9. Sūrat al-Tawba

129 verses. It is widely reported to belong to a late stage of the Medinan period. It is the only sūra in the Qurʾān that does not open with the basmala, and it is the sūra in this series that must be handled with the greatest care.

The sūra opens with a declaration that treaties are dissolved, continues with a call to arms, carries in its middle a long analysis of hypocrisy, and closes at the end with two verses — an envoy's compassion for those he addresses. The distance between these two poles produces every difficulty there is in reading the sūra.

I write out at the start the limits that will be applied in this commentary, because they hold for the whole of the sūra:

And a note on method: the procedure applied in Muḥammad in treating 47/4 will be applied here too — the limits set by the wording of the verse itself will be shown first, then the disagreement will be tabulated, and no ruling will be issued. The measures laid down in al-Anfāl for the verses on war, for captives and for the etiquette of treaties are the ground of this sūra, and reference will be made to them continually.

The sūra is known by two names, and both come from within the sūra itself:

This doubleness is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: one and the same sūra is known both by the word for "keeping clear of, cutting off relations" (barāʾa) and by the word for "returning, being accepted back" (tawba). The two names name the two ends of the sūra — the first verse and the hundred and seventeenth.

The root ب-ر-أ: to slip free of something, to draw away from it, to sever relations with it. From the same root come barīʾ (clear of, unconnected), barāʾa (acquittal, a certificate of non-connection), and bāriʾ (the Maker — the one who separates a thing out of nothingness). The root occurred in al-Anfāl at 8/48: innī barīʾun minkum — what Satan says as he withdraws. The same word: there an abandonment, here a declaration.

The root ت-و-ب: to turn, to come back. That the word, when used of a servant, means "to turn one's back on the fault and come back", and when used of God (tāba ʿalā) means "to accept the return", is what the lexicographers record in common. This is the sūra in which the root is used most densely in the Qurʾān.

The sūra is the only sūra in the Qurʾān that does not begin with the basmala. This is a fact that can be seen directly from the text. The reason for it, however, is not something known with certainty.

Several explanations are transmitted in the classical sources. I convey them in a table and prefer none of them, because none of them is certain knowledge:

No preference is adopted in this commentary. The only thing verifiable from the text is this: there is no basmala. Everything said about the reason belongs to the explanations of a later period, and none of it claims certainty.

One further note, as my own reading: the second explanation above (the argument from content) is repeated very often; but the sūra is a sūra full of the word mercy — forgiveness and mercy appear openly in verses 27, 99, 104, 117, 118 and 128, and the sūra closes with raʾūfun raḥīm. The argument from content, that is, does not fit the whole of the sūra. I record this not as an objection but as the ground for adopting no preference.

I set up here the three-layered frame established in al-Fatḥ, because in this sūra a blurring of that boundary has the gravest consequences: what the Qurʾān says / what the Qurʾān does not say / what the transmitted reports relate.

The facts that can be drawn directly from the sūra are these:

• There are treaties that were made, and some of them have been broken (1, 7, 8, 12, 13).
• Those who did not break their treaty are excepted, and what was promised them will be completed to the end of its term (4, 7).
• A four-month period of free movement is declared (2).
• One who seeks refuge is to be protected, is to be enabled to hear, and is to be brought to a place of safety (6).
• There is an announcement on a day of the greater pilgrimage (3).
• An engagement took place at a place called Ḥunayn; there, numbers secured no advantage (25-26).
• A regulation was made concerning entry to al-Masjid al-Ḥarām (28).
• An obligation called jizya is mentioned (29).
• It is stated that the number of months is twelve and that the sacred months are four, and that a practice called nasīʾ is abolished (36-37).
• There is a call to an expedition; heat (81), distance (42), and ʿusra (hardship) are mentioned (117).
• A cave is mentioned: the envoy and the single person with him (40).
• A mosque built in order to do harm is spoken of (107).
• The categories to which the alms are to be applied are enumerated as eight (60).
• Three people who were left behind are mentioned; their names are not given (118).

Place names are extremely few. The names of places and locations that occur in the text: Ḥunayn (25), al-Masjid al-Ḥarām (7, 19, 28), Medina (101, 120), and, in the context of the names of peoples, Madyan (70). Apart from these, the name of the place to which the expedition went does not occur in the Qurʾān; the word "Tabūk" is not in the Qurʾān.

None of the following is in the text: the text of the treaties, the names of the parties, how many treaties there were; by whom the declaration was read out; in what year it took place; the location of the cave in verse 40 and the name of the person with him; the names of the three people in verse 118; who built the mosque in verse 107; the proportions and measures of the categories in verse 60; the amount of the jizya.

All of these come from the biographical, hadith and historical reports.

The following are reported in the classical sources (the sources differ from one another in the details, and in this commentary no detail has been made a condition of the meaning of a verse):

• It is reported that the first section of the sūra was declared in the ninth year after the emigration, during the pilgrimage season.
• It is reported that the engagement mentioned in verse 25 took place after the taking of Mecca, and that the believers were numerous.
• It is reported that a large part of the sūra came down on the occasion of a long and difficult expedition to the north; the verses about those who did not join the expedition are related as having come in that context.
• An account is transmitted concerning the demolition of the mosque mentioned in verse 107.
• The names of the three people in verse 118 and the process by which their case was decided are related in detail in the sources.

One. The reports supply the context; the sūra does not narrate the event, it refers to a situation its addressee already knows. For this reason I shall use the background.

Two. The reports are not of the same degree of certainty as the Qurʾān. For this reason I give no personal names, I do not enter into narrative, and I give the details in the language of "it is reported".

Three. The logic of the sūra itself does not depend on the reports. The separating of the one who broke the treaty from the one who did not (4), the protection of the one who seeks refuge (6), the setting apart of those with a genuine excuse (91), the suspension of judgement (106) — all of these are in the wording of the text itself.

Four. Per the method (Method), no wholesale ruling will be issued about any group. The sūra uses names such as mushrikīn, ahl al-kitāb, aʿrāb, munāfiqūn; each of these will be read in this commentary as an attribute, not as a label of identity. The ground for this within the text is the sūra itself: verse 4 excepts a group from among the mushrikīn, verse 6 grants protection to one of the mushrikīn, verse 99 sets apart a group from among the aʿrāb, verse 100 praises a community. The sūra divides its own categories.

There are three things in the structure that must be recorded:

One. The sūra opens with a dissolution and closes with a mercy. The first verse is barāʾa (the severing of a relation), the hundred and twenty-eighth raʾūfun raḥīm. This is the greatest structural tension in the sūra, and it will be treated separately at the end.

Two. There is a symmetry in the middle of the sūra. The sixty-seventh verse describes the hypocrites as baʿḍuhum min baʿḍ (they are of one another); the seventy-first describes the believers as baʿḍuhum awliyāʾu baʿḍ (they are the protectors of one another). The two sentences are built on the same pattern and say two different things. It will be given in a table at verse 71.

Three. The pattern "wa minhum" (and among them are some) recurs in the sūra (58, 61, 75, 98, 101 and elsewhere) — and each time it separates a part from a whole. I record this as my own reading: the sūra's own language is built in such a way as to block the issuing of wholesale rulings.

The first axis: oath and word. The words ʿahd, mīthāq, aymān, ḥalafa cluster in the sūra. The first block of the sūra treats the keeping or not keeping of a word given; the block on the hypocrites treats the use of the oath as a shield. This second line was treated in detail in al-Munāfiqūn at 63/2 (ittakhadhū aymānahum junnatan); I rely on that treatment.

The second axis: sitting and rising. Qaʿada (he sat), nafara (he went out), iththāqala (he grew heavy), tathabbaṭa (he was held back), mukhallafūn (those left behind), khawālif (those who stay behind). The sūra is built on an axis of movement and immobility.

The third axis: wealth. The word amwāl occurs again and again in the sūra — among the ties (24), in the censure of hoarding (34-35), in the non-acceptance of spending (53-54), in the categories to which the alms are applied (60), as an occasion of purification (103), and in the transaction (111). The same word occurs within the sūra as a test, as an instrument, and as a price.

This is the most critical section of the sūra and the place in this series that must be handled with the greatest care. I apply here the procedure applied in Muḥammad at 47/4:

1. First I shall show who is addressed, from the wording of the verse itself. 2. Then I shall give, all together, the limits the verses themselves lay down. 3. Then I shall convey the discussion in the classical commentaries as a neutral table of disagreement. 4. I shall issue no legal ruling, impose no preference, and make no link to any present-day event.

And I write this at the outset: the verses of this block will not be attributed to any group, any party or any event of the present day. This is not a sentence of precaution; it is a limit required by the wording of the verses themselves. Its ground will be shown below, at verses 1 and 4.

Barāʾatun mina'llāhi wa rasūlihī ila'lladhīna ʿāhadtum mina'l-mushrikīn · Fa-sīḥū fi'l-arḍi arbaʿata ashhurin wa'ʿlamū annakum ghayru muʿjizi'llāhi wa anna'llāha mukhzi'l-kāfirīn

"A declaration from God and His Messenger, severing relations, to those of the mushrikūn with whom you made a treaty. · Travel about the earth for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate God; God will disgrace those who reject."

This is the key to the whole block, and it is read off the first sentence.

The sentence could have been built like this, and it is not:

• Barāʾatun … ila'l-mushrikīn — "to the mushrikūn." It does not say this.
• Barāʾatun … ila'l-nās — "to the people." It does not say this.

What the sentence says is this: إِلَى ٱلَّذِينَ عَٰهَدتُّم مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ — ila'lladhīna ʿāhadtum mina'l-mushrikīn: "to those of the mushrikūn with whom you made a treaty."

The one addressed, that is, is fixed by a relative pronoun and a relative clause:

These three elements together do this: the one addressed is not a general human category; it is a determinate party with whom a treaty had been made.

And that the particle min is partitive must be recorded separately. This reading is not an interpretation; it is confirmed within the text by verses 4 and 6: verse 4 excepts a part of that same group, and verse 6 lays down a separate ruling for aḥadun mina'l-mushrikīn (one of the mushrikūn). The sūra itself, that is, does not use this name of a whole.

The note entered in al-Fatḥ for the word aʿrāb and in al-Baqara for the root ك-ف-ر holds here too: the name states not an identity but an attribute and a position. I rely on that treatment.

The concrete sense of the root: to slip free of something, to separate from it, to sever relations with it. The lexicographers record that beneath the root lies the idea of "a thing's coming out of another thing, drawing away from it".

The word occurred in al-Anfāl at 8/48 (innī barīʾun minkum), and there it stated an abandonment. Here it is a declaration — and its being a declaration is the procedural side of the verse.

The verse does not begin with a command. Barāʾatun — an indefinite noun, standing at the head as subject (mubtadaʾ). In Arabic, sentences of this kind that begin with an indefinite belong to the style of proclamation and announcement.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the sentence is a nominal one: the verse does not command an act, it makes the declaration of a state of affairs. The act will come four verses later, and tied to conditions.

And this coincides exactly with the procedure treated in al-Anfāl at 8/58: wa immā takhāfanna min qawmin khiyānatan fa'nbidh ilayhim ʿalā sawāʾ — "throw their treaty back to them openly, on equal terms." It was recorded there: even in a case where treachery is suspected, acting in secret is shut off; the dissolving of a treaty is itself bound to a procedure.

The first verse of al-Tawba is that procedure carried out. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verbal overlap of the two verses: al-Anfāl says "throw it back with notice", and al-Tawba opens with a text of notice.

The root س-ي-ح: water flowing and spreading over the ground. Sayḥ — flowing water; sāʾiḥ — one who moves about, who travels. The lexicographers record that when the verb is used of a person it means "to move about unhindered".

The choice of word is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: the command is not "flee" or "hide" — it is sīḥū, that is, move about freely. The water-image of the root carries the fact that the movement is unimpeded.

The same root will occur again in verse 112 of the sūra as al-sāʾiḥūn, and there it will be discussed in another sense. I shall compare the two occurrences at 112.

أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ — four months. The declaration of dissolution does not take effect immediately; a fixed period is granted.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the existence of the period: a stretch of time is placed between the declaration and its consequence. The function of the period is to give the other party room to move — and indeed the command is a command to move (sīḥū).

Wa adhānun mina'llāhi wa rasūlihī ila'l-nāsi yawma'l-ḥajji'l-akbari anna'llāha barīʾun mina'l-mushrikīna wa rasūluh; fa-in tubtum fa-huwa khayrun lakum, wa in tawallaytum fa'ʿlamū annakum ghayru muʿjizi'llāh

"And an announcement from God and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage: God is clear of the mushrikūn, and so is His Messenger. If you turn back, that is better for you; and if you turn away, know that you cannot frustrate God."

The concrete sense of the root: the ear. Udhun — ear. From this derive the senses of hearing, of giving leave (hearing and accepting), and of announcing (bringing to the ear). The root was treated in al-Ḥajj at 22/27 (wa adhdhin fi'l-nāsi bi'l-ḥajj) and in Ibrāhīm at 14/7 (wa idh taʾadhdhana rabbukum).

أَذَٰن here: a public announcement, a proclamation.

And the choice of word must be recorded: the same root will occur again in verse 61 of the sūra as udhun (ear), in verses 44-45 as yastaʾdhinuka (he asks your leave), and in verse 90 as li-yuʾdhana lahum. The sūra puts this root to four separate uses:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the number of these repetitions: the sūra opens with an announcement and is then built upon the asking of leave. The same root is the word both for open proclamation and for covert avoidance.

Which day the expression "the day of the greater pilgrimage" refers to has been debated in the classical commentaries. I convey the disagreement and impose no preference:

By what the epithet "greater" (akbar) is greater has also been debated: greater than the ʿumra (the ʿumra being counted as al-ḥajj al-aṣghar, the lesser pilgrimage), or greater by the scope of the declaration made in that year. The Qurʾān does not explain this; I do not speak with certainty.

The declaration does not end by closing the door. The sentence carries a condition: fa-in tubtum — "if you turn back."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the presence of the conditional clause: into the harshest of notices, a possibility capable of changing the situation has been set. And that possibility lies in the other party's own hands.

The same structure occurred in al-Anfāl at 8/33: one of the two things holding back the punishment was wa hum yastaghfirūn — an obstacle lying in the other party's own hands. I rely on that treatment.

Illa'lladhīna ʿāhadtum mina'l-mushrikīna thumma lam yanquṣūkum shayʾan wa lam yuẓāhirū ʿalaykum aḥadan fa-atimmū ilayhim ʿahdahum ilā muddatihim; inna'llāha yuḥibbu'l-muttaqīn

"Except those of the mushrikūn with whom you made a treaty and who then did not fall short with you in anything and did not back anyone against you. Complete their treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves those who guard themselves."

The fourth verse divides in two the party addressed in the first verse — and the measure by which it divides is not identity but conduct.

The two verses use the same expression (alladhīna ʿāhadtum mina'l-mushrikīn) and issue two different rulings. The only difference between them is what the second group has not done.

This is a fact verifiable from the wording of the verse itself, and it is decisive for the reading of the block: the ruling is tied not to the name of a group but to an act.

