Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon): Verse 19

Issues Discussed Herein:

Q: Why does the Almighty say here, {فَكَيْفَ كَانَ عَذَابِي} (So how [terrible] was My punishment?) using the singular pronoun for punishment (My punishment), whereas in other places He says {فَتَحْنَا أَبْوَابَ السَّمَاءِ} (We opened the gates of the heaven) using the plural pronoun (We)?

A: The answer is what we previously mentioned concerning the verse: {فَتَحْنَا أَبْوَابَ السَّمَاءِ} (Al-Qamar: 11). (This refers to the established principle that the plural pronoun 'We' is used to denote the majesty and greatness of the Divine essence, while the singular pronoun 'My' refers to the specific action or attribute belonging directly to God.)

There are several interpretations regarding the word الصرصر (aṣ-ṣarṣar):

1. Intense Sound: It means a wind of intense sound, derived from ṣarīr (creaking/whistling) and ṣarra (intense screaming/crying).
2. Constant Blowing: It means a wind that blows continuously, derived from aṣarra ‘alā al-shay’ (to persist or remain steadfast in a matter).

A Discussion on Derived Nouns and Noun Types:

There is a subtle point here regarding derived nouns (adjectives) versus nouns of genus (substances or concepts). Generally, derived nouns are suitable for description, whereas nouns of genus are not.

• We do not say: "A man, a person, has come" (إنسان رجل جاء), nor do we say: "A color, white" (لون أبيض). Instead, we say: "A learned person" (إنسان عالم) or "A white body" (جسم أبيض).
• When we say "white," it means "a thing possessing whiteness." The substance (the body) is not inherently included in the meaning of the adjective itself. This is clearer when we say "a learned person" (‘ālim); it means "a thing possessing knowledge" (shay’ lahu ‘ilm). Even a blacksmith or a baker could be described as having knowledge, and if knowledge could exist independently of them, they would be considered ‘ālim. The living being (ḥayy) is not conceptually included in the meaning of ‘ālim; rather, the word is established for "a thing that knows." This is further clarified by the term ma‘lūm (known), which is "a thing that is known" or "a matter that is known," even if it is not a physical thing.
• If the body were included in the meaning of "white," then saying "a white body" (jism abyaḍ) would be redundant, like saying "a body possessing whiteness" (jism lahu biyāḍ), implying description by the substance itself.

The Problem of Specificity in Genus Nouns:

If this rule holds, how do we account for terms derived from a genus that specify something within that genus?

• For example, الهندي (al-Hindī) applies to anyone attributed to India. However, المهند (al-muhannad) specifically refers to a sword attributed to India. Thus, one can say "an Indian slave" (‘abd hindī) or "Indian dates" (tamr hindī), but not "a muhannad slave."
• Similarly, الأبلق (al-ablaq - piebald/mottled) describes a color on a horse, but one does not call a garment ablag.
• Likewise, الأفطس (al-afṭas - snub-nosed) describes a nose with a concavity. If someone says, "a snub-nosed nose" (anf afṭas), it is as if they said, "a nose with snub-nosedness," describing the substance itself.

If this is the case, why do people say "a piebald horse" (faras ablaq), "a snub-nosed nose" (anf afṭas), or "a muhannad sword"?

The Resolution:

This question also applies to الصرصر (aṣ-ṣarṣar), which means the cold wind. If one says "a ṣarṣar wind" (rīḥ ṣarṣar), it is not like saying "a cold wind" (rīḥ bāridah), because ṣarṣar is the cold wind itself. It seems to mean "a cold wind," which implies describing the substance.

We respond by categorizing words whose meanings contain two or more components (like ‘ālim, which implies a shay’ [thing] and ‘ilm [knowledge]):

1. The Attribute is Primary (The Subject is Secondary): As in ‘ālim, ḍārib (striker), or abyaḍ (white). The primary intent is the knowledge, the striking, or the whiteness itself. The subject (the knower, the striker, the body) is intended only insofar as it is the general substrate. If the substrate (e.g., the color black instead of white) could be substituted without losing the core purpose, the substrate is secondary.
2. The Subject is Primary: As in الحيوان (al-ḥayawān - animal). This is a genus name for a thing possessing life, unlike الحي (al-ḥayy - living), which is a name for a thing possessing life. Here, the primary intent is the substance (the body/entity). If a living thing existed that was not a body, the purpose of saying ḥayawān would not be met. If the word ḥayawān were applied to a standing horse or a sleeping human (who is dead), the listener would not benefit, and the speaker's intent would fail. If someone says of a standing, dead person, "This is an animal," and then it is revealed he is dead, the speaker would retract, saying, "I did not say he was living (ḥayy), but I said he was an animal (ḥayawān); he is an animal from whom life has departed."
3. Both are Intended: As in رجل (man), امرأة (woman), ناقة (she-camel), and جمل (male camel). Rājul means a male human; imra’ah means a female human; nāqah means a female camel; jamal means a male camel. If nāqah were applied to a horse or an ox, the purpose would be lost, as would it be if it turned out to be a male camel.

Conclusion for Adjectives:

In any case where the subject (the substrate) is intended—either alone or along with the attribute—it cannot be used as a mere adjective. We do not say "an animal body" (jism ḥayawān) or "a she-camel camel" (ba‘īr nāqah). Instead, this is expressed through a full sentence: "The body is an animal" or "The camel is a she-camel."

