al-Muṭaffifīn 83:13

Idhā tutlā ʿalayhi āyātunā qāla asāṭīru'l-awwalīn "When Our signs are recited to him he says: tales of the ancients."

In the preceding verse, kullu muʿtadin athīm — a singular description. Here the pronoun continues in the singular: ʿalayhi (to him), qāla (he said).

But in verse 14 it will turn back to the plural: qulūbihim (their hearts), kānū (they were).

This is the matter of kull recorded in the section on al-Humaza: kull is singular in wording and plural in sense, and in Arabic a pronoun may be used according to either.

Root: ت-ل-و. This root was taken up in the section on al-Shams: talā — to follow, to go after, to come behind.

And as was recorded there, tilāwa (recitation) is from this root: to recite is for letters to follow one another. At the centre of the word lies not sound but sequence.

The verb here is in the passive: tutlā — when it is recited. Who is reciting is not said. This shifts the attention from the reciter to what is recited.

And the verb is imperfect + idhā: a situation constantly repeated. Not an event that happened once; the same thing happens every time.

Root: أ-ي-ي. Āya — a sign, a mark, an indication.

The word's use in the Qurʾān runs in two directions: both the signs in the cosmos and the sentences of the revelation. Both carry the sense "what shows, what points".

The construct is made to the first person plural: āyātu-nā — "Our signs". This is the only "we" pronoun used across the sūra.

This choice is meaningful: the verse states to whom the rejected thing belongs. The person is not rejecting "a text"; he is rejecting a word whose owner is known.

Root: س-ط-ر. And the root of this word explains the character of the objection.

Saṭr — a line, a written line, a row. Saṭara — he drew a line, he wrote line by line. Misṭar — a ruler. Musaṭṭar — set in lines, written.

The Qurʾān uses the root directly: "Nūn. By the pen and by what they write line by line." (al-Qalam 68/1) — this verse was cited in the section on al-ʿAlaq.

أَسَاطِير is a plural word. The lexicographers differ over its singular: is it usṭūra, or isṭār/asṭār? Some lexicographers count the word a plural of a plural. I confine myself to recording the discussion.

Its sense: things written down and compiled, narratives passed on from the ancients.

(There are modern discussions to the effect that the word may have entered Arabic from outside; since I can say nothing certain, I do not enter into this subject. Its derivation from the Arabic root س-ط-ر is the explanation the classical sources give.)

ٱلْأَوَّلِين — the earlier ones, the ancients. Root أ-و-ل: to be first, to return.

The construct asāṭīru'l-awwalīn is repeated in several places in the Qurʾān, and it always comes out of the same mouths: the mouths of those who reject the revelation.

Now we come to the most striking side of the verse.

These people do not say "a lie". They say "a tale".

The difference matters, and it is generally passed over.

To say "it is a lie" is a claim, and it opens a debate: one has to show why it is a lie. To say "tales of the ancients" is not a claim but a classification. It puts the text in a category and closes it.

And that category is chosen deliberately: a tale is a thing that is neither true nor false. One does not call a tale "wrong"; a tale makes no claim to truth in the first place. To put the text in the category of tale, then, is to place it outside the discussion of truth.

This is the most economical form of objection: it requires no evidence whatever.

And precisely for that reason it confirms the diagnosis of verse 12. An objection that requires no evidence is not a conviction resting on evidence. The person has not examined the text and rejected it; he has declared that there is no need to examine it.

There is one further layer. Asāṭīr are what "the ancients" wrote. So the objection rests on the oldness of the text: this is nothing new, it is a repetition of stories told before.

And beneath this lies an assumption: what is old is not valid. Novelty becomes the standard.

This assumption conflicts directly with the Qurʾān's own claim; for the Qurʾān presents itself not as something new but as a confirmation of what the earlier messengers brought. This matter was taken up in the section on al-Bayyina.

There are three separate words in the sūra having to do with writing, and this does not look like an accident:

So the sūra uses three roots having to do with writing, and two relate the record while one relates the rejection.

And this picture emerges: concerning the person who rejects the revelation as "what the ancients wrote", there is a writing kept about him. He cannot reject that writing, because he does not even know of it.

I offer this as my own reading. That the three roots are found in the sūra is a datum of the text; the contrast I set up among them is an interpretation.