Al-Qamar (The Moon): (24) They said, "A mere mortal from among us..."

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {...then they said, "Shall we follow a mere mortal from among us?"} (Qur'an 54:24), there are several issues:

Issue 1: Grammatical Choice (Nominative vs. Accusative)

Both "Zaidan darabtuhu" (Did you strike Zayd?) and "Zaydun darabtuhu" (Did Zayd get struck by you?) are permissible. However, the accusative case ( منصوب - mansub) is preferred in contexts where the word following the interrogative particle (hamzat al-istifhām) can take either accusative or nominative case.

Reason for preferring the Accusative: The questioner seeks to have the respondent establish the mentioned entity as the subject of their statement and report on its condition. If one says, "Is Zayd with you?" (A-Zaydun 'indaka?), the meaning is: "Inform me about Zayd and mention his state." When a verb is subsequently mentioned, the accusative case becomes more likely: "Did you strike Zayd?" (A-Zaydan darabtuhu?). Although not obligatory, this is better.

Addressing the Recitation: If someone recites the verse as: {Shall we follow a mere mortal from among us?} (implying the verb natba'u governs basharan in the accusative), why did they abandon the preferred structure?

Answer: This is due to the preceding phrase, {They said...} (faqālū). What follows speech must generally be a complete sentence (jumla), and the nominal sentence structure (al-jumla al-ismiyya) is stronger and more apparent in this context.

Issue 2: The Wisdom Behind Delaying the Verb

If basharan (a mere mortal) is in the accusative case, governed by an implied verb (like natba'u), what is the wisdom in the apparent delay of that verb?

We have previously stated that the eloquent speaker prioritizes what is most relevant to the goal of the discourse. They intended to establish the justification for refusing to follow the messenger. If they had said, "Shall we follow a mere mortal?" (Anattabi'u basharan?), it could be answered, "Yes, follow him! What prevents you?"

By presenting his condition first—stating he is of our kind, a human being, not unique, lacking armies, retinue, cavalry, or servants—they presented the very reason justifying their refusal to follow.

Insights in the Verse: This verse contains several subtle indications supporting their position:

1. Indefiniteness: They used the indefinite form {a mere mortal} (basharan) rather than specifying him (e.g., "Shall we follow Salih, or the man claiming prophethood?"). Indefiniteness implies contempt.
2. "Mere Mortal": They said basharan (a mere mortal/flesh-and-blood human) rather than rajulan (a man).
3. "From Among Us" (Minna): This carries two implications:
   • He is not a stranger; he belongs to our species.
   • It implies "following us" (as in, "You are one of us"). If someone says this to another, the listener might be offended and retort, "No, you are one of us, and I am not one of you." The deeper meaning is that min here denotes partiality (tab'īd); the part follows the whole, not the whole following the part.
4. "One" (Wāḥidan): This also has two implications:
   • He is singular and weak (waḥīdan).
   • He is one of the common individuals (āḥād) and not one of the famous, great figures (akābir). The term āḥād is often used for the lowly, those without recognized lineage or fame. If such a person reports something, others cannot say, "So-and-so said," but must say, "A certain person said." This signifies extreme obscurity, as no one associates with the base, leaving them alone (wāḥid) most of the time. Thus, āḥād refers to the lowest class.

Regarding Their Statement: {Indeed, if we did so, we would be in manifest error and madness} (Qur'an 54:25)

This statement can be interpreted in two ways:

1. As a Direct Rebuttal: It is a response to someone who told them, "If you do not follow him, you will be in error." They reply, "No, rather, if we do follow him, we will be in error."
2. As a Consequence of the Preceding State: It follows logically from their description of him (weakness and singularity). If we follow him, given his state, we will be in error and si'r (madness/fury).

If we take the first interpretation (rebuttal), the speaker might have told them: "If you do not follow him, you are in error now and will be in the Fire later." They respond: "No, if we follow him, we are in error now, and in si'r (metaphorically, servitude and humiliation), because they did not acknowledge the literal Hellfire at that stage."

Issue 3: The Plurality of Si'r (Fire/Blaze)

How is al-si'r (singular) used when referring to the Fire of the Hereafter, which is singular?

There are several answers:

1. Levels of Hell: Hellfire (Jahannam) has different levels (darakāt). Perhaps each level is considered a si'r, or each contains a si'r.
2. Continuity of Torment: It refers to the perpetuity of the punishment. Every time their skins are roasted, they are replaced with new ones, as if they are in a new si'r and a new torment at every moment.
3. Vastness of the Single Fire: It refers to the immensity of the single Fire. Just as one might say of a single man, "That person is not one man, but many men," referring to his magnitude, the Fire is so vast it is described in the plural.

Then the Almighty said concerning them: {Did the Reminder (the revelation) fall upon him exclusively from among us? Nay, he is an arrogant liar!} (Qur'an 54:27)