Supplementary Practice 21: Comparative Rhetorical Study of Sūrat Quraysh and al-Māʿūn

1. Central question: how is meaning organized?

Sūrat Quraysh presents security and provision as the setting for a command to worship. Sūrat al-Māʿūn condemns conduct associated with denial of accountability and warns against merely outward religiosity. The point is not to attach rhetorical labels to words, but to see the task each clause performs within its context.

The guiding categories are declaration and command, separation and coordination, definiteness and indefiniteness, concision and amplification, always under the requirements of the situation. An analysis must be supported by the expression, its immediate syntactic relations, and the wider passage.

2. Sūrat Quraysh: the four-verse passage

لِإِيلَافِ قُرَيْشٍ
In view of Quraysh’s accustomed security and association. (106:1)
إِيلَافِهِمْ رِحْلَةَ الشِّتَاءِ وَالصَّيْفِ
Their accustomed winter and summer journeys. (106:2)
فَلْيَعْبُدُوا رَبَّ هَٰذَا الْبَيْتِ
So let them worship the Lord of this House. (106:3)
الَّذِي أَطْعَمَهُم مِّن جُوعٍ وَآمَنَهُم مِّنْ خَوْفٍ
Who fed them against hunger and gave them security against fear. (106:4)

The opening recalls a favor, the third verse demands a fitting response, and the final verse identifies the Lord through beneficent acts. The four verses form a coherent progression.

3. The attachment of li-īlāf: legitimate syntactic alternatives

لِإِيلَافِ قُرَيْشٍ
Because of, or in view of, Quraysh’s accustomed security. (106:1)

One well-known syntactic analysis attaches the initial lām to fal-yaʿbudū: the favor supplies the motive for worship. Other analyses consider an implied governing expression or a relation to the preceding context. The conspicuous rhetorical connection is the movement from favor to grateful response.

The initial lām does not by itself establish a single indisputable ellipsis. Distinguish the passage’s clear communicative purpose from the particular syntactic reconstruction adopted by an interpreter.

4. Repetition of īlāf and specification of the journeys

لِإِيلَافِ قُرَيْشٍ إِيلَافِهِمْ رِحْلَةَ الشِّتَاءِ وَالصَّيْفِ
For Quraysh’s accustomed security—their accustomed winter and summer journeys. (106:1–2)

The repeated īlāf is not pointless redundancy. Quraysh is named, then referred to by -him, and the actual travel cycle is specified. The second phrase may be analyzed as an explanatory substitute for the first.

Repetition restores attention and narrows a general favor to identifiable journeys. In one familiar grammatical treatment, the accusative riḥlata relates to the preceding verbal noun; it is not automatically an adverb of time.

5. Winter and summer: a coherent paired contrast

رِحْلَةَ الشِّتَاءِ وَالصَّيْفِ
The journeys of winter and summer. (106:2)

Winter and summer are contrasting seasons. The wāw coordinates them as parts of one recognized pattern of travel. There is therefore an intelligible jāmiʿ: both are seasons specifying the same activity.

This does not mean that every contrast functions identically. Here the seasonal relation, shared syntactic dependence and economic context jointly make coordination apt.

6. Fal-yaʿbudū: movement from recalled favor to command

فَلْيَعْبُدُوا رَبَّ هَٰذَا الْبَيْتِ
So let them worship the Lord of this House. (106:3)

The fāʾ links the preceding favor to the ensuing response. Lām al-amr with the imperfect makes fal-yaʿbudū a command, not merely a statement about future behavior. A recollection of benefit becomes a demand for grateful action.

The prior verses explain the rhetorical force of the command: it is presented as the fitting consequence of the blessings recalled, not an unrelated new assertion.

7. Rabba hādhā l-bayt: identification through deixis

رَبَّ هَٰذَا الْبَيْتِ
The Lord of this House. (106:3)

Rabba is the object of yaʿbudū. The demonstrative hādhā points to a particular House already significant to the audience. The possessive relation identifies the one who is to be worshipped in terms immediately intelligible to Quraysh.

The rhetorical force is not merely the dictionary meaning of “this.” It arises from demonstrative reference together with the audience’s recognition of the House and its sanctity.

8. Alladhī aṭʿamahum: a relative clause supporting the command

الَّذِي أَطْعَمَهُم مِّن جُوعٍ
Who fed them against hunger. (106:4)

The relative expression alladhī describes or further identifies the previously mentioned Lord. Its relative clause recalls a beneficent act, giving the command a readily grasped rationale: the giver of sustenance deserves worship.

A causal rhetorical effect need not always be expressed by an overt causal particle. The syntax may be adjectival while the discourse effect is explanatory or justificatory.

