طه · الآية 104

Commentary

Read the order first. The sentence states the knowledge of what they say before it reports what they say. "When he says" comes after the ruling, so the reader hears the weighing before he sees the thing weighed. And the pronoun is detached and put in front, and the word for knowing is a comparative. The attribution is strengthened twice over: once by fronting the pronoun, once by the form of the adjective.

Their speech, one line earlier, was fenced in "among themselves" and sunk to the least that can be heard. So the most hidden thing that circulated is the very thing declared known. Being enclosed inside a circle hides nothing from what stands outside it. And speech, at the root q-w-l, is a thing detaching from its source while a thread stays that binds it back. The word leaves the chest and never leaves its speaker. Which is why lowering the voice avails nothing: the thread is not cut by a drop in loudness.

Then the speaker is described. Amthaluhum is a comparative from m-th-l, and a mithāl is the pattern that is followed and measured against. So he is the one nearest to the pattern. And "in his way" is the accusative that specifies the direction of the comparison. The root ṭ-r-q is a heavy fall that spreads and is then cut off, whence the striking of iron with a hammer, and ṭarīq, ground trodden by feet until it flattened and showed. So a ṭarīqa is the shape of a path worn down by walking. The man described is thus the one whose walked path comes nearest the pattern, and the verse grants him that description and does not take it back. Notice two comparatives in one line, one above them and one among them, and between the two comparatives the saying falls.

The sentence he speaks is the sentence of the line before it, word for word: a negating particle, an excepting particle, a past verb addressed to "you." Nothing changed but the final word. There it was "ten," here it is "a day." The difference is plain to the eye: first a number whose counted unit is dropped, then a unit with no number beside it. The first gathers unnamed singles; the second is one unit with nothing gathered at all.

And the two statements cannot stand together. One denies anything beyond ten, the other denies anything beyond one, and both are cast as restrictions, not as guesses. Here is where to stop: the second is the saying of the one closest to the pattern, and it is the tighter of the two estimates. The more exact the reckoning grew, the further its owner moved from what is known only from above. And notice what the verse does not do. It corrects no number and puts no number in the place of the one corrected. It says only that the knowing is elsewhere. Their knowledge is denied, and no figure is handed over in exchange.

The best of them by their own measure speaks the most precise figure, and it is the one furthest off. The line refuses to answer with a number; it moves the knowing instead.

Two Readings

The two readings do not conflict. The first joins the estimates and prefers one; the second reads the order of the ruling, the two comparatives, the identity of the two frames, and the change in the final word. This book chooses the additional listening.