إِلَّا — the particle of exception. And the scope of the exception is fixed by two negative verbs:

The root ن-ق-ص: to diminish, to reduce. Note: the verse uses not the root nakatha (to break) but the root ن-ق-ص. The measure, that is, is not the wholesale repudiation of the treaty; even a piece taken away from it counts.

The root ظ-ه-ر: the back. Ẓāhara (Form III) — to lend one's back, to back, to support. The concrete picture is plain: to stand behind someone. The root occurred in al-Fatḥ and in al-Aḥzāb.

I record this as an observation about the structure: both conditions are framed negatively — not "those who have done such and such" but "those who have not done such and such." To fall within the scope of the exception, that is, one need do nothing; not having broken it is enough.

The command is unqualified: atimmū — complete it.

The root ت-م-م: to bring to completeness, to carry through to the end.

And two things must be recorded:

One. ʿAhdahum — "their treaty." The pronoun belongs to the other party. The treaty is named as the other party's right.

Two. Ilā muddatihim — "to the end of their term." The term too is ascribed to the other party; no authority to shorten it is left to this side.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the two pronouns (hum): the verse frames the treaty not as a favour granted by this side but as a right belonging to the other.

The close of the verse must be recorded, and I give it as an observation: the keeping of a word that has been given is named taqwā. The same close will recur in verse 7 — that is, the sūra repeats the same ground twice, at the end of two separate notices about treaty.

Fa-idha'nsalakha'l-ashhuru'l-ḥurumu fa'qtulu'l-mushrikīna ḥaythu wajadtumūhum wa khudhūhum wa'ḥṣurūhum wa'qʿudū lahum kulla marṣad; fa-in tābū wa aqāmu'l-ṣalāta wa ātawu'l-zakāta fa-khallū sabīlahum; inna'llāha ghafūrun raḥīm

"When the sacred months have passed, kill the mushrikūn wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of watch. And if they turn back, and keep up the prayer, and give the alms, then leave their way open to them. God is forgiving, merciful."

This is one of the verses of the Qurʾān most often cut away from its context. Per the method (Method) I shall do five things here, in order, and go beyond none of them:

1. I shall show how the sentence is built. 2. I shall analyse the words. 3. I shall give, all together, the limits the verse lays down within itself and within the block. 4. I shall convey the discussion in the classical commentaries — the claim about the "verse of the sword" and those who reject it — as a neutral table of disagreement. 5. I shall issue no legal ruling, impose no preference, and make no link to any present-day event.

The verse does not begin with a command. It begins with a condition of time.

فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلْأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ — fa-idha'nsalakha'l-ashhuru'l-ḥurum: "when the sacred months have passed."

This is the very structure treated in Muḥammad at 47/4 — there it was fa-idhā laqītum (when you meet), and it was recorded there: the apodosis of a conditional sentence is not in force until the condition is realised. The same note holds here.

And the condition here is a condition of time: the verse ties its own ruling to the ending of a determinate period. That period is the four months declared in verse 2.

The sequence, then, is this, and it can be verified from the text:

`` verse 1 — the declaration (barāʾa) verse 2 — the period (four months, free movement) verse 3 — the public announcement + the door of turning back verse 4 — the exception of those who did not break the treaty verse 5 — the ruling at the end of the period verse 6 — the protection of the one who seeks refuge ``

The fifth verse is the fifth link in this chain. Read on its own, the first four links of the chain disappear.

The concrete sense of the root: to flay a hide, to separate it from the body. Salkh — the flaying of a hide; insalakha (Form VII, reflexive) — to slip out, to be peeled away and separated.

This word occurred in Yāsīn at 36/37: wa āyatun lahumu'l-laylu naslakhu minhu'l-nahār — "We peel the day off the night."

The choice of verb is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: the verse does not say "when the months end"; it says "when the months have slipped away". The picture in the root is of a thing being separated from a body. Time, that is, is described as a skin peeled off.

"The sacred months" — they will be defined in verse 36 of the sūra: minhā arbaʿatun ḥurum — four of the twelve months. They will be treated separately at that verse.

The debate here must be recorded: in the classical commentaries it has been disputed whether this expression means the four months declared in verse 2 or the known sacred months of the year. I convey the disagreement and impose no preference:

The verse enumerates four verbs, and the four are not all of one kind:

Three of the four verbs are not killing. Akhdh (seizing), ḥaṣr (besieging) and quʿūd ʿalā marṣad (keeping watch) — all three are verbs of bringing under control.

The root ر-ص-د: to watch, to wait. Marṣad — a place of watch, the head of a pass. The word was treated in al-Jinn at 72/9 and 72/27 (raṣadā).

I record this as an observation: the enumeration of these four verbs together shows that the scene is a field of conflict — besieging, holding a pass and taking captives are acts of war. And the measure recorded in Muḥammad at 47/4 holds here too: the kind of the verbs makes plain the kind of the scene.

The verse brings its own ruling to an end within itself.

The root خ-ل-و: to be empty, to clear. Khallū sabīlahum — "clear their road", that is, set them free, open the way before them.

This is the last sentence of the verse, and it is a command to let go. And the verse closes with ghafūrun raḥīm (forgiving, merciful).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verse's own sequence: one and the same verse carries both the harshest command and the condition on which that command ends. To read the verse as the "verse of the sword" and leave off its last sentence is to read half of it.

Every one of the items below is in the wording of the text. Not one is a note brought in from outside:

All twelve of these items are in the block's own wording.

And the measure recorded in Muḥammad holds here too and is worth repeating: to "cut a verse away from its context" means exactly this — to drop the first, third, fifth and seventh of the items above and take the middle sentence on its own. In that state the verse says something else; but what it says is no longer what the verse says.

In the classical literature of exegesis and legal theory this verse has been called āyat al-sayf ("the verse of the sword"), and some scholars have argued that it abrogates the verses of peace, pardon and forbearance in the Qurʾān. There have also been those who rejected this.

I convey the disagreement in a table. I adopt no preference and issue no legal ruling:

No preference is adopted in this commentary. What is to be recorded is this, and the same was recorded in Muḥammad: the debate itself shows that the verse was not read as a general ruling standing alone and unconditional. The classical tradition has always handled this verse together with other verses. To take the verse on its own and present it as a general ruling is the exact opposite of what that tradition did.

And one further limit: the question of abrogation is a debate in legal theory, and both its definition and its scope differ between the schools. This commentary does not enter that debate and takes no side in it.

Here I must be careful. The most mistaken thing that could be written under the heading "what this says to the present" for this verse is to tie it to some present-day conflict, some party, or some group. I shall not do that.

I record a single observation, ascribed to no party:

The harshest sentence of a text is read together with the qualifications that the text itself lays down. This block carries twelve separate qualifications, and all of them are within the text. To take the harsh sentence and leave the qualifications is not reading but selection. This measure holds not only for this verse but for every text.

Wa in aḥadun mina'l-mushrikīna'stajāraka fa-ajirhu ḥattā yasmaʿa kalāma'llāhi thumma ablighhu maʾmanah; dhālika bi-annahum qawmun lā yaʿlamūn

"And if one of the mushrikūn asks you for protection, grant him protection — so that he may hear the word of God. Then bring him to the place where he will be safe. That is because they are a people who do not know."

This is a fact decisive for the reading of the block, and it can be verified from the text: immediately behind the verse that carries the harshest command, a ruling of protection has been placed for a single individual from the other side.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the two verses: at the very place where it issues the ruling, the text also opens the door that leads out of it. And the side that opens the door is the side that issued the ruling.

The concrete sense of the root: a side, a neighbourhood. Jār — neighbour. From the same root:

The root was treated in al-Mulk, al-Muʾminūn, al-Naḥl and al-Jinn. The occurrence of the word in al-Anfāl at 8/48 must be recorded separately: there Satan's words were wa innī jārun lakum ("I am beside you / your protector"), and he did not keep his word.

The two occurrences can be set side by side:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the presence of the same root in two separate verses: in one, protection is promised and then abandoned; in the other, protection is commanded and required to be carried through to the end.

The verse sets out three verbs, and each is a separate obligation:

The third stage must be recorded, and it is the most striking point in this verse.

م-أ-م-ن — a noun of place from the root أ-م-ن: maʾman — the place in which one will be safe.

And the verb is abligh: "bring him through." That is, not merely "let him go" — an obligation to deliver is laid down.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particle thumma together with the transitivity of the verb: whether or not the hearing has borne fruit — no condition of acceptance is laid down — the verse places the person's safety in this side's charge.

And this note is important: ḥattā yasmaʿa kalāma'llāh is a condition of hearing, not a condition of acceptance. The verse does not say "until he believes"; it says "until he hears". And what is to be done afterwards is to take him to a place of safety even if he has not accepted.

The ground must be recorded: lā yaʿlamūn — they do not know.

I record this as an observation: the verse ties the ground of the protection to not knowing. The other side's position, that is, is explained not by enmity but by ignorance — and the remedy for not knowing is that the chance to hear be given.

The same measure was recorded in Muḥammad at 47/16: the verse issues no ruling against one who does not know. I rely on that treatment.

Kayfa yakūnu li'l-mushrikīna ʿahdun ʿinda'llāhi wa ʿinda rasūlihī illa'lladhīna ʿāhadtum ʿinda'l-masjidi'l-ḥarām; fa-ma'staqāmū lakum fa'staqīmū lahum; inna'llāha yuḥibbu'l-muttaqīn

"How can the mushrikūn have a treaty with God and with His Messenger — except those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Ḥarām. So long as they are straight with you, be straight with them. God loves those who guard themselves."

There was an exception in the fourth verse; the seventh lays down a second. And the measure of this second exception is different: the place where the treaty was made.

I record this as an observation: the block holds two separate sections of the party bearing the same name outside the ruling. The sūra breaches its own category twice.

The construction of the sentence must be recorded, and it is the very structure treated in al-Anfāl at 8/61.

Form X of the root ق-و-م: istiqāma — to stand straight, not to bend.

And on both sides the same verb is used, in the same form:

The same symmetry was recorded in al-Anfāl at 8/61: in janaḥū li'l-salmi fa'jnaḥ lahā — "if they incline to peace, incline to it too." The measure recorded there holds here as well: the response is given with the same verb and in the same form. I rely on that treatment.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the overlap of the verbs in the two verses: the Qurʾān builds the treaty relation on reciprocity — and it shows the reciprocity by means of the language itself, laying the same verb on both sides.

And the particle mā must be dwelt on: fa-mā staqāmū lakum — here mā states time: "so long as they are". The obligation, that is, continues together with the conduct of the other side.

Kayfa wa in yaẓharū ʿalaykum lā yarqubū fīkum illan wa lā dhimma; yurḍūnakum bi-afwāhihim wa taʾbā qulūbuhum wa aktharuhum fāsiqūn

"How can it be: if they get the upper hand over you, they observe towards you neither ill nor dhimma. They please you with their mouths, while their hearts refuse; and most of them are transgressors."

This word occurs in the Qurʾān only in this sūra (verses 8 and 10), and in this series it is analysed here for the first time.

On the concrete sense of the root the lexicographers record more than one thing, and all of them come out at the same place:

What the word means in this verse is disputed. I convey the disagreement and impose no preference:

I record this as an observation about the language: I cannot establish with certainty the link between the root's senses of "sharpness" and "moaning" and its sense of "kinship", and I do not try to establish it. The note entered in al-Qāriʿa holds here too: meaning is not derived from a shared sound.

The concrete sense of the root: to blame, to censure, to find fault. Dhamm — the opposite of praise (madḥ). The root was treated in al-Qalam (madhmūm — blamed).

And the derivation of the word dhimma from this root is worth recording.

ذِمَّة — the sense the lexicographers give: the bond a person is obliged to keep, and for neglecting which he will be blamed. Dhimma, that is, is "a responsibility whose neglect will be a cause of blame". From the same root ذِمِّىّ (dhimmī) — one under protection.

I record this as an observation about the language, resting on the derivation the lexicographers give: the word names the responsibility by the shame of abandoning it. The name of the bond, that is, comes from the consequence of trampling on the bond.

Both words occur together in verses 8 and 10 alike: illan wa lā dhimma.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the semantic field of the two words: ill (on the first reading above) is the bond that comes by birth — kinship; dhimma is the bond that is established afterwards — a word given. The two together cover the two kinds of bond that bind a person: the one that comes by blood and the one that is built by a word.

And what the verse says is that neither bond is observed. The measure is tied not to identity but to the refusal to recognise a bond.

The distance between the mouth and the heart. This structure was treated in detail in al-Fatḥ at 48/11 (yaqūlūna bi-alsinatihim mā laysa fī qulūbihim), and it was the backbone of al-Munāfiqūn. I do not repeat it here.

The difference here must be recorded: in al-Fatḥ and al-Munāfiqūn the structure was built with the tongue (lisān); here it is built with the mouth (fam/afwāh). And the word afwāh will occur three times in the sūra: 8, 30, 32. In all three what is related is that the word spoken has nothing behind it to answer to it.

This set of three is verifiable from the text and must be recorded. I give it as my own reading: the sūra uses the word mouth each time in order to show the gap between word and reality. In the thirty-second verse this reaches its plainest form: light is not put out with a mouth.

Ishtaraw bi-āyāti'llāhi thamanan qalīlan fa-ṣaddū ʿan sabīlih; innahum sāʾa mā kānū yaʿmalūn · Lā yarqubūna fī muʾminin illan wa lā dhimma; wa ulāʾika humu'l-muʿtadūn · Fa-in tābū wa aqāmu'l-ṣalāta wa ātawu'l-zakāta fa-ikhwānukum fi'l-dīn; wa nufaṣṣilu'l-āyāti li-qawmin yaʿlamūn

"They exchanged the signs of God for a small price and turned others from His way. Evil indeed is what they have been doing. · Towards a believer they observe neither ill nor dhimma. Those are the ones who overstep. · And if they turn back, and keep up the prayer, and give the alms, then they are your brothers in religion. We set the signs out in detail for a people who know."

This expression was treated at several places in al-Baqara (wa lā tashtarū bi-āyātī thamanan qalīlā), and the detail of the image of buying and selling was given there. I do not repeat it here.

What is to be recorded here is its place within the sūra: in verse 111 of the same sūra another transaction will be related — inna'llāha'shtarā mina'l-muʾminīna anfusahum wa amwālahum bi-anna lahumu'l-janna. The two transactions stand at the two ends of the sūra, and they will be compared at verse 111.

The two verses build almost the same sentence, and one word changes:

This difference must be recorded, and it is verifiable from the text. I give it as my own reading: the first sentence names a determinate community, the second names an attribute. The description, that is, widens from "your group" to "everyone who believes" — and what widens is the side that is protected, not the side against which a ruling is issued.

The root ر-ق-ب: to watch, to keep an eye on; the neck. Raqaba — neck; murāqaba — watching. The root was treated in al-Mujādala, al-Balad and Muḥammad. And the same root will occur again in verse 60 of this sūra as fi'l-riqāb.