9. Min jūʿ and min khawf: paired forms of relief

أَطْعَمَهُم مِّن جُوعٍ وَآمَنَهُم مِّنْ خَوْفٍ
He fed them against hunger and secured them against fear. (106:4)

The two clauses have a parallel pattern: verb + object pronoun + min + noun. One concerns provision, the other safety. The indefinite nouns jūʿ and khawf evoke the open-ended experiences of need and danger.

Min is understood in this context with relief or protection from the named condition. These are coordinated but distinct benefits, not two synonymous descriptions of a single act.

10. Wa-āmanahum: coordination of distinct favors

أَطْعَمَهُم مِّن جُوعٍ وَآمَنَهُم مِّنْ خَوْفٍ
He provided food and granted them safety from fear. (106:4)

The wāw in wa-āmanahum coordinates two past-tense verbs sharing the same agent and object pronoun. Their syntax and meanings jointly support waṣl. A second essential benefit is added to the first.

In context, āmana-hum means “gave them security,” not merely “believed.” The two favors reinforce the basis on which the preceding command has been presented.

11. Coherence within Quraysh and its relation to al-Fīl

The observable internal progression is:
secure journeys → command to worship → identification of the Lord by provision and protection. This sequence is clear without requiring any single disputed reconstruction of the opening lām.

The placement after Sūrat al-Fīl also permits a thematic association: protection of the House is followed by the security enjoyed by its people. Thematic coherence must not be confused with a claim that every syntactic detail of two independent surahs forms one obligatory construction.

Start analysis with the established within-surah relations; then identify possible connections across the surahs on a distinct interpretive level.

12. Sūrat al-Māʿūn: the seven-verse passage

أَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِي يُكَذِّبُ بِالدِّينِ
Have you considered the one who denies the Judgment? (107:1)
فَذَٰلِكَ الَّذِي يَدُعُّ الْيَتِيمَ
That is the one who repulses the orphan. (107:2)
وَلَا يَحُضُّ عَلَىٰ طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ
And does not encourage feeding the poor. (107:3)
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُصَلِّينَ
So woe to those who pray— (107:4)
الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَن صَلَاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ
those who are heedless of their prayers, (107:5)
الَّذِينَ هُمْ يُرَاءُونَ
those who make a show, (107:6)
وَيَمْنَعُونَ الْمَاعُونَ
and withhold ordinary help. (107:7)

The warning in verse 4 must be read with its qualifying descriptions in verses 5–7, not generalized to everyone who prays.

13. Araʾayta: a question inviting recognition

أَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِي يُكَذِّبُ بِالدِّينِ
Have you considered the one who denies the Judgment? (107:1)

The interrogative form does not primarily seek unknown information. It directs the hearer to recognize and examine a recognizable moral type. The continuation of the passage clarifies the rhetorical function of the opening question.

Raʾayta need not be restricted to literal eyesight; intellectual recognition fits the idiom. Its central force here is attention and admonition; surprise or reproach can be secondary effects.

14. Alladhī yukadhdhibu bi-l-dīn: identification by conduct

الَّذِي يُكَذِّبُ بِالدِّينِ
The one who rejects the reckoning and recompense. (107:1)

Alladhī is a relative noun; yukadhdhibu bi-l-dīn forms its relative clause. The condemned person is presented by the defining action of denial rather than by a personal name. This makes the description applicable to a recognizable pattern of conduct.

Dīn here is understood as judgment and recompense. Reading it without reference to the subsequent verses would obscure the connection with the acts of neglect and cruelty that follow.

15. Fa-dhālika: identification after the opening question

فَذَٰلِكَ الَّذِي يَدُعُّ الْيَتِيمَ
That is the one who harshly pushes away the orphan. (107:2)

The fāʾ moves from the question to a demonstrative identification. Dhālika points to the type under discussion, while the relative clause names a concrete manifestation of the condemned disposition. The second clause does more than paraphrase denial; it connects belief to conduct.

The verb yaduʿʿu conveys harsh repulsion, sharper than simple non-assistance. Its lexical force helps explain the severity of the criticism.

16. Wa-lā yaḥuḍḍu: coordination expands the criticism

وَلَا يَحُضُّ عَلَىٰ طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ
And does not even encourage feeding a needy person. (107:3)

Wāw adds a second reprehensible behavior to the first; lā negates the imperfect verb. One clause depicts harsh treatment of an orphan, the other the failure to encourage relief for the poor. Coordination presents related yet distinct faults.

The wording does not merely say that the person personally fails to feed someone. Yaḥuḍḍu concerns urging or encouraging others, a more specific action that the rhetorical explanation must preserve.

