carries two conditions — having been given, and speaking rightly.

"When that day comes, no soul will speak except by His permission." (Hūd 11/105)

Root: ع-ذ-ر — the root of the sixth verse of the sūra.

The nicety in grammar — and the point the grammarians have dwelt on. The نَ at the end of the verb stands: فَيَعْتَذِرُونَ. That is, the verb is nominative, not accusative.

This looks like a detail but it changes the meaning, and this verse is regularly cited as an example in the classical works of grammar.

In Arabic a فَ coming after a negative clause can work in two ways:

The verse has the second. And the difference is this: on the accusative reading the existence of an excuse would be implied and the only obstacle would be permission. On the nominative reading two things are announced separately: permission is not given, and no excuse is offered either.

That is, the failure to offer an excuse is not tied to the withholding of permission. It is stated as an independent fact.

This detail is decisive, because it gives exactly the meaning of the link framed with the sixth verse of the sūra: in the sixth verse the ground of excuse had already been removed. There is nothing to offer. Even were permission given, since there is no excuse to offer, the two negations stand independent of one another.

I ground this on the syntactic difference the grammarians record for this verse; the interpretation of the difference's effect on the meaning is my own reading.

Now let us complete the link.

The sūra closes the door of excuse in the sixth verse and shows in the thirty-sixth that the door is closed.

And the chain of reasoning between them is this:

The warning was sent (5) → no ground of excuse remained (6) → … → permission to offer an excuse is not given (36).

The second step makes the third necessary. If the ground of excuse has already been removed, there is no point in hearing an excuse. The withholding of permission is not an arbitrariness but a consistency.

The logic of al-Nisāʾ 4/165 is completed here: "so that after the messengers people would have no argument against God." If no argument remains, no session for presenting arguments is opened either.

I offer this link as my own reading; the roots and wordings of the two verses are plain in the text.

Other verses of the Qurʾān look the same way:

• "On that day their excuses will not profit the wrongdoers." (al-Rūm 30/57; similarly Ghāfir 40/52)
• "Do not offer excuses today; you are only being repaid for what you did." (al-Taḥrīm 66/7) — lā taʿtadhirū'l-yawm. The same verb, the same form.

The last verse is the counterpart of the verse before us: in al-Mursalāt it is said that permission is not given, in al-Taḥrīm it is forbidden outright.