Regarding al-ablag, al-afṭas, and al-muhannad, the attribute (the color, the nose shape, the sword quality) is clearly the primary focus, as al-muhannad is only mentioned to praise the sword, al-afṭas only describes the nose, and al-ablag describes the horse's color. This differs from ḥayawān or nāqah, where the substance is essential.

Therefore, since الصرصر (aṣ-ṣarṣar) refers either to the intensity of the wind or its coldness, it must be treated like "cold" or "intense." Thus, describing the wind with it is permissible. (This is a subtle and valuable discussion.)

Q: Here, the Almighty says: {إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا} (We sent against them a furious wind) – using the indefinite form (rīḥan). But in Surah Adh-Dhariyat, He says: {وَفِي عَادٍ إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الرِّيحَ الْعَقِيمَ} (And in [the story of] ‘Ad, when We sent against them the barren wind) – using the definite form (ar-rīḥa).

A: The wind is definite in the story of ‘Ad because the barren wind (al-‘aqīm) is more apparent in its destructive nature than the coldness that harms plants or the intensity that uproots trees.

• The barren wind is one that produces no clouds and fertilizes no trees; this type of wind is common (kathīrat al-wuqū‘).
• However, the destructive, cold wind (the ṣarṣar) is rare (qalīlat al-wujūd).

Therefore, in the story of ‘Ad, He said: الرِّيحَ الْعَقِيمَ (The barren wind), meaning this known genus. He further clarified it by saying: {مَا تَذَرُ مِن شَيْءٍ أَتَتْ عَلَيْهِ إِلَّا جَعَلَتْهُ كَالرَّمِيمِ} (That leaves nothing it comes upon except that it turns it into dust/decayed matter) (Adh-Dhariyat: 42), distinguishing it from other barren winds.

As for the صرصر (ṣarṣar), since it is rare, it is not well-known, so He used the indefinite form.

Q: Here, He says: {فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ مُّسْتَمِرٍّ} (in a continuous day of misfortune). But in Surah Fussilat, He says: {فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ} (in days of misfortune) (Fussilat: 16), and in Al-Haqqah: {سَبْعَ لَيَالٍ وَثَمَانِيَةَ أَيَّامٍ حُسُومًا} (seven nights and eight days of ill omen) (Al-Haqqah: 7).

A: The meaning of اليوم (al-yawm) here refers to time or duration, just as in His saying: {يَوْمَ وُلِدتُ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّا} (The day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am raised alive) (Maryam: 33).

The word مُّسْتَمِرٍّ (mustamirr - continuous) conveys the same meaning as أَيَّام (ayyām - days), as continuity implies the passing of time, just as the plural form does. The difference in wording occurs because the narration here is summarized (‘alā sabīl al-ikhtiṣār); thus, the time is mentioned without specifying its measure, and therefore it is not described further.

Regarding the Recitations:

There are two readings for {يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ}:

1. Addition (Idāfah): Yawmi Naḥsin (Day of Misfortune), with Naḥsin in the genitive case, with the sukun on the final letter (like nafs).
2. Adjective (Na‘t): Yawmi Naḥsin (A Misfortunate Day), with the tanwīn on the mīm and a kasrah on the ḥā’, describing the day as unfortunate, similar to {فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ}.

Which is sounder?

The addition (idāfah) is sounder.

• For the first reading (Yawmi Naḥsin Mustamirr), Mustamirr is an adjective describing the Yawm (Day).
• For the second reading (Yawmi Naḥsin Mustamirr), Mustamirr describes Naḥs (Misfortune), resulting in the "continuity of misfortune." The first reading is clearer and more appropriate.

If someone reads with the sukun on the ḥā’ (Naḥsin), what is the status of Naḥs?

• Possibility 1: It is a phonetic shortening of Naḥis (misfortunate), similar to the shortening of fakhdh to fakhdh in non-adjectival contexts (e.g., naṣr and naṣr, ra‘d and ra‘d). In this case, the meaning would be: "A day that is a misfortune," similar to {بِجَانِبِ الْغُرْبِيِّ} (on the Western side) (Al-Qasas: 44).
• Possibility 2: Naḥs is not an adjective but a noun denoting a concept or a verbal noun (masdar), similar to saying "a day of cold and heat" (yawm bard wa ḥarr). This second possibility is closer and sounder.

Q: What is the meaning of {مُّسْتَمِرٍّ} (mustamirr)?

A: There are two interpretations:

1. Extended and Lasting: It means extended and fixed for a long duration, derived from istamarra al-amr (the matter persisted). This aligns with {فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ} (Fussilat: 16), as the plural form implies continuity and extension, and also with {حُسُومًا} (Al-Haqqah: 7).
2. Intense/Severe: It means severe, as we previously discussed concerning {سِحْرٌ مُّسْتَمِرٌّ} (a continuous magic) (Al-Qamar: 2). This aligns with the saying "days of severe hardship." This is hinted at by the verse in Fussilat: {فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ لِّنُذِيقَهُمُ الْعَذَابَ} (in days of misfortune, that We may make them taste the disgrace of punishment) (Fussilat: 16), implying that He makes them taste the bitter, harmful aspect of the punishment.

Verse 20