The eleventh verse is one of the most striking sentences of the block and must be recorded.

After the gravest description has been made in verses eight and nine, the eleventh verse says this: fa-ikhwānukum fi'l-dīn — "then they are your brothers in religion."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the distance between the two verses: the separation is not narrowed; when the condition is met it closes completely. No intermediate status is laid down, no note of "they used to be such and such" is entered. The word is straightforwardly brotherhood.

And all three conditions are acts: tābū (they turned back), aqāmu'l-ṣalāta (they kept up the prayer), ātawu'l-zakāta (they gave the alms). The same three occurred at the end of verse 5 as well. In both verses the same conditions yield two different outcomes:

I record this as an observation: one and the same block attaches two returns to the same condition — one legal (inviolability), the other social (brotherhood).

Wa in nakathū aymānahum min baʿdi ʿahdihim wa ṭaʿanū fī dīnikum fa-qātilū aʾimmata'l-kufr; innahum lā aymāna lahum laʿallahum yantahūn

"And if, after their treaty, they break their oaths and attack your religion with their tongues, then fight the leaders of unbelief. They have no oaths; it may be that they will desist."

The verse opens with two conditions, and both are acts:

The first condition is the verb that is the axis of this block, and it must be underlined: nakth.

The root ن-ك-ث: to undo a twisted cord, to unravel it. The root was treated in detail in al-Fatḥ at 48/10, and it was recorded there: "nakth is used of wool or hair that has been unravelled: spun, and then undone. To give one's word is to spin a cord; to break one's word is to unravel the cord that was spun." I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

And the difference of the usage here from that in al-Fatḥ must be recorded:

I record this as my own reading: the same verb is used, in one place of a pledge of allegiance on one's own side, in the other of a treaty on the opposing side — and in both verses the cause of the outcome is the act itself.

The concrete sense of the root: to thrust with a spear, to pierce. Ṭaʿn — a bayonet-thrust. From this, figuratively, to wound with the tongue, to disparage, to slander.

I record this as an observation about the language: the verse names an assault made with words by a verb of piercing. The concrete state of the root carries the weight of the figure.

The object must be recorded, and this is the most striking point in the verse.

The verse does not say "fight them". It says Fa-qātilū aʾimmata'l-kufr — "fight the leaders of unbelief."

Imām, from the root أ-م-م: one who goes in front, one who is followed. Its plural is aʾimma.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the word itself: the target is named not as the whole of a community but as the position that goes out in front and directs. The choice of the word is a narrowing.

And I give this not as a legal ruling but as a note about the language. The scope of this expression in the verse has been debated in the classical commentaries; I do not enter the debate and issue no ruling.

The purpose of the verse must be recorded: laʿallahum yantahūn — "it may be that they will desist."

The root ن-ه-ي: end, ending; desisting. Intihāʾ — coming to an end.

I record this as an observation: the purpose placed at the end of the verse is not to destroy but to stop. And the particle laʿalla states hope — not certainty.

A-lā tuqātilūna qawman nakathū aymānahum wa hammū bi-ikhrāji'l-rasūli wa hum badaʾūkum awwala marra; a-takhshawnahum fa'llāhu aḥaqqu an takhshawhu in kuntum muʾminīn · Qātilūhum yuʿadhdhibhumu'llāhu bi-aydīkum wa yukhzihim wa yanṣurkum ʿalayhim wa yashfi ṣudūra qawmin muʾminīn

"Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths, who set out to drive the Messenger away, and who began against you the first time? Do you fear them? If you are believers, God is more deserving of your fear. · Fight them: God will punish them by your hands, and disgrace them, and give you victory over them, and heal the breasts of a believing people."

The verse enumerates the grounds of the call itself, and all three are acts of the other side:

The third ground must be recorded, and it is the plainest note in this verse: wa hum badaʾūkum awwala marra — "it is they who began, the first time."

The root ب-د-أ: to begin, to do first.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the presence of this sentence: the verse records openly who started the conflict. And this coincides with the three attempts mentioned in al-Anfāl at 8/30 (li-yuthbitūka aw yaqtulūka aw yukhrijūk) — there too "driving out" was one of the three options.

And it must be read together with the limit laid down in al-Baqara at 2/190 (wa lā taʿtadū). In this commentary I refer to that verse and draw no ruling from it.

The last sentence of the fourteenth verse is worth recording.

The root ش-ف-ي: healing, recovery; and to come to the edge of a thing (shafā — edge; it will occur in verse 109 of the sūra as shafā jurufin hār).

I record this as an observation: the verse names the outcome as a healing — ṣudūr (breasts) is described as a wound. And the fifteenth verse continues: wa yudhhib ghayẓa qulūbihim — "and remove the rage of their hearts."

Among the things enumerated as purposes, that is, is also the passing of the addressed community's own rage. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verb yudhhib: rage is set down not as a permanent state but as something to be removed.

Wa yudhhib ghayẓa qulūbihim; wa yatūbu'llāhu ʿalā man yashāʾ; wa'llāhu ʿalīmun ḥakīm · Am ḥasibtum an tutrakū wa lammā yaʿlami'llāhu'lladhīna jāhadū minkum wa lam yattakhidhū min dūni'llāhi wa lā rasūlihī wa la'l-muʾminīna walīja; wa'llāhu khabīrun bimā taʿmalūn

"And remove the rage of their hearts. God accepts the turning back of whom He wills; God is knowing, wise. · Or did you suppose you would be left before God had distinguished those of you who strove, and who took no confidant apart from God, His Messenger and the believers? God is aware of what you do."

The close of the block must be recorded, and it is the word that gives the sūra its name.

The harshest block, sixteen verses long, closes with a sentence about the acceptance of a turning back.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the sentence: at the end of the block it is stated that who, on the other side, will turn back is beyond this side's knowledge. Even as the ruling is being made final, that is, the possibility of stepping outside the ruling is left open.

The same close will be repeated in verse 27 as well, after the passage on Ḥunayn: thumma yatūbu'llāhu min baʿdi dhālika ʿalā man yashāʾ. Both blocks close with the same sentence. This is a weave that can be verified from the text.

The concrete sense of the root: to go inside a thing. Walaja — he entered; wulūj — entering. The root occurred in Sabaʾ at 34/2 (yaʿlamu mā yaliju fi'l-arḍ).

وَلِيجَة — the sense the lexicographers give: one slipped in between, one taken inside; a confidant, an intimate friend. The word states someone who is from outside and has been taken within.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word states a position — "one who has been taken inside." And the measure of the verse is not an identity but a choice of intimacy.

The same field will be opened again at 9/23-24, where eight ties are enumerated.

This pattern was treated in detail in al-ʿAnkabūt at 29/2 (a-ḥasiba'l-nāsu an yutrakū an yaqūlū āmannā wa hum lā yuftanūn), and the concept of testing was analysed there. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

The difference here must be recorded:

And the expression lammā yaʿlam must be recorded: lammā — "has not yet…". The verb is a verb of knowing, and this is a usage that has been debated in the Qurʾān. In the classical commentaries it is widely reported that this means "its coming out in act, its being distinguished". I convey this explanation and do not enter the theological debate.

Mā kāna li'l-mushrikīna an yaʿmurū masājida'llāhi shāhidīna ʿalā anfusihim bi'l-kufr; ulāʾika ḥabiṭat aʿmāluhum wa fi'l-nāri hum khālidūn · Innamā yaʿmuru masājida'llāhi man āmana bi'llāhi wa'l-yawmi'l-ākhiri wa aqāma'l-ṣalāta wa āta'l-zakāta wa lam yakhsha illa'llāh; fa-ʿasā ulāʾika an yakūnū mina'l-muhtadīn

"It is not for the mushrikūn to tend the mosques of God while they bear witness against themselves to unbelief. Their works have come to nothing, and in the fire they abide. · Only he tends the mosques of God who believes in God and the last day, keeps up the prayer, gives the alms, and fears none but God. It may be hoped of such that they will be among those who are guided."

The concrete sense of the root: to stay long in a place, to keep it alive and inhabited. From the same root:

The root was treated in al-Rūm at 30/9 (wa ʿamarūhā akthara mimmā ʿamarūhā) and in al-Ṭūr at 52/4 (al-bayti'l-maʿmūr).

At the centre of the word there is a single idea, and it is decisive for understanding the verse: ʿimāra is not the erecting of a building but the keeping alive of a place. That it shares a root with the word for lifespan shows this: a place becomes maʿmūr by the time spent within it.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the semantic field of the root: the verse speaks not of construction but of the life of the place. And the eighteenth verse enumerates in four verbs what that life is — faith, prayer, alms, and fearing God alone. The list of "tending", that is, contains no stone and no mortar.

The qualification the verse lays down must be recorded, and it is important for the method.

The verse ties the obstacle not to an identity but to a declaration: shāhidīna ʿalā anfusihim bi'l-kufr — "while bearing witness against themselves to unbelief."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the presence of the circumstantial clause: the sentence does not say "the mushrikūn cannot tend them"; it says "it is not for them to tend them while they themselves bear witness to their own unbelief". The qualification is their own admission.

The fourth condition of the eighteenth verse must be recorded.

The root خ-ش-ي: a fear felt before something great — the lexicographers distinguish it from khawf: khashya is a reverent fear resting on knowledge.

I record this as an observation: three of the conditions are positive verbs (faith, prayer, alms); the fourth is framed negatively — "not to fear another." The last item on the list of tending, that is, is not the doing of something but the giving up of something.

The close of the verse is striking and must be recorded: ʿasā — "it may be hoped that."

Even for those who fulfil the four conditions the sentence is not framed as a certainty.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particle ʿasā: the text declares no certain outcome even for someone on its own side. This will reach a much plainer form in verse 106 of the sūra (murjawna li-amri'llāh) and will be treated in detail there.

A-jaʿaltum siqāyata'l-ḥājji wa ʿimārata'l-masjidi'l-ḥarāmi ka-man āmana bi'llāhi wa'l-yawmi'l-ākhiri wa jāhada fī sabīli'llāh; lā yastawūna ʿinda'llāh; wa'llāhu lā yahdi'l-qawma'l-ẓālimīn · Alladhīna āmanū wa hājarū wa jāhadū fī sabīli'llāhi bi-amwālihim wa anfusihim aʿẓamu darajatan ʿinda'llāh; wa ulāʾika humu'l-fāʾizūn

"Have you made the giving of water to the pilgrims and the tending of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām the like of one who believes in God and the last day and strives in the way of God? They are not equal with God. · Those who believed, and emigrated, and strove in the way of God with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank with God. It is they who attain."

There is an oddity of word order in the sentence, and the lexicographers dwell on it.

The two sides of the comparison are not of the same kind:

An "activity", that is, is compared with a "person". The lexicographers resolve this in two ways: either there is an implied element on the first side (ahla siqāya — those who do the work of giving water), or on the second (ka-īmāni man āmana — like the faith of one who believes).

I convey the disagreement and impose no preference. And I add this as my own reading: this difference of kind between the two sides is consistent with what the sentence says. On one side stand services, on the other the whole of a person. The verse compares a service with a life.

The sense of the root: to give water, to irrigate. Siqāya — the work of giving water, and the place where water is given.

I record this as an observation: the verse does not belittle the works ascribed to the other side — both are, after all, valuable works. What it states is an inequality, not an absence: lā yastawūna ʿinda'llāh — "they are not equal."

The root د-ر-ج: a step, a rank; to advance step by step. The word was treated in al-Anfāl at 8/4 (lahum darajātun ʿinda rabbihim). I rely on that treatment.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū lā tattakhidhū ābāʾakum wa ikhwānakum awliyāʾa ini'staḥabbu'l-kufra ʿala'l-īmān; wa man yatawallahum minkum fa-ulāʾika humu'l-ẓālimūn

"O you who believe! Do not take your fathers and your brothers as protectors if they have preferred unbelief to faith. Whoever among you takes them as protectors — it is they who do wrong."

The verse ties the prohibition to a condition: ini'staḥabbu'l-kufra ʿala'l-īmān.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the conditional clause: the prohibition is tied not to kinship but to the kinsman's choice. And the word walī states not a closeness but an allegiance — the bond of walāya was treated in al-Anfāl at 8/72-75, and it was recorded there: a treaty bond can take precedence over a call to solidarity. I rely on that treatment.

Form X: istiḥbāb — to prefer one thing to another, to find it more lovable. The root was treated in al-Ḥujurāt and Ibrāhīm.

And the choice of form must be recorded: the verb means not "they loved" but "they preferred" — Form X states a wanting/choosing. The same root will recur in the next verse as aḥabb (more beloved).

Qul in kāna ābāʾukum wa abnāʾukum wa ikhwānukum wa azwājukum wa ʿashīratukum wa amwālun iqtaraftumūhā wa tijāratun takhshawna kasādahā wa masākinu tarḍawnahā aḥabba ilaykum mina'llāhi wa rasūlihī wa jihādin fī sabīlihī fa-tarabbaṣū ḥattā yaʾtiya'llāhu bi-amrih; wa'llāhu lā yahdi'l-qawma'l-fāsiqīn

"Say: if your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your spouses, your kin, the wealth you have gained, the trade whose slackening you fear, and the dwellings you are pleased with are more beloved to you than God and His Messenger and striving in His way, then wait until God brings His command. God does not guide a people who have gone out of the way."

The verse enumerates eight things, and the order is not accidental. I give it in a table:

There is an order in the sequence, and I record this as my own reading: the list begins with the closest blood tie, passes to the chosen tie, widens to the community, then descends to the material, and ends with settledness. The first five are people, that is, and the last three are things.

And to each of the last three items a relative clause has been attached, while none is attached to the first five:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the presence of the three relative clauses: the verse does not name wealth, trade and house on their own; it names each of them together with the emotional relation a person builds with it. Beside trade stands fear, and beside the house contentment.

The concrete sense of the root: to peel bark, to scrape a thing off its surface and gather it. Qirf — the bark of a tree. From this the sense of to gain, to acquire derives; and the word is used in the Qurʾān both of good and of bad gain.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word pictures gaining as scraping and gathering — a verb carrying the labour of the effort within it.

The sense of the root: goods falling out of demand, finding no buyer, going slack. The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here.

I record this as an observation: the verse names the fear that belongs to trade exactly where it lies — not losing, but coming to a standstill. This is the real fear of someone engaged in trade.

This verse must be set beside the verses about parents treated in this series. I make the comparison as the task requires:

The differences between the four verses must be recorded:

One. What is forbidden is not the same everywhere. Luqmān and al-ʿAnkabūt forbid obedience; al-Tawba 23 forbids allegiance; al-Tawba 24 forbids nothing at all — it lays down a measure.

Two. In Luqmān the continuation of the relationship is commanded openly. This was recorded in Luqmān: "the verse does not spread a disagreement on one matter over the whole of a relationship." al-Tawba does not repeat that note, but neither does it cancel it.

Three. The sentence of al-Tawba 9/24 is not a sentence of prohibition. Fa-tarabbaṣū ḥattā yaʾtiya'llāhu bi-amrih — "wait." The verse tells the one addressed not to do something but to await an outcome.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verb itself (tarabbaṣa — to wait): the verse sets up a scale; it issues no command to sever. What is measured is not the existence of the ties but their place in the order: aḥabba ilaykum — "more beloved to you."

And the measure recorded in al-Anfāl at 8/28 holds here too: innamā amwālukum wa awlādukum fitna — wealth and children are not a gain but a trial. The list in al-Tawba is that sentence in detail.

Laqad naṣarakumu'llāhu fī mawāṭina kathīratin wa yawma ḥunaynin idh aʿjabatkum kathratukum fa-lam tughni ʿankum shayʾan wa ḍāqat ʿalaykumu'l-arḍu bimā raḥubat thumma wallaytum mudbirīn · Thumma anzala'llāhu sakīnatahū ʿalā rasūlihī wa ʿala'l-muʾminīna wa anzala junūdan lam tarawhā wa ʿadhdhaba'lladhīna kafarū; wa dhālika jazāʾu'l-kāfirīn · Thumma yatūbu'llāhu min baʿdi dhālika ʿalā man yashāʾ; wa'llāhu ghafūrun raḥīm

"God has helped you in many places, and on the day of Ḥunayn too: when your numbers pleased you, and were of no use to you at all; and the earth, for all its breadth, closed in on you; and then you turned your backs and fled. · Then God sent down His sakīna upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down armies you did not see, and punished those who rejected. That is the recompense of those who reject. · Then, after that, God accepts the turning back of whom He wills. God is forgiving, merciful."

This sentence is the sūra's plainest criticism of its own side, and it must be recorded.

The root ع-ج-ب: to astonish, to strike with wonder. Aʿjaba — it pleased him, it won his admiration. What the form states here is a self-satisfaction.

And the same verb will occur three more times in the sūra — and in all three as something forbidden:

This set of three is verifiable from the text. I record this as my own reading: the sūra uses the same verb first to relate the error of its own side, then to regulate how one looks at the wealth of another. Being pleased, that is, is bounded both inwardly and outwardly.

This verse joins directly with two places treated in al-Anfāl, and I join them as the task requires:

What emerges when the three verses are read together is this, and I record it as my own reading: al-Anfāl says that being few is no obstacle; al-Tawba says that being many is not enough. Number, that is, is not counted as the cause of the outcome in either direction. The measure recorded in al-Anfāl at 8/17 (fa-lam taqtulūhum wa lākinna'llāha qatalahum) is the head of this line: the outcome is tied not to a human act but to somewhere else.

And its link to the chain in al-Anfāl 8/45-47 must be recorded as well: there the going of strength was tied to quarrelling; here the uselessness of strength is tied to self-admiration. Two separate causes, the same outcome.

This expression will be repeated almost word for word in verse 118 of the sūra and will be treated in detail there. Here I record only the repetition:

This repetition is verifiable from the text and is one of the strongest internal weaves of the sūra. In the hundred and eighteenth verse one further clause is added, and it will be treated there.

The root س-ك-ن and the word sakīna were analysed in detail in al-Fatḥ at 48/4 — the pattern (faʿīla), the semantic field (maskan, miskīn, sakīna), and the description "the ceasing of inner agitation" were all given there. I do not repeat it here and rely on that treatment.

What belongs here is this, and it is a datum of the text: the word occurs in six places in the Qurʾān, and two of them are in this sūra (26 and 40). The other four: al-Baqara 2/248 and al-Fatḥ 48/4, 48/18, 48/26.

The measure recorded in al-Fatḥ is confirmed here too: sakīna descends every time at a moment of tension. And what al-Tawba adds must be recorded: in verse 26 the sakīna descends not after a success but after a collapse. This is the most adverse ground in the series.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the verse: thumma wallaytum mudbirīn (you turned your backs) — thumma anzala'llāhu sakīnatahū. Between the two sentences no correction, no turning back, no return is related. The sakīna is placed immediately behind the flight.

The twenty-seventh verse repeats the same sentence as the fifteenth. Both blocks carry the same close, and this is a weave verifiable within the sūra.

In respect of the method this is the place in the sūra that must be handled with the greatest care. Verses 28 and 29 carry expressions that give the impression of speaking about a religious community. I write out at the start the procedure that will be applied here:

1. The lexical senses of the words will be given — najas, jizya, ʿan yad, ṣāghirūn. 2. The understandings found in the classical commentaries will be conveyed as a table of disagreement. 3. No legal ruling will be issued; the note "it is not binding" will be entered. 4. That the verses regulate a determinate historical situation and issue no wholesale ruling about a group will be recorded openly, on the basis of the relevant clause of Method. 5. No present-day controversy and no political situation will be entered into.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū innama'l-mushrikūna najasun fa-lā yaqrabu'l-masjida'l-ḥarāma baʿda ʿāmihim hādhā; wa in khiftum ʿaylatan fa-sawfa yughnīkumu'llāhu min faḍlihī in shāʾ; inna'llāha ʿalīmun ḥakīm

"O you who believe! The mushrikūn are but a najas; so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Ḥarām after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, God will enrich you out of His bounty if He wills. God is knowing, wise."

The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here.

The lexical sense of the root: uncleanness, filth, not being pure. The lexicographers record that the word is used both of material dirt and of immaterial dirt; najāsa states material filth, while najas states a more general state of uncleanness.

And the pattern of the word must be dwelt on: najas is a verbal noun. In Arabic, making a verbal noun the predicate states intensification: rather than "they are unclean", a construction like "they are uncleanness itself" is built. This is a point the lexicographers record for this verse.

What the expression means has been debated in the classical commentaries. I convey the disagreement in a table. I impose no preference and issue no legal ruling:

I adopt no preference among these views. What is to be recorded is this: the majority of the views have not read the expression as a bodily quality; but this is a note, not a tally, and it carries no claim of certainty.

One. The verse issues no wholesale ruling about a group; it makes a regulation about entry to a particular place. The ground for this in the wording is the verse itself: the sentence that carries the ruling is fa-lā yaqrabu'l-masjida'l-ḥarām — the subject, that is, is a place, not the general status of persons. And there is a note of time as well: baʿda ʿāmihim hādhā — "after this year of theirs."

Two. The "Prohibitions" clause of Method bears directly here: "No wholesale ruling is issued about an ethnic or religious group; what the verse describes are attributes." In this commentary the verse is read as a regulation speaking about an attribute; no judgement is issued about any community.

Three. The legal rulings drawn from this verse have been debated between the schools — which places it covers, whom it covers, whether it is permanent or temporary. This commentary does not enter that debate, issues no ruling, and counts no view as binding.

Four. No present-day controversy is entered into.

The second half of the verse must be recorded, and it is often passed over.

The root ع-ي-ل: poverty, straitened livelihood, the burden of providing for a large family. ʿAyla — poverty. From the same root ʿiyāl (the household one is bound to provide for).

I record this as an observation: the verse foresees the economic consequence of the regulation and names by its name the fear of the one addressed. As the ruling is laid down, that is, the anxiety it will produce is not passed over in silence.

The same structure was treated in al-Anfāl at 8/62: after the command to incline to peace, the anxiety was met by a separate sentence. I rely on that treatment and add this as my own reading: the Qurʾān meets an anxiety arising after a command not by cancelling the command but by a separate sentence. al-Tawba 9/28 is an instance of this.

Qātilu'lladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi'llāhi wa lā bi'l-yawmi'l-ākhiri wa lā yuḥarrimūna mā ḥarrama'llāhu wa rasūluhū wa lā yadīnūna dīna'l-ḥaqqi mina'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba ḥattā yuʿṭu'l-jizyata ʿan yadin wa hum ṣāghirūn

"Fight those, from among those who were given the Book, who do not believe in God nor in the last day, who do not hold forbidden what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not take the religion of truth as their religion — until they give the jizya ʿan yad and are ṣāghirūn."

In respect of the method this is the most sensitive verse of the sūra. I apply here, to the letter, the five-point procedure I wrote out above.

There is a particle min in the sentence, and it is decisive.

مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ — mina'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāb: "from among those who were given the Book."

The function of this particle has been debated in the classical commentaries, and there are two readings. I convey the disagreement and impose no preference:

In al-Fatḥ at 48/29 the same grammatical question (whether the particle minhum is partitive or explicative) was given in a table and no preference was imposed. I keep the same posture here.

And I record this as an observation about the structure: in the sentence the one addressed is described by three negative relative clauses — not believing, not holding forbidden, not taking the religion of truth as one's religion. The description, that is, is built not by the name of a group but by a sequence of attributes. The name of the group (alladhīna ūtu'l-kitāb) comes at the end of the sentence, and with a min.

The sense of the root: to give the return for a thing, to pay its price, to suffice. From the same root:

The root was treated in al-Wāqiʿa, al-Insān, al-Layl and al-Najm.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word carries in its root an idea of return — not punishment but a price. The English word usually reached for here, "penalty", does not reflect the word's semantic field in Arabic.

The amount of the jizya, from whom it is to be taken, who is exempt, and what is provided in return are not stated in the Qurʾān. All of these have been debated in the legal literature, and there are divergences between the schools. This commentary does not enter that debate and issues no ruling.

This expression occurs in the Qurʾān only here, and its meaning has been debated in the classical commentaries. I convey the disagreement in a table:

All five views are mentioned in the sources. I adopt no preference.

And one further note: that the word yad carries so many senses in Arabic is the reason the expression cannot be fixed in a single determinate meaning. I give this as an observation about the language.

The sense of the root: to be small. Ṣaghīr — small. The root was treated in al-Naml at 27/37, and it was recorded there: "Ṣāghir — one brought low not by his own will but of necessity." I rely on that treatment.

And two occurrences can be set side by side — this is a datum of the text:

The measure recorded in al-Naml should be mentioned here too: there the threat was not carried out, because the door left open had been used. This is recorded not in order to establish a link of ruling between the two verses but in order to show the word's use in the Qurʾān.

What the expression states in this verse has been debated in the classical commentaries:

I adopt no preference. And I record this separately: the forms of practice drawn from view C have been debated in the legal literature, and some scholars have rejected them. That debate too is not entered into.

One. The verse regulates a state of war and lays down a point at which it ends.

The structure of the sentence is this: qātilū … ḥattā yuʿṭu'l-jizyata. Ḥattā is a particle of purpose, and it says where the verb ends.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particle ḥattā: the verse writes into its own sentence that the fighting is not endless. The same structure occurred twice in Muḥammad at 47/4 (ḥattā idhā athkhantumūhum, ḥattā taḍaʿa'l-ḥarbu awzārahā), and it was recorded there: "the text says where what it permits ends, at the very place where it permits it." I rely on that treatment.

Two. The verse issues no wholesale ruling about a religious group.

The grounds for this in the wording are as follows, and all of them are within the text:

• The one addressed is described by three attributes, not by an identity.
• There is the particle مِنَ, and on at least one reading it states a partitive.
• The same Qurʾān separately praises a section from among the People of the Book (Āl ʿImrān 3/113-115) — I only refer to those verses; those sūras have not yet been treated in this series.

The relevant clause of Method is applied here directly: "No wholesale ruling is issued about an ethnic or religious group; what the verse describes are attributes, and whoever carries the attribute is included in it." In this commentary no ruling about any community is drawn from this verse.

Three. No legal ruling is issued, and no view conveyed is binding.

The rulings drawn from this verse — from whom the jizya is to be taken, its amount, its exemptions, the security provided in return, and whether the regulation is bound to historical conditions — have been debated at length in the legal and political literature, and there are divergences between the schools. In this commentary the existence of the disagreement is recorded, no view is preferred, and no ruling is issued. None of what is conveyed is binding.

Four. The verse regulates a determinate historical situation.

The ground for this is the sūra's own notes of time: the preceding verse says baʿda ʿāmihim hādhā (after this year of theirs); the following block is built around a particular expedition and a particular season. This does not mean that the meaning of the verse is imprisoned in history; but that the verse is a regulation of a situation can be read from the text's own notes.

Five. No link whatever is made to present-day politics, present-day conflicts or their parties. This verse is ascribed to no state, no community and no event of the present day.

Wa qālati'l-yahūdu ʿUzayru'bnu'llāh wa qālati'l-naṣāra'l-masīḥu'bnu'llāh; dhālika qawluhum bi-afwāhihim; yuḍāhiʾūna qawla'lladhīna kafarū min qabl; qātalahumu'llāh; annā yuʾfakūn

"The Jews said, 'ʿUzayr is the son of God'; and the Christians said, 'The Messiah is the son of God.' That is their word with their mouths; they make it resemble the word of those who rejected before. May God confound them — how they are turned away!"

This verse and what follows it are about claims ascribed to two religious communities. The measure applied in this commentary is as follows, and I write it out plainly:

What is criticised is a word, not a community. The wording of the verse itself says so: dhālika qawluhum — "that is their word." The subject is whether a sentence is true.

In this commentary no ruling is issued about any religious community, and no quality is ascribed to any community. The relevant clause of Method operates here too.

And one further note: as to the historical setting in which the word about ʿUzayr mentioned in the verse was held, and how widespread it was, there are differing assessments in the classical and modern sources. This commentary does not enter that question and advances no historical claim. The wording of the verse records a word; this commentary conveys that record.

The sense of the root: to resemble, to make like. Muḍāhāt — making one thing resemble another, fitting it to it.

I record this as an observation about the language: the verse names the claim as an imitation — not a word issuing from themselves but a word made to resemble the word of another.

And the expression bi-afwāhihim must be recorded. This is the second link of the set of three treated at verse 8: 8, 30, 32. In all three the word is ascribed to the mouth — that is, its source is not shown; what is recorded is that it is being said.

Ittakhadhū aḥbārahum wa ruhbānahum arbāban min dūni'llāhi wa'l-masīḥa'bna Maryam; wa mā umirū illā li-yaʿbudū ilāhan wāḥidā; lā ilāha illā hū; subḥānahū ʿammā yushrikūn

"They took their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God, and the Messiah, son of Mary (Maryam). Yet they were commanded only to serve one God. There is no god but He; He is far above what they associate with Him."

أَحْبَار — the singular is ḥabr or ḥibr. The root ح-ب-ر: to make beautiful, to adorn; and ink (ḥibr). The lexicographers record that the word is used of a scholar of religion, and that it is said to come from its connection with writing and ink. I do not give this derivation as certain.

رُهْبَان — root ر-ه-ب: fear, wariness. Rahba — fear mixed with reverence. Rāhib — one who fears; the word's sense of one who withdraws from the world and shuts himself up in worship comes from here.

What "taking as lords" means has been explained in the classical commentaries, and that explanation must be recorded.

The explanation widely transmitted is this: the "taking as lords" here is not prostrating to them or believing them to be gods. What is meant is the giving over to them of the authority to determine the lawful and the forbidden — that is, accepting as lawful what they count lawful, and as forbidden what they count forbidden.

This explanation is widespread in the classical exegetical tradition. It is also reported to rest on a hadith report; since I cannot give the wording and the source of that report with certainty, I do not transmit it. Per the method (Method): I do not ascribe to a source a saying of which I am not certain.