17. Fa-waylun li-l-muṣallīn: the scope of a warning

فَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُصَلِّينَ
So woe to those who pray— (107:4)
الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَن صَلَاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ
those who are heedless of their prayers. (107:5)

Read alone, verse 4 could be mistaken for an undifferentiated condemnation of all worshippers. Verse 5 qualifies the class under warning. The condemnation falls on those described by negligence, not on everyone who performs prayer.

The sharp opening creates concern, while the dependent description completes the intended scope. Verse division must not be confused with the end of a semantic unit.

18. ʿAn ṣalātihim: why the preposition matters

الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَن صَلَاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ
those who are heedless of their prayers. (107:5)

Hum is the subject of the nominal construction and sāhūn its predicate; ʿan ṣalātihim is a prepositional expression associated with the predicate and placed before it. The preposition ʿan directs the description to heedlessness concerning prayer, not automatically to a passing distraction occurring within prayer.

The fronted complement makes the neglected duty salient. Syntax, preposition, and context must be considered together.

19. Alladhīna hum yurāʾūn: another defining fault

الَّذِينَ هُمْ يُرَاءُونَ
those who act for display. (107:6)

Repeating alladhīna introduces another attribute of the condemned group. Hum is the nominal subject and the verbal clause yurāʾūn functions as its predicate. The construction foregrounds both the people and their characteristic action.

The verse condemns showing off in worship. Merely doing good in public does not in itself prove an insincere intention; the rhetorical description is not a license to infer a specific person’s hidden motives without evidence.

20. Wa-yamnaʿūna l-māʿūn: withholding ordinary help

وَيَمْنَعُونَ الْمَاعُونَ
and withhold ordinary useful aid. (107:7)

Wāw coordinates another fault. Yamnaʿūna is an imperfect verb and al-māʿūn its object. Exegetical explanations of al-māʿūn include common useful items and ordinary aid, with variation in examples; a single narrow referent should not be imposed as the only possible meaning.

The conclusion links ostentatious religiosity with refusal of practical help. The passage thus contrasts outward acts with the neglect of obligations toward others.

21. Faʾ, wāw and relative clauses in al-Māʿūn

ExpressionMain discourse function
فَذَٰلِكَIdentification following the question
وَلَا يَحُضُّCoordination of a second condemned trait
فَوَيْلٌTransition to warning
الَّذِينَ هُمْ...Qualification of the group under warning
وَيَمْنَعُونَAddition of a further practical fault

Not every fāʾ has one identical grammatical role, and not every wāw joins two major independent propositions. Analysis requires identifying the level of coordination and the question–answer progression.

22. From interrogation to identification and warning

The rhetorical progression is:
araʾayta → fa-dhālika → wa-lā yaḥuḍḍu → fa-waylun → alladhīna...

The question draws attention; identification follows through conduct; a second fault is added; then a warning is pronounced and qualified. This is a staged disclosure, not a set of detached moral statements.

Disconnecting verse 4 from verses 5–7 risks erasing the restriction that identifies the target of the warning. A powerful opening and accurate scope must be read together.

23. Two surahs compared: response to favor and proof in conduct

FeatureQurayshAl-Māʿūn
OpeningRecall of favorsAttention by interrogation
Main formFal-yaʿbudū: commandFa-dhālika: identification; fa-waylun: warning
Practical concernWorship in gratitudeNeglect of others and ostentation condemned
LinksFāʾ, relative clause, parallel reportsFāʾ, wāw, qualifying relatives

Thematic comparison does not turn the two surahs into one syntactic pattern. Their related moral concerns expressed through distinct rhetorical means are the relevant point.

24. Definiteness and restriction: hādhā l-bayt and alladhīna hum

رَبَّ هَٰذَا الْبَيْتِ
The Lord of this particular House. (106:3)
الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَن صَلَاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ
Those who are heedless of their prayers. (107:5)

Both expressions specify, but by different means. Quraysh uses a demonstrative to invoke a recognized House, whereas al-Māʿūn uses a relative description to restrict the class under warning. Definiteness alone is not a sufficient rhetorical explanation.

The first identifies the Lord through a familiar place; the second prevents the expression al-muṣallīn from being read without its defining description.

25. Final application: wording, grammar, and context together

فَلْيَعْبُدُوا رَبَّ هَٰذَا الْبَيْتِ
So let them worship the Lord of this House. (106:3)
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُصَلِّينَ الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَن صَلَاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ
So woe to worshippers who are heedless of their prayer. (107:4–5)

In the first passage a command follows recalled blessings; in the second a warning receives its precise scope from a later qualifier. An adequate analysis must do more than merely note the presence of fāʾ: it must explain what the connective relation accomplishes in each passage.

Method of judgment: preserve the exact wording, identify syntax correctly, ground the rhetorical purpose in context, and distinguish a defensible interpretation from an exclusive proof where classical analyses differ.