The textual eatures of Siras 10-15 are our irst indication that we are dealing here with a grouping that goes beyond the coincidental. The irst is their similar 1mulaic opening. The six suras all start with the mysterious letter sequence, alif lim ri’ (with the exception of Sira 13, which has one additional letter in the sequence, thus alf lim mim ri ‘). Four of the suras have the same opening phrase in the irst verse (Siras 10, 12, 13, 15: tilka ayit al-kitib, “these are the signs of the book”), whereas the remaining two suras (11 and 14) begin the verse with the word “book” (kitib). Moreover, all these irst verses have reference to a book with some accompanying epithet, using either the root “b-k-m” (“wise,” “judicious”) or “b-y-n” (“clariy,” “reveal”), and all but Sura 14 have e word “signs” (ayit) in the irst verse. These eatures on their own are not suicient to argue or approaching the content of these suras together; they do however point to an organizing principle that saw in the similarity of the mysterious letters and the wording of the irst verses reason to group them together. It is the thematic, interwoven connections among the six suras that is the clearest indication that we have here a booklet composed in answer to a particular development in the career of Muhammad.
We have here a cessation of development, a stagnation in the career of Muhammad, accompanied by deep anxiety about the promises declared in his preaching, threats that are not materializing, and a descending veil of despair that is eroding the resolve of this prophet. It is a terriying moment. Muhammad is rantically looking about, anticipating a chastisement that seems to tarry (and indeed that is all but certainly not coming), and wishing or a break in the impasse of his mission in Mecca. The late Meccan period of the Qur’an is thus more than a mere stylistic change in the compositional style of the sriras. t is the result ofa radical shit. We are here in the midst of a Qur’an that has to answer not only to the Meccans but to its own history. At the center of this new concen is the tarrying of punishment. Not only is there no sign of it, but the necessary condition that already had been articulated in the Q” an or it to come – that the Meccans declare their resolve not to convert and ask or this chastisement – had been ulilled. Indeed, this promise of punishment (wa ‘) so oten assured by God is seen as vacuous by Muhammad’s enemies (c. Q. 10:48) countered by the God of Muhammad that God does not renege on his promise (among many c. Q. 14:47).
Already, this delay · (ta ‘khir) cannot be let unaddressed; it is not that God is breaking his promise but that he is biding his time -wa-la-in akhkharna ‘anhum al- ‘adhab, “and when we delay our punishment”). This delaying [of the apocalypse], a taying of divine ate, is only possible because God is determined not to be hamstrung in bringing the Day of Judgement (Q 11:104, an echo of the phrase in Q 11:8). Granted, the sura is playing a rhetorical trick, equating chastisement or recalcitrance in this world with the bringing of the cosmic Day of Judgement (Q 11: 104 is clearly about the Apocalypse), an equivocation that is starting to look like whitewashing the immediate threat