What can be verified from the wording of the verse itself is this, and I record it as my own reading: the continuation of the sentence is wa mā umirū illā li-yaʿbudū ilāhan wāḥidā — "yet they were commanded only to serve one God." The verse, that is, names what was done within the field of service. And the scope of the word ʿibāda in the Qurʾān is not confined to prostration.

One further limit, per the method (Method): this verse cannot be read as a verse condemning every scholar of religion or every religious authority. What the verse describes is an act: the displacing of authority. Whoever performs that act falls under the description; this issues no wholesale ruling about any community. I record this on the basis of the relevant clause of Method.

Yurīdūna an yuṭfiʾū nūra'llāhi bi-afwāhihim wa yaʾba'llāhu illā an yutimma nūrahū wa law kariha'l-kāfirūn · Huwa'lladhī arsala rasūlahū bi'l-hudā wa dīni'l-ḥaqqi li-yuẓhirahū ʿala'l-dīni kullihī wa law kariha'l-mushrikūn

"They want to put out the light of God with their mouths, while God will have nothing but the completing of His light — however much those who reject may hate it. · It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all religion — however much the mushrikūn may hate it."

This is the third link of the set of three (8, 30, 32), and the picture is completed here.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the repetition of afwāh in the three verses: the sūra relates the ineffectiveness of the word by ascribing it to the mouth. In the thirty-second verse this turns into an image: light is not put out with a mouth. Blowing is enough for a candle; not for a light.

The root ط-ف-أ: to go out, to put out. The word occurs rarely in the Qurʾān.

The root أ-ب-ي: not to accept, to refuse, to resist. The same verb occurred in verse 8: wa taʾbā qulūbuhum — "their hearts refuse."

This repetition must be recorded, and it is verifiable from the text:

I record this as my own reading: the same verb is given to two separate subjects within the sūra — and the second use stands like the answer to the first.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: yaʾbā … illā an yutimma — a negative verb, followed by an exception. In Arabic this structure states restriction (qaṣr) and produces the strongest affirmation: "He will accept nothing but the completing of it."

What this expression means has been debated in the classical commentaries. I convey the disagreement and impose no preference:

No preference is adopted in this commentary. And per the method (Method): no present-day political or social conclusions are drawn from this verse.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū inna kathīran mina'l-aḥbāri wa'l-ruhbāni la-yaʾkulūna amwāla'l-nāsi bi'l-bāṭili wa yaṣuddūna ʿan sabīli'llāh; wa'lladhīna yaknizūna'l-dhahaba wa'l-fiḍḍata wa lā yunfiqūnahā fī sabīli'llāhi fa-bashshirhum bi-ʿadhābin alīm · Yawma yuḥmā ʿalayhā fī nāri jahannama fa-tukwā bihā jibāhuhum wa junūbuhum wa ẓuhūruhum; hādhā mā kanaztum li-anfusikum fa-dhūqū mā kuntum taknizūn

"O you who believe! Many of the rabbis and the monks devour people's wealth by false means and turn others from the way of God. And those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend it in the way of God — give them the news of a painful punishment. · On the day when these are heated in the fire of Gehenna and their foreheads, their sides and their backs are branded with them: 'This is what you hoarded for yourselves; taste, then, what you were hoarding!'"

The word order must be recorded, and it is often missed.

The verse begins with "many of the rabbis and the monks"; then it continues with wa'lladhīna yaknizūn — and the subject of this second sentence is left unspecified, tied to no group.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the relative pronoun comes without restriction: the ruling on hoarding is tied not to a group but to an act. The sentence does not say "those of them who hoard"; it says "those who hoard".

And the qualification inna kathīran min must also be recorded separately: kathīran min — "many of." Even the first sentence, that is, does not cover the whole. Per the method (Method): no wholesale ruling is issued about any community, and the wording of the verse does not do so in the first place.

The word is analysed here for the first time in this series.

The concrete sense of the root: to press a thing together and gather it, to heap it up. The lexicographers record that kanz properly means "property buried in the ground and hidden"; and that the verb is also used of filling a vessel and pressing it down.

The word occurred in al-Kahf at 18/82 (wa kāna taḥtahū kanzun lahumā) — there it was property kept for two orphans. The two uses can be set side by side, and I give this as my own reading:

The difference lies not in the property itself but in whom it is held for. In al-Kahf the property is kept for another; in al-Tawba it says li-anfusikum (for yourselves) — and indeed the word appears openly in verse 35.

The hoarding of wealth was analysed in detail in al-Humaza, and I rely on what was recorded there. What was analysed there was this: alladhī jamaʿa mālan wa ʿaddadah — to gather and to count; and yaḥsabu anna mālahū akhladah — the assumption of permanence underlying accumulation. And this was recorded there: "The verse says neither 'rich' nor gives any amount. What it describes is a chain of behaviour."

The same measure holds for al-Tawba 9/34, and the wording of the verse supports it:

This difference must be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: al-Tawba does not censure accumulation on its own; it adds a negative beside it. The subject of the warning is not the heaping itself but the heaping taking the place of the spending.

The measure recorded in al-Ḥadīd at 57/7 is the ground of this place, and I rely on it: anfiqū mimmā jaʿalakum mustakhlafīna fīh — "spend out of that in which He has made you successors." It was recorded there: "that ownership is a trust is the ground of spending." al-Tawba 9/34 is the negative face of the same principle: a trust, when it is not spent, turns into a heap.

And in al-Ḥadīd the difference between spending and the alms was recorded (the alms a fixed proportion, spending general). The legal scope of this verse — whether property on which the alms have been paid counts as "kanz" — has been debated in the classical sources. I convey the disagreement, and issue no ruling and count no view as binding:

Three parts of the body are enumerated, and the order must be recorded: forehead, side, back.

The root ك-و-ي: to brand — to burn with heated iron. This is a concrete operation used in the branding of animals and in old medicine.

I record this as an observation: the very metal that was hoarded is heated and turned into an instrument of branding. The punishment, that is, is of the same kind as the thing hoarded.

And explanations are transmitted in the classical commentaries about the choice of these three parts (the turning away of the face, the sidling off, the turning of the back). I do not present these explanations as certain knowledge; the wording of the verse enumerates three parts and gives no reason.

A note on the word order: all three parts are outward-facing surfaces of the body — the forehead looks forward, the sides to either hand, the back behind. I give this as my own reading: the enumeration covers every direction of the body.

The clause must be recorded: li-anfusikum — "for yourselves."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is this word: the verse sets before them the intention behind the hoarding — and that intention is counted as having been fulfilled. "You hoarded for yourselves; here it is before you." This comes out at the same place as the diagnosis yaḥsabu anna mālahū akhladah recorded in al-Humaza: wealth secures its owner no permanence; it stays with its owner.

Inna ʿiddata'l-shuhūri ʿinda'llāhi'thnā ʿashara shahran fī kitābi'llāhi yawma khalaqa'l-samāwāti wa'l-arḍa minhā arbaʿatun ḥurum; dhālika'l-dīnu'l-qayyim; fa-lā taẓlimū fīhinna anfusakum; wa qātilu'l-mushrikīna kāffatan kamā yuqātilūnakum kāffa; wa'ʿlamū anna'llāha maʿa'l-muttaqīn

"The number of the months with God is twelve, in the book of God, from the day He created the heavens and the earth; four of them are sacred. That is the upright religion. So do not wrong yourselves in them. And fight the mushrikūn all together, as they fight you all together. And know that God is with those who guard themselves."

The sense of the root: to count. The root was treated in detail in al-Humaza at 104/2 (ʿaddadah), and three senses (to count / to make ready / to diversify) were tabulated there. I rely on that treatment.

ʿIdda here: number, count.

The note of time must be recorded, and I give it as an observation: the verse ties the number of the months not to a custom or an agreement but to the creation. The source of the number, that is, is not counted as a human arrangement.

And there is a concrete counterpart to this: the lunar calendar rests on the phases of the moon, and twelve cycles come close to a solar year. This is an observation; it is not a scientific claim drawn from the verse. Per the method (Method): no hunting for scientific miracles is done. What the verse states is the source of the number; not an astronomical detail.

The verse does not say which the four months are.

In the classical sources it is widely reported that they are Dhu'l-Qaʿda, Dhu'l-Ḥijja, Muḥarram and Rajab; it is also related that three are consecutive and one stands apart. This is information from transmitted report and is not in the Qurʾān; I do not present it as certain knowledge.

The root ح-ر-م: to make inviolable, to draw a boundary. Ḥaram — an inviolable area; iḥrām — entering the state of inviolability; maḥram — one it is forbidden to approach. The root was treated in al-Baqara and al-Ḥajj.

At the centre of the root there is a single idea: a boundary drawn around something. And the sacred months are a boundary drawn around time — not around space.

To what the pronoun refers has been debated in the classical commentaries:

I convey the disagreement and impose no preference.

And the object of the verb must be recorded: anfusakum — "yourselves." The prohibition is framed not as wronging another but as wronging oneself. This pattern recurs in the Qurʾān and was treated in Fāṭir at 35/32 (ẓālimun li-nafsih).

In the last sentence of the verse there is a note of reciprocity, and it must be recorded.

Kamā — "as…". The command, that is, is framed as equal to the act of the other side.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particle kamā: the sentence carries a measure. And this comes from the same place as the principle of equivalence treated in al-Baqara at 2/194 (fa-mani'ʿtadā ʿalaykum fa'ʿtadū ʿalayhi bi-mithli mā'ʿtadā ʿalaykum).

The root ك-ف-ف: the palm of the hand; and to gather a thing and enclose it. Kāffa — all together, all at once. The word will occur again in verse 122 of the sūra, and there it will carry the exact opposite ruling: wa mā kāna'l-muʾminūna li-yanfirū kāffa — "the believers were not to go out all together."

This repetition is verifiable from the text and will be compared at verse 122.

Innama'l-nasīʾu ziyādatun fi'l-kufri yuḍallu bihi'lladhīna kafarū yuḥillūnahū ʿāman wa yuḥarrimūnahū ʿāman li-yuwāṭiʾū ʿiddata mā ḥarrama'llāhu fa-yuḥillū mā ḥarrama'llāh; zuyyina lahum sūʾu aʿmālihim; wa'llāhu lā yahdi'l-qawma'l-kāfirīn

"Nasīʾ is an increase in unbelief; by it those who reject are led astray. They make it lawful one year and forbidden another — so as to match the number of what God has made forbidden, and thus make lawful what God has forbidden. Their evil deeds have been made to seem fair to them. God does not guide a rejecting people."

The concrete sense of the root: to put a thing off, to leave it to later, to extend its term. From the same root:

The root was treated in Sabaʾ; I rely on that treatment.

The pattern of the word must be dwelt on: the faʿīl pattern can carry both the sense of an active participle (one who postpones) and of a passive participle (one that is postponed). The lexicographers record both readings here.

The Qurʾān does not relate in detail what this practice was. What can be read directly from the verse is this:

• They were counting something lawful one year and forbidden another (yuḥillūnahū ʿāman wa yuḥarrimūnahū ʿāman).
• The aim was to match the number (li-yuwāṭiʾū ʿiddata mā ḥarrama'llāh) — that is, the number four was preserved.
• The result was the making lawful of what had been made forbidden.

The following is reported in the classical sources about the historical background of this practice — I convey it without assertion and present none of it as certain knowledge:

It is reported that in the pre-Islamic period, because the sacred months prevented fighting, one month was put in the place of another sacred month; that this was done by delaying a month one year and putting it back the next; and that in this way the number of the sacred months was preserved while their places were shifted. It has also been said that the practice was an intercalation intended to correct the drift between the lunar calendar and the seasons. The sources differ from one another in the details, and in this commentary no detail has been made a condition of the meaning of the verse.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the expression li-yuwāṭiʾū ʿiddata: the verse says itself that the number was preserved. What is criticised, that is, is not the corruption of the number — but the emptying out of the content while the number is kept.

The form stands in place and does no work. And this joins a line treated in this series: in al-Anfāl, when mukāʾ wa taṣdiya was treated at 8/35, this was recorded: "the verse uses the word ṣalāt and empties out its content — that is, the form is there, and nothing answers to it." And in al-Baqara at 2/42 (dressing falsehood in the clothing of truth) the same working was present. I rely on that treatment.

And the expression ziyādatun fi'l-kufr must be recorded: the word is not "unbelief" but "an increase in unbelief". The verse, that is, names the practice not as a new category but as a layer added on top of what was already there.

The verb comes in the passive: zuyyina. This difference was recorded in al-Anfāl at 8/48: the same verb comes in one place in the active with its agent named (zayyana lahumu'l-shayṭān), and in another in the passive. In Fāṭir at 35/8 and Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) at 40/37 it was passive too. I rely on that treatment; here too it is passive.

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū mā lakum idhā qīla lakumu'nfirū fī sabīli'llāhi'ththāqaltum ila'l-arḍ; a-raḍītum bi'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā mina'l-ākhira; fa-mā matāʿu'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā fi'l-ākhirati illā qalīl · Illā tanfirū yuʿadhdhibkum ʿadhāban alīman wa yastabdil qawman ghayrakum wa lā taḍurrūhu shayʾā; wa'llāhu ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr

"O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are told, 'Go out in the way of God,' you sink heavily to the ground? Are you content with the life of this world in place of the hereafter? The enjoyment of the life of this world is but little beside the hereafter. · If you do not go out, He will punish you with a painful punishment and put another people in your place, and you will do Him no harm at all. God has power over everything."

The concrete sense of the root: to startle, to spring from one's place, to leave in haste. The lexicographers explain the root by way of an animal taking fright and bolting. From the same root:

The root was treated in al-Mulk at 67/21, in al-Muddaththir at 74/50 (ka-annahum ḥumurun mustanfira — startled wild asses) and in al-Isrāʾ at 17/41 (mā yazīduhum illā nufūrā).

I record this as an observation about the language, and convey it as the lexicographers give it: the same root states both fleeing and going out. The idea in common is not staying in one's place — the difference of direction comes afterwards.

And this coincides with the sūra's axis: the second axis of the sūra was sitting and rising. The root of the word stands exactly on that axis.

This is one of the most concrete words of the sūra, and the task requires that I open out its picture.

The sense of the root: weight. Thiql — a load; thaqīl — heavy. The root was treated in al-Zilzāl at 99/2 (athqālahā), in Fāṭir at 35/18 (muthqalatun), in al-Muzzammil at 73/5 (qawlan thaqīlā) and in al-Raḥmān at 55/31 (al-thaqalān).

The verb here is in a particular form: ٱثَّاقَلْتُمْ. Its original is tathāqaltum (Form VI, tafāʿala) — the form that states reciprocity and gradualness. The tāʾ has been assimilated to the thāʾ, and a connecting hamza has come at the head.

What Form VI states here, according to the lexicographers, is this: a state's coming about of itself and little by little — a person's surrendering to the weight.

And the note ila'l-arḍ (towards the ground) completes the picture.

The concrete picture of the word is this, and I give it as an observation about the language: a body that has been asked to rise, left to its own weight and sinking towards the ground. It is not pushed, not felled — its own weight draws it down.

And the opposition of the two verbs must be recorded:

Two verbs in the same sentence, one a command and one a reproach. I record this as my own reading: the sentence sets two opposite movements side by side and thereby shows the distance.

The particle must be recorded: min here states substitution — "in place of the hereafter."

I record this as an observation of grammar: the sentence sets up an exchange. And the question is a-raḍītum — "are you content?" It speaks, that is, as though a choice had been made.

The root ب-د-ل: to put another thing in the place of a thing. The root was treated as a weave running between al-Fatḥ 48/15 and 48/23; I rely on that treatment.

I record this as an observation: the verse says that the place of the one addressed can be filled. And it continues with wa lā taḍurrūhu shayʾā: there is no harm to be done.

Illā tanṣurūhu fa-qad naṣarahu'llāhu idh akhrajahu'lladhīna kafarū thāniya'thnayni idh humā fi'l-ghāri idh yaqūlu li-ṣāḥibihī lā taḥzan inna'llāha maʿanā; fa-anzala'llāhu sakīnatahū ʿalayhi wa ayyadahū bi-junūdin lam tarawhā wa jaʿala kalimata'lladhīna kafaru'l-suflā; wa kalimatu'llāhi hiya'l-ʿulyā; wa'llāhu ʿazīzun ḥakīm

"If you do not help him — God had already helped him: when those who rejected drove him out, the second of two; when the two of them were in the cave; when he was saying to his companion, 'Do not grieve, God is with us.' Then God sent down His sakīna upon him, and supported him with armies you did not see, and made the word of those who rejected the lowest. And the word of God, that is the highest. God is mighty, wise."

ثَانِىَ ٱثْنَيْنِ — "the second of two", that is, one of two people.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is this construction: the verse reduces the number to the smallest plurality possible. And this stands in direct opposition to a passage fifteen verses earlier:

This opposition is verifiable from the text and is one of the strongest internal weaves of the sūra. I give it as my own reading: the sūra shows the same matter from both ends — numbers were not enough, fewness was no obstacle. And the line treated in al-Anfāl at 8/26 (idh antum qalīlun mustaḍʿafūn) is completed here.

The adverb of time, repeated three times, must be recorded.

The verse narrows the scene in three stages:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the three idh: the scene narrows from a city to a cave, from a cave to a single utterance. And what is said at the narrowest point is the widest sentence of all: inna'llāha maʿanā.

There are two sentences, and both must be recorded.

The root ح-ز-ن: grief; and as the concrete sense of the root the lexicographers record ḥazn as "hard, broken, rough ground". Grief, that is, is within the word a ground hard to walk on.

Lā taḥzan — "do not grieve." This expression occurs in several places in the Qurʾān, and each time it is a sentence of consolation.

Inna'llāha maʿanā — "God is with us." And the pronoun must be recorded: maʿanā — "with us", not "with me".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the pronoun: the consolation states not the speaker's own position but the position the two of them hold in common.

And in al-Anfāl at 8/19 a block of that sūra closed with wa anna'llāha maʿa'l-muʾminīn; in verse 46 of the same sūra there is inna'llāha maʿa'l-ṣābirīn. The same structure occurred in verse 36 of this sūra as well: anna'llāha maʿa'l-muttaqīn, and it will come again in verse 123.

I record this as my own reading: in four places the being-with is tied to an attribute; in the fortieth verse it is tied to a moment. The difference is that the sentence is not a description but an utterance.

The pronoun must be recorded: ʿalayhi — singular.

In al-Fatḥ the three descents of the sakīna at 48/4, 48/18 and 48/26 were compared, and there the ones addressed were plural. Here the one addressed is singular, and this is the word's only singular use in the Qurʾān.

I record this as a datum of the text. To whom the pronoun refers has been debated in the classical commentaries:

I convey the disagreement and impose no preference. And per the method (Method): the historical and sectarian debates conducted by way of this verse are not entered into.

The measure recorded in al-Fatḥ holds here too: sakīna is the ceasing of inner agitation — not the removal of the thing to be feared. And in this verse the thing to be feared is plainly still in place: there is pursuit, there is a driving out, two people are in a cave. What is lifted is the motion that flings a person about.

Infirū khifāfan wa thiqālan wa jāhidū bi-amwālikum wa anfusikum fī sabīli'llāh; dhālikum khayrun lakum in kuntum taʿlamūn · Law kāna ʿaraḍan qarīban wa safaran qāṣidan la'ttabaʿūka wa lākin baʿudat ʿalayhimu'l-shuqqa; wa sa-yaḥlifūna bi'llāhi lawi'staṭaʿnā la-kharajnā maʿakum; yuhlikūna anfusahum; wa'llāhu yaʿlamu innahum la-kādhibūn

"Go out light and heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of God. That is better for you, if you but knew. · Had there been a near gain and an easy journey they would have followed you; but the hard distance seemed far to them. They will swear by God, 'Had we been able, we would have gone out with you.' They are destroying themselves; and God knows that they are lying."

The forty-first verse repeats the verb of the thirty-eighth (infirū) — but this time it places a pair of adjectives beside it.

The root ث-ق-ل occurred three verses earlier, in iththāqaltum. Now the same root comes not as an excuse but as a condition: thiqālan.

This is one of the finest points of word order in the sūra, and I record it as my own reading:

Three verses apart, that is, the same root is put to two separate uses: growing heavy is censured, being heavy is not. The distinction lies in whether the heaviness is a person's situation or a person's choice.

The scope of the expression has been explained in various ways in the classical commentaries:

These explanations are mentioned in the sources; I adopt no preference. And I record this: the multiplicity of the explanations comes from the expression's being comprehensive. Setting two opposite adjectives side by side covers, in Arabic, every state that falls between them.

The concrete sense of the root: to split, to cleave in two. Shaqq — a cleft. From this derive mashaqqa (what splits a person, what strains him) and shuqqa — a distance hard to cross.

The root was treated in al-Inshiqāq by way of the sūra's name and in Qāf at 50/44.

I record this as an observation about the language: the distance is named as something that must be split open. Distance is not something covered but something cleft.

The root ع-ر-ض: breadth, a side; and what comes before one. ʿAraḍ — a passing gain that comes to hand. The word states what is not lasting.

The root ق-ص-د: to head straight for; to be measured. Safaran qāṣidan — a middling, easy journey.

I record this as an observation: the verse explains the failure to join by two measures — the remoteness of the gain and the hardness of the road. And this comes from the same place as the preference treated in al-Anfāl at 8/7: there too ghayra dhāti'l-shawka — they wanted the easy one. I rely on that treatment.

ʿAfa'llāhu ʿanka lima adhinta lahum ḥattā yatabayyana laka'lladhīna ṣadaqū wa taʿlama'l-kādhibīn · Lā yastaʾdhinuka'lladhīna yuʾminūna bi'llāhi wa'l-yawmi'l-ākhiri an yujāhidū bi-amwālihim wa anfusihim; wa'llāhu ʿalīmun bi'l-muttaqīn · Innamā yastaʾdhinuka'lladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi'llāhi wa'l-yawmi'l-ākhiri wa'rtābat qulūbuhum fa-hum fī raybihim yataraddadūn

"May God pardon you; why did you give them leave before those who spoke truly had become clear to you and you knew the liars? · Those who believe in God and the last day do not ask your leave to be excused from striving with their wealth and their lives. · Only those ask your leave who do not believe in God and the last day, and whose hearts have fallen into doubt; and in their doubt they waver."

This form of address has been debated in the classical commentaries. I convey the disagreement and impose no preference:

No preference is adopted in this commentary. And the question of the prophets' impeccability is a debate in theology; there are differences of scope between the schools. The note entered in al-Fatḥ at 48/2 is kept here too: that debate is not entered into.

What can be verified from the wording of the verse is this, and I give it as an observation about the structure: the sentence comes before the question. The order, that is, is this: first the pardon, then the question. The reverse was also possible; it is not what we have.

The root ر-ي-ب: misgiving, a doubt that leaves one uneasy. The root was treated in al-Baqara at 2/2 (lā rayba fīh).

The root ر-د-د: to turn back. Taraddud (Form V) — to go to a point and come back, to go and return.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word pictures indecision as a movement — going forward and coming back. And it lies in the same field as the description "having two doors" recorded in al-Munāfiqūn; I rely on that treatment.

Wa law arādu'l-khurūja la-aʿaddū lahū ʿuddatan wa lākin kariha'llāhu'nbiʿāthahum fa-thabbaṭahum wa qīla'qʿudū maʿa'l-qāʿidīn · Law kharajū fīkum mā zādūkum illā khabālan wa la-awḍaʿū khilālakum yabghūnakumu'l-fitnata wa fīkum sammāʿūna lahum; wa'llāhu ʿalīmun bi'l-ẓālimīn · Laqadi'btaghawu'l-fitnata min qablu wa qallabū laka'l-umūra ḥattā jāʾa'l-ḥaqqu wa ẓahara amru'llāhi wa hum kārihūn · Wa minhum man yaqūlu'dhan lī wa lā taftinnī; a-lā fi'l-fitnati saqaṭū; wa inna jahannama la-muḥīṭatun bi'l-kāfirīn

"Had they wanted to go out they would have made some preparation for it; but God disliked their setting forth, so He held them back, and it was said, 'Sit with those who sit.' · Had they gone out among you they would have added nothing to you but disorder, and would have hurried about in your midst seeking to stir up trouble; and among you there are those who listen to them. · They sought to stir up trouble before this too, and turned matters upside down for you — until the truth came and the command of God appeared, much as they disliked it. · And among them is one who says, 'Give me leave, and do not put me to the test.' Take note: they have already fallen into the test. Gehenna encompasses those who reject."

The sense of the root: to hold back from a task, to make one drag one's feet, to break one's eagerness. The word occurs rarely in the Qurʾān.

I record this as an observation: the verse names the sitting as a being held back — and ties the cause of it not to the persons' unwillingness but to the acceptance of that unwillingness. And before it stands a conditional clause: law arādu'l-khurūja la-aʿaddū lahū ʿudda — "had they wanted, they would have made preparation."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is this conditional clause: the verse reads intention off preparation. The measure, that is, is not a word but a preparation made.

The sense of the root: corruption, the mind's becoming confused, a limb's losing its function. Khabāl — disorder, confusion.

The verb here has a particular sense: īḍāʿ — to drive a camel or a mount fast, to make it run.

I record this as an observation about the language, and convey it as the lexicographers give it: the word states hurrying about in the gaps — a concrete picture resembling going swiftly from place to place carrying words.

Khilālakum — "in your midst", that is, in the gaps between the ranks.

The meaning of this expression has been debated in the classical commentaries:

I convey the disagreement and impose no preference. And the pattern must be recorded: faʿʿāl — the intensive form, "one who listens much."

The word occurs four times within four verses (47, 48, 49) and must be recorded:

The root ف-ت-ن was analysed in detail in al-ʿAnkabūt at 29/2-10 (the testing of gold in fire) and was treated in two separate senses in al-Anfāl at 8/25 and 8/28. I rely on that treatment.

The point in the forty-ninth verse must be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: a man asks not to join, saying lā taftinnī (do not put me to the test); the verse answers fi'l-fitnati saqaṭū (they have fallen into the test). The name of the thing to be avoided, that is, is given to the act of avoidance itself. That the word is used twice in the same verse, in two different directions, confirms this.

The root س-ق-ط: to fall. The verb saqaṭū is in the perfect — the falling is recorded not as something that will happen but as something that has happened.

In tuṣibka ḥasanatun tasuʾhum; wa in tuṣibka muṣībatun yaqūlū qad akhadhnā amranā min qablu wa yatawallaw wa hum fariḥūn · Qul lan yuṣībanā illā mā kataba'llāhu lanā; huwa mawlānā; wa ʿala'llāhi fa'l-yatawakkali'l-muʾminūn · Qul hal tarabbaṣūna binā illā iḥda'l-ḥusnayayni; wa naḥnu natarabbaṣu bikum an yuṣībakumu'llāhu bi-ʿadhābin min ʿindihī aw bi-aydīnā; fa-tarabbaṣū innā maʿakum mutarabbiṣūn

"If good comes to you it grieves them; and if a misfortune befalls you they say, 'We took our precautions beforehand,' and they turn away rejoicing. · Say: nothing will befall us but what God has written for us. He is our protector; and in God let the believers put their trust. · Say: are you waiting for anything to happen to us but one of the two good things? We too are waiting for God to bring you a punishment from Himself or by our hands. Wait, then; we are waiting with you."

The construction must be recorded: iḥda'l-ḥusnayayn — "one of two good things."

The verse names both of the two possibilities as good. In the classical commentaries it is widely reported that these two are victory and martyrdom.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the dual al-ḥusnayayn: the sentence does not accept the gain/loss pairing set up by the ones addressed. The other side is waiting for two outcomes; the verse names both of those outcomes with a single word.

The root occurs four times in these verses: tarabbaṣūna, natarabbaṣu, tarabbaṣū, mutarabbiṣūn.

The sense of the root: to wait and watch for a thing to happen. And the same root occurred as a command in verse 24 of the sūra: fa-tarabbaṣū ḥattā yaʾtiya'llāhu bi-amrih.

I record this as an observation: the same verb is given to both sides — waiting is what both sides do. The difference lies in what is waited for.

Qul anfiqū ṭawʿan aw karhan lan yutaqabbala minkum; innakum kuntum qawman fāsiqīn · Wa mā manaʿahum an tuqbala minhum nafaqātuhum illā annahum kafarū bi'llāhi wa bi-rasūlihī wa lā yaʾtūna'l-ṣalāta illā wa hum kusālā wa lā yunfiqūna illā wa hum kārihūn · Fa-lā tuʿjibka amwāluhum wa lā awlāduhum; innamā yurīdu'llāhu li-yuʿadhdhibahum bihā fi'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā wa tazhaqa anfusuhum wa hum kāfirūn

"Say: spend willingly or unwillingly; it will not be accepted from you. For you are a people who have gone out of the way. · What prevents their spending from being accepted from them is only that they have rejected God and His Messenger, that they come to the prayer only in listlessness, and that they spend only unwillingly. · Let their wealth and their children not draw your admiration; God wants only to punish them by these in the life of this world, and that their souls should depart while they reject."

The sentence is in the form of a command but is not a command: anfiqū … lan yutaqabbala minkum.

In Arabic this structure — the form of a command plus a negative outcome — is what the lexicographers call the command of threat (amr al-tahdīd) or the command of equalisation (amr al-taswiya): it states that both options come out at the same result.

I record this as an observation of grammar and convey it as the lexicographers give it.

The sense of the root: laziness, dragging one's feet, unwillingness. Kusālā — the plural of kasīl.

I record this as an observation: the verse accepts that both acts are performed — they do come to the prayer, they do spend. What is refused is not the act but the state in which the act is carried. Both clauses are built on the pattern illā wa hum: "only as…".

And the measure recorded in al-Munāfiqūn holds here too: "The existence of a second door does not mean that the first door is false." I rely on that treatment.

This is the second of the three occurrences of the root ع-ج-ب (25, 55, 85). It was tabulated at verse 25.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: the prohibition is directed at the one who looks — not at the one who owns. What is regulated, that is, is the way one looks at another's wealth.

Wa yaḥlifūna bi'llāhi innahum la-minkum wa mā hum minkum wa lākinnahum qawmun yafraqūn · Law yajidūna maljaʾan aw maghārātin aw muddakhalan la-wallaw ilayhi wa hum yajmaḥūn · Wa minhum man yalmizuka fi'l-ṣadaqāt; fa-in uʿṭū minhā raḍū wa in lam yuʿṭaw minhā idhā hum yaskhaṭūn · Wa law annahum raḍū mā ātāhumu'llāhu wa rasūluhū wa qālū ḥasbuna'llāhu sa-yuʾtīna'llāhu min faḍlihī wa rasūluhū innā ila'llāhi rāghibūn

"They swear by God that they are of you; but they are not of you — rather they are a people who take fright. · Could they find a refuge, or caves, or a hole to creep into, they would turn to it and bolt. · And among them is one who finds fault with you over the alms. If they are given some of them they are pleased; if they are not given some of them, at once they are angry. · Had they been content with what God and His Messenger gave them, and said, 'God is enough for us; God will give us of His bounty, and His Messenger too; to God we turn in hope' …"

The root was treated in al-Furqān at 25/1 and in al-Anfāl at 8/29 (to separate, to distinguish). Here the verb has another sense: faraq — fear.

The lexicographers tie this sense to the root's idea of "separating": fear's tearing a person from his place, scattering him. I convey this derivation as the lexicographers give it, not in a language of certainty.

Three words enumerate a place of refuge that grows steadily narrower:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the three words: the list descends from shelter to hole. And the expression lā maljaʾa mina'llāhi illā ilayh will come again in verse 118 of the sūra — there the same word will stand in an entirely different place.

يَجْمَحُونَ — root ج-م-ح: a horse taking no heed of the bit and bolting off. The lexicographers use the word of an animal that cannot be reined in.

I record this as an observation about the language: the flight is pictured as an unbridled gallop — a movement in which the control does not lie with the person.

The root was analysed in detail in al-Humaza by way of the sūra's name (humaza–lumaza), and it was recorded there: "The ground common to the two words is the act itself — belittling someone — and the difference lies in the instruments of that act." I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

The same root will occur again in verse 79 of the sūra (alladhīna yalmizūna'l-muṭṭawwiʿīna) and will be compared there.

The sense of the root: displeasure, anger — the opposite of riḍā.

And the word order must be recorded: in the verse raḍū (they were pleased) and yaskhaṭūn (they grow angry) are set against one another. And the measure is stated openly: in uʿṭū minhā / wa in lam yuʿṭaw minhā — whether or not they are given.

I record this as my own reading: the verse diagnoses what contentment is tied to. And the fifty-ninth verse says what ought to be, with the same word: wa law annahum raḍū mā ātāhumu'llāh — contentment is tied to what is given.

The root ر-غ-ب: to turn towards a thing, to want it; and as the concrete sense of the root, raghba carries the idea of "breadth" — the lexicographers record raghīb in the sense of "wide".

Innama'l-ṣadaqātu li'l-fuqarāʾi wa'l-masākīni wa'l-ʿāmilīna ʿalayhā wa'l-muʾallafati qulūbuhum wa fi'l-riqābi wa'l-ghārimīna wa fī sabīli'llāhi wa'bni'l-sabīl; farīḍatan mina'llāh; wa'llāhu ʿalīmun ḥakīm

"The alms are only for these: the poor, the destitute, those who work upon them, those whose hearts are to be won over, and for (the freeing of) necks, and the debt-burdened, and in the way of God, and the traveller cut off from his road. An obligation from God. God is knowing, wise."

This is the grammatical feature of the verse most dwelt upon, and it must be recorded.

Six of the eight categories come with the particle لِ (li — "for"), and two with the particle فِى (fī — "in"):

The lexicographers and the exegetes record this difference and explain it thus: li states ownership and transfer of title, while fī states a heading of expenditure. In the first six, that is, the share becomes the person's; in the two that come with fī, the money is spent on a purpose and is not made over to a person.

I convey this explanation as the lexicographers give it. And I add this as my own reading: what the two items introduced by fī have in common is that neither of them is the name of a person — one is a limb (riqāb), the other a direction (sabīl). The difference of particle follows the difference of naming.

The root ف-ر-ض: to cut, to open a notch; to fix, to determine. The lexicographers record the concrete sense of the root as "the notch cut for a bowstring" — that is, a fixed, determinate place.

I record this as an observation about the language: farīḍa carries in its root the idea of "a share cut out, a boundary drawn". And its coming at the end of the verse closes the list.

I make the comparison as the task requires. In al-Anfāl the division of spoils was treated at 8/41, and it was recorded there: "four of the five groups enumerated are the same as the addresses of spending treated in al-Baqara 2/177 and 2/215."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the comparison of the two lists: al-Anfāl's list is built on kinship and age (near kin, orphans); al-Tawba's list on situation — being in debt, being stranded, doing a piece of work, seeking to gain one's freedom. The two lists do not cancel one another; two different kinds of property have two different addresses.

And the two categories in common must be recorded: masākīn and ibn al-sabīl. These two names are the most frequently repeated in the Qurʾān's lists of spending (treated in al-Baqara at 2/177 and 2/215).

The scope of the categories, their measure, and how some of them are to be understood today have been widely debated in the classical and later sources. I convey the disagreement. I issue no legal ruling; nothing conveyed here is binding:

No view is preferred in this commentary and no ruling is issued. Per the method (Method): no legal ruling is issued; the views of the schools are conveyed.

What is to be recorded on the linguistic side of the verse is this, and I give it as my own reading: the list enumerates the causes of need — poverty, immobility, debt, bondage, travel — and adds beside them those who do the work and a direction. The list, that is, is not only a list of "the needy"; it is the list of a working system: who will receive, who will distribute, on what it will be spent.

Wa minhumu'lladhīna yuʾdhūna'l-nabiyya wa yaqūlūna huwa udhun; qul udhunu khayrin lakum yuʾminu bi'llāhi wa yuʾminu li'l-muʾminīna wa raḥmatun li'lladhīna āmanū minkum; wa'lladhīna yuʾdhūna rasūla'llāhi lahum ʿadhābun alīm

"And among them are those who hurt the Prophet and say, 'He is an ear.' Say: an ear of good for you; he believes in God, and trusts the believers, and is a mercy to those of you who believe. And for those who hurt the Messenger of God there is a painful punishment."

What is said is not a simile but a name: huwa udhun — "he is an ear."

In Arabic, naming a person by an organ is a way of intensification stating that the function of that organ is excessive in him. The lexicographers record this: to call a man "that eye" is to say he looks a great deal; to call him "that ear" is to say he listens to everything said.

The nickname, then, says this: he believes whatever he is told, he listens to everyone.

And how the nickname works must be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: the nickname takes a good quality and presents it as a defect. Listening is a virtue; the nickname turns it into gullibility. This is the most economical way of disparaging a person: that the thing you disparage should really be there.

The construction of the answer is one of the finest points of word order in the sūra.

The answer does not reject the nickname — it accepts it and qualifies it: udhunu khayrin lakum — "an ear that is good for you."

The construction is a genitive one: udhunu khayr — "an ear of good." Being an ear, that is, is not denied; what he is an ear of is stated.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the genitive construction (iḍāfa): the answer does not turn the insult around, it moves its place. The same word carries two different values in the same verse.

The two verbs are the same, the two particles differ, and this difference must be recorded:

The lexicographers record this difference between āmana bi- and āmana li-. And this completes the answer of the verse: the other side says "he listens to everyone"; the verse says "he trusts the believers". By stating the address of the listening, the nickname is bounded.

The qualification minkum in the sentence must be recorded.

I record this as an observation: the verse separates out those who believe from within the very community in which the ones who give hurt are found. And the mercy is ascribed to that separated section. The category is divided once again.

And this word — mercy — will come again in verse 128 of the sūra as an attribute of the envoy: bi'l-muʾminīna raʾūfun raḥīm. The link between the two verses will be treated at 128.

Yaḥlifūna bi'llāhi lakum li-yurḍūkum wa'llāhu wa rasūluhū aḥaqqu an yurḍūhu in kānū muʾminīn · A-lam yaʿlamū annahū man yuḥādidi'llāha wa rasūlahū fa-anna lahū nāra jahannama khālidan fīhā; dhālika'l-khizyu'l-ʿaẓīm

"They swear to you by God in order to please you; but if they are believers, it is God and His Messenger whom they ought rather to please. · Did they not know that whoever draws a line against God and His Messenger has the fire of Gehenna, abiding in it? That is the great disgrace."

There are two subjects in the sentence — wa'llāhu wa rasūluhū — but the pronoun is singular: yurḍūhu.

This is a place the lexicographers dwell on, and explanations are transmitted:

I convey the explanations and impose no preference.

The concrete sense of the root: a boundary, an edge; and iron (ḥadīd). Ḥadd — the line where one thing ends and another begins.

Form III muḥādda: to draw a boundary on the opposite side, to take one's place in the opposing rank.

I record this as an observation about the language: the word relates opposition by a geographical image — crossing to the other side and marking out the line between. And in al-Ḥadīd the same root was treated by way of ḥadīd (iron); the root's idea of "sharpness/decisiveness" was given there.

Yaḥdharu'l-munāfiqūna an tunazzala ʿalayhim sūratun tunabbiʾuhum bimā fī qulūbihim; quli'stahziʾū inna'llāha mukhrijun mā taḥdharūn · Wa la-in saʾaltahum la-yaqūlunna innamā kunnā nakhūḍu wa nalʿab; qul a-bi'llāhi wa āyātihī wa rasūlihī kuntum tastahziʾūn · Lā taʿtadhirū qad kafartum baʿda īmānikum; in naʿfu ʿan ṭāʾifatin minkum nuʿadhdhib ṭāʾifatan bi-annahum kānū mujrimīn

"The hypocrites are wary lest a sūra be sent down upon them telling them what is in their hearts. Say: mock on; God will bring out what you are wary of. · And if you ask them, they will surely say, 'We were only chattering and playing.' Say: was it at God, His signs and His Messenger that you were mocking? · Offer no excuses; you have rejected after your faith. Even if We pardon a section of you, We shall punish a section, because they were guilty."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the object of the verb: what is feared is not a punishment but a text — an tunazzala ʿalayhim sūra. And what the sūra will do is stated as well: tunabbiʾuhum bimā fī qulūbihim — to tell them what is in their hearts.

The pronoun must be recorded: tunabbiʾuhum — not others, but them.

I give this as my own reading: what is feared is not that the hidden thing should become known to others, but that it should be said to them. It coincides with the description "having two doors" recorded in al-Munāfiqūn: the one who must least of all know of the second door is its owner.

The root خ-و-ض: to step into water and stir up its mud; to walk in shallow water. From this derives the sense of talk that has no depth and muddies things.

The root was treated in al-Muddaththir at 74/45 (wa kunnā nakhūḍu maʿa'l-khāʾiḍīn).

I record this as an observation about the language: the word pictures idle talk as muddying water — the spoiling of clarity.

And the form of the excuse must be recorded: innamā — "only." I give this as an observation: the excuse does not deny the act; it belittles its importance. The answer comes by enumerating the objects of the act: a-bi'llāhi wa āyātihī wa rasūlih — three objects.

The root ع-ذ-ر: excuse; and as one sense of the root, ʿudhr, "the cause that makes not doing a thing justified."

This verb occurs several times in the sūra: 66, 90 (al-muʿadhdhirūn), 94 (yaʿtadhirūna). And in the ninety-fourth verse the same command will be repeated: lā taʿtadhirū.

I record this as my own reading: the sūra treats the excuse as a kind, and in verses 91-93 it sets apart those with a genuine excuse. The sūra, that is, does not reject the excuse; it separates out the false one. This distinction will be treated in detail at verse 91.

The last sentence of the verse must be recorded, and it is important in respect of the method.

The sentence uses the word ṭāʾifa (a section) twice: a section is pardoned, a section is punished.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the repetition of the word: even inside the gravest sentence of ruling a division is made. The sūra's language blocks the issuing of wholesale rulings from within itself.

Al-munāfiqūna wa'l-munāfiqātu baʿḍuhum min baʿḍ; yaʾmurūna bi'l-munkari wa yanhawna ʿani'l-maʿrūfi wa yaqbiḍūna aydiyahum; nasu'llāha fa-nasiyahum; inna'l-munāfiqīna humu'l-fāsiqūn · Waʿada'llāhu'l-munāfiqīna wa'l-munāfiqāti wa'l-kuffāra nāra jahannama khālidīna fīhā; hiya ḥasbuhum; wa laʿanahumu'llāh; wa lahum ʿadhābun muqīm

"The hypocrite men and the hypocrite women are of one another: they enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right, and they hold their hands shut. They forgot God, so He forgot them. The hypocrites are the ones who have gone out of the way. · God has promised the hypocrite men, the hypocrite women and those who reject the fire of Gehenna, abiding in it. It is enough for them. God has cursed them; and for them there is a lasting punishment."

The detailed analysis of the concept of hypocrisy — the root ن-ف-ق, the description of "a nest with two doors", the behavioural portrait, and why the phenomenon appeared in Medina — was made in al-Munāfiqūn. I do not repeat it here and rely on that treatment.

Three things belong here:

The construction must be recorded: baʿḍuhum min baʿḍ — "some of them are of some others."

Min here states kind: being of the same sort, being the continuation of one another.

I record this as an observation of grammar: the expression does not state a being together — it states a likeness. Between them there is not a bond but a sameness. And in verse 71 this expression will change; it will be given there in a table.

The verse enumerates three verbs, and all three are a negation:

The third verb must be recorded. The root ق-ب-ض: to close the palm, to take hold of a thing and draw it in. Qabḍ — the closing of an open hand.

I record this as an observation about the language: miserliness is named by the physical state of the hand. And its opposite will come in verse 71 as yuʾtūna'l-zakāt (they give the alms).

The same verb twice, with two different subjects.

The root ن-س-ي: to forget; and to abandon. The lexicographers record the root's second sense (to leave a thing and take no interest in it).

This pattern — the same verb returned upon the other party — has been treated in many places in this series. The same structure was present in al-Naml at 27/50 (wa makarū makran wa makarnā makrā) and in al-Anfāl at 8/30 (wa yamkurūna wa yamkuru'llāh). I rely on that treatment.

And in ascribing the verb to God a note of transcendence is required: the Qurʾān itself says wa mā kāna rabbuka nasiyyā (Maryam 19/64). For this reason the fa-nasiyahum here is explained, by the common note of the lexicographers and the exegetes, in the root's second sense — abandoning, taking no interest. The verse in question was treated in Maryam; I rely on that treatment.

Ka'lladhīna min qablikum kānū ashadda minkum quwwatan wa akthara amwālan wa awlādan fa'stamtaʿū bi-khalāqihim fa'stamtaʿtum bi-khalāqikum kama'stamtaʿa'lladhīna min qablikum bi-khalāqihim wa khuḍtum ka'lladhī khāḍū; ulāʾika ḥabiṭat aʿmāluhum fi'l-dunyā wa'l-ākhira; wa ulāʾika humu'l-khāsirūn · A-lam yaʾtihim nabaʾu'lladhīna min qablihim qawmi Nūḥin wa ʿĀdin wa Thamūda wa qawmi Ibrāhīma wa aṣḥābi Madyana wa'l-muʾtafikāt

"Like those before you: they were stronger than you in power, and greater in wealth and children; and they took their enjoyment of their portion. You too have taken your enjoyment of your portion — as those before you took their enjoyment of their portion. And you plunged in, as they plunged in. Their works have come to nothing in this world and the next; it is they who are the losers. · Has the news of those before them not come to them: the people of Noah (Nūḥ), ʿĀd, Thamūd, the people of Abraham (Ibrāhīm), the people of Madyan, and the overturned towns…"

This verse is one of the most densely repetitive sentences in the Qurʾān. The same pattern occurs three times:

`` fa'stamtaʿū bi-khalāqihim fa'stamtaʿtum bi-khalāqikum kama'stamtaʿa …bi-khalāqihim wa khuḍtum ka'lladhī khāḍū ``

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is this repetition: the sentence itself does what it relates — repetition. The same verb, the same object, different subjects. The sentence "you did the same thing", that is, is built by repeating the same words.

The sense of the root: to shape to measure, to create; and khalāq — a portion set apart, a share.

This sense of the word comes from the root's idea of "measuring": a share cut and measured out for a person.

I record this as an observation about the language: the verse names what is taken from this world as "your portion" — and the verb is istamtaʿa (he enjoyed, he took benefit). The verse, that is, does not forbid taking benefit; it censures the counting of it as the whole.

The sense of the root: to turn a thing over on its face, to overturn it. Ifk — a lie that turns the truth upside down. The root was treated in al-Nūr (ifk) and in al-Dhāriyāt at 51/9.

Muʾtafikāt — settlements overturned, turned upside down.

I record this as an observation about the language: the same root names both a lie and the overturning of a place. And the fate of these towns was treated in al-Rūm and in the other sūras of narrative; here they are mentioned only by name.

And the six communities enumerated must be recorded: the people of Noah, ʿĀd, Thamūd, the people of Abraham, the people of Madyan, and the muʾtafikāt. This list is repeated in several places in the Qurʾān; their stories were treated in this series in al-Shuʿarāʾ and Hūd.

Wa'l-muʾminūna wa'l-muʾminātu baʿḍuhum awliyāʾu baʿḍ; yaʾmurūna bi'l-maʿrūfi wa yanhawna ʿani'l-munkari wa yuqīmūna'l-ṣalāta wa yuʾtūna'l-zakāta wa yuṭīʿūna'llāha wa rasūlah; ulāʾika sa-yarḥamuhumu'llāh; inna'llāha ʿazīzun ḥakīm

"The believing men and the believing women are the protectors of one another: they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, they keep up the prayer, they give the alms, and they obey God and His Messenger. Upon these God will have mercy. God is mighty, wise."

This verse is the exact counterpart of verse 67, and the opposition is built word for word. I give it in a table, because this is the strongest weave in the sūra:

This opposition is verifiable from the text and is no accident: four verses apart, in the same order, the same elements are given inverted.

The finest distinction is between min and awliyāʾ, and it must be recorded:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two constructions: the first group resemble one another; the second group are responsible for one another. Resemblance is passive; walāya is an obligation.

The root و-ل-ي: nearness, adjacency; to take up another's affair. The root was treated in al-Anfāl at 8/72-75 by way of the bond of walāya, and in al-Baqara. I rely on that treatment.

The verse enumerates five verbs, and the order must be recorded:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order: the list begins with two verbs turned towards society. The same pair occurred in Luqmān at 31/17 in the middle of a list of counsel (wa'mur bi'l-maʿrūfi wa'nha ʿani'l-munkar); there it was an individual piece of advice. Here it is the description of a community. The difference is that the subject is plural.

In the verse men and women are named separately — both in 67 and in 71.

I record this as an observation: both verses build the same structure, and every one of the verbs enumerated is ascribed to both sides. Enjoining, forbidding, prayer, alms and obedience — all five verbs belong to a shared subject.

Waʿada'llāhu'l-muʾminīna wa'l-muʾmināti jannātin tajrī min taḥtiha'l-anhāru khālidīna fīhā wa masākina ṭayyibatan fī jannāti ʿadn; wa riḍwānun mina'llāhi akbar; dhālika huwa'l-fawzu'l-ʿaẓīm · Yā ayyuha'l-nabiyyu jāhidi'l-kuffāra wa'l-munāfiqīna wa'ghluẓ ʿalayhim; wa maʾwāhum jahannam; wa biʾsa'l-maṣīr · Yaḥlifūna bi'llāhi mā qālū wa laqad qālū kalimata'l-kufri wa kafarū baʿda islāmihim wa hammū bimā lam yanālū; wa mā naqamū illā an aghnāhumu'llāhu wa rasūluhū min faḍlih

"God has promised the believing men and the believing women gardens with rivers running beneath them, abiding in them, and goodly dwellings in the gardens of ʿAdn. And a contentment from God is greater. That is the great attainment. · O Prophet! Strive against those who reject and against the hypocrites, and be firm with them. Their refuge is Gehenna; and evil is that journey's end. · They swear by God that they did not say it, and they did say the word of unbelief, and rejected after their submission; and they set out for what they did not attain. And they resented nothing but that God and His Messenger had enriched them out of His bounty."

The word must be recorded: masākin.

This word occurred in verse 24 of the sūra as well — there it was the last of the eight ties that were weighed: wa masākinu tarḍawnahā (the dwellings you are pleased with).

The two occurrences can be set side by side, and I give this as my own reading:

The same word occurs in one place in the sūra as something whose relinquishing is weighed, and in another as something promised. And the word is from the root س-ك-ن — the same root as sakīna. The semantic field recorded in al-Fatḥ at 48/4 (maskan: shelter; sakīna: stillness) is at work here too.

The sentence sets up a comparison and does not state one of its sides: greater than what?

I record this as an observation about the structure: akbar is an elative, and the term of comparison has been elided. What is understood from the context is the gardens and dwellings just enumerated. After all the enumerated things have been named, that is, one further thing is named and called "greater".

The root غ-ل-ظ: thickness, coarseness; the opposite of fineness and softness. Ghilẓa — firmness.

The same root will occur again in verse 123 of the sūra: wa'l-yajidū fīkum ghilẓa. The two occurrences will be compared at 123.

A note per the method (Method): no present-day attitude and no political conclusion is drawn from this verse. And the one addressed by the word is plain in the verse: singular, the envoy.

The sentence must be recorded, and it is a pattern that occurs in several places in the Qurʾān.

The root ن-ق-م: to find a thing ugly and be angry at it, to take revenge for it.

The structure of the sentence: wa mā naqamū illā — a negation plus an exception, that is, restriction (qaṣr). "The only cause of their anger is…"

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is this structure of restriction: the verse sets down as the cause of the anger something unexpected — not an injury but a benefit. This is the function of the pattern: the sentence puts, in the place of what would count as a ground, something that cannot count as one.

Wa minhum man ʿāhada'llāha la-in ātānā min faḍlihī la-naṣṣaddaqanna wa la-nakūnanna mina'l-ṣāliḥīn · Fa-lammā ātāhum min faḍlihī bakhilū bihī wa tawallaw wa hum muʿriḍūn · Fa-aʿqabahum nifāqan fī qulūbihim ilā yawmi yalqawnahū bimā akhlafu'llāha mā waʿadūhu wa bimā kānū yakdhibūn · A-lam yaʿlamū anna'llāha yaʿlamu sirrahum wa najwāhum wa anna'llāha ʿallāmu'l-ghuyūb

"And among them is one who made a covenant with God: 'If He gives us of His bounty, we shall certainly give in alms and shall certainly be among the righteous.' · Then when He gave them of His bounty they were miserly with it and turned away, averse. · So He fixed hypocrisy in their hearts until the day they meet Him, because they broke with God what they had promised Him, and because they were lying. · Did they not know that God knows their secret and their whispering, and that God is the knower of all that is hidden?"

The promise is reinforced with two lāms and two nūns: la-naṣṣaddaqanna wa la-nakūnanna. In Arabic this (the lām of emphasis plus the nūn of emphasis) is the strongest reinforcement an oath can have.

I record this as an observation of grammar: the word is given in the most definite form language can give it. And it is not kept. The verse, that is, shows by the sentence itself that reinforcement is no guarantee.

The root ع-ق-ب: the heel; to come after a thing. Aʿqaba — it left a consequence behind it.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verb itself: hypocrisy is set down here not as a beginning but as a consequence. The order is this: the word was given → it was not kept → hypocrisy took root.

This coincides with the order treated in al-Munāfiqūn at 63/3: bi-annahum āmanū thumma kafarū fa-ṭubiʿa ʿalā qulūbihim — there too the sealing of the heart came after an act. I rely on that treatment.

The sense of the root: the back, being behind; and ikhlāf — not standing behind one's word, not keeping a promise given.

The root was treated in detail in al-Fatḥ by way of mukhallafūn, and it will recur with various derivatives in verses 81, 83, 87, 118 and 120 of this sūra. The distribution of the root within the sūra will be given all together at verse 118.

Alladhīna yalmizūna'l-muṭṭawwiʿīna mina'l-muʾminīna fi'l-ṣadaqāti wa'lladhīna lā yajidūna illā juhdahum fa-yaskharūna minhum; sakhira'llāhu minhum wa lahum ʿadhābun alīm · Istaghfir lahum aw lā tastaghfir lahum; in tastaghfir lahum sabʿīna marratan fa-lan yaghfira'llāhu lahum; dhālika bi-annahum kafarū bi'llāhi wa rasūlih; wa'llāhu lā yahdi'l-qawma'l-fāsiqīn

"Those who find fault, over the alms, with the believers who give freely, and with those who find nothing to give but their utmost, and who mock them… · Ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, God will not forgive them."

The verse enumerates separately the two sections that are made the object of the mockery:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two groups are enumerated side by side: the mockery strikes at once the people at both ends — the one who gives much and the one who can give little. The measure of the mockery, that is, is not the amount; it is the position of the one who mocks.

The root ط-و-ع: to submit readily, to do willingly. Taṭawwuʿ — what is done freely, over and above what is obligatory. The word was treated in al-Baqara at 2/158 and 2/184.

The root ج-ه-د: strength, capacity, being strained. The root was analysed in detail in Muḥammad, and it was recorded there: "Juhd is a person's coming up against the last limit of his strength." I rely on that treatment.

Lā yajidūna illā juhdahum — "those who find nothing but their utmost." What is given, that is, is the person's last limit.

The function of the number has been debated in the classical commentaries:

It is reported that the majority incline to A; I impose no preference.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: istaghfir lahum aw lā tastaghfir lahum — both options are given and the outcome is the same. Almost the same sentence was treated in al-Munāfiqūn at 63/6 (sawāʾun ʿalayhim astaghfarta lahum am lam tastaghfir lahum). I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here.

The difference here must be recorded: in al-Munāfiqūn the sentence was built with sawāʾun (it is equal); in al-Tawba a number is added. I give this as my own reading: the number added shows the equality across a distance — repetition does not change the outcome.

Fariḥa'l-mukhallafūna bi-maqʿadihim khilāfa rasūli'llāhi wa karihū an yujāhidū bi-amwālihim wa anfusihim fī sabīli'llāhi wa qālū lā tanfirū fi'l-ḥarr; qul nāru jahannama ashaddu ḥarrā; law kānū yafqahūn · Fa'l-yaḍḥakū qalīlan wa'l-yabkū kathīran jazāʾan bimā kānū yaksibūn · Fa-in rajaʿaka'llāhu ilā ṭāʾifatin minhum fa'staʾdhanūka li'l-khurūji fa-qul lan takhrujū maʿiya abadan wa lan tuqātilū maʿiya ʿaduwwā

"Those left behind rejoiced at their sitting still, in opposition to the Messenger of God; they were unwilling to strive with their wealth and their lives in the way of God, and they said, 'Do not go out in the heat.' Say: the fire of Gehenna is hotter — if only they understood. · Let them laugh a little and weep much: as a recompense for what they have been earning. · And if God brings you back to a section of them and they ask your leave to go out, say: you will never go out with me, and you will never fight an enemy alongside me."

The word is a passive participle: those left behind, not "those who stayed behind".

This word was treated in detail in al-Fatḥ, and the opposition between mukhallaf and mustakhlaf was recorded there. I rely on that treatment.

And the point here must be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: the word is passive — "they were left." But the continuation of the verse gives them the verbs: fariḥa (they rejoiced), karihū (they were unwilling), qālū (they said). The verse, that is, names them with a passive noun and loads active verbs upon them. This tension between the naming and the verbs shows how the excuse is built.

The words spoken must be recorded: not an excuse but a summons.

I record this as an observation: the sentence is in the imperative and is directed at others. The matter, that is, is not an individual holding back but a summons that spreads.

And the construction of the answer must be recorded: qul nāru jahannama ashaddu ḥarrā. The answer is given in the objector's own word: ḥarr (heat). The same word, twice in the same sentence.

I record this as my own reading: the answer does not reject the excuse — it changes its scale. The heat really is hot; the comparison is made with another heat.

Two verbs in the imperative, two opposite adverbs.

And this is not a command like the amr al-taswiya of verse 53; it is what the lexicographers call khabar maʿna'l-amr: a statement given in the form of a command. I convey the explanation, not in a language of certainty.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the sentence crosses two verbs with two quantities — laughing little, weeping much. And it is grounded with jazāʾan bimā kānū yaksibūn: a recompense.

Wa lā tuṣalli ʿalā aḥadin minhum māta abadan wa lā taqum ʿalā qabrih; innahum kafarū bi'llāhi wa rasūlihī wa mātū wa hum fāsiqūn · Wa lā tuʿjibka amwāluhum wa awlāduhum; innamā yurīdu'llāhu an yuʿadhdhibahum bihā fi'l-dunyā wa tazhaqa anfusuhum wa hum kāfirūn

"And never pray over any of them who dies, and do not stand at his grave. For they rejected God and His Messenger, and died having gone out of the way. · Let their wealth and their children not draw your admiration…"

What is to be recorded per the method (Method) is this: the ground of the verse is given openly, and it is not an identity but a state: innahum kafarū … wa mātū wa hum fāsiqūn — the state at the moment of death.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the clause of grounds: the ruling is tied not to a group but to persons who died in a determinate state. And no general ruling is drawn from this in this commentary. No legal ruling is issued.

And two verbs must be recorded: lā tuṣalli (do not pray) and lā taqum ʿalā qabrih (do not stand at his grave). Both are verbs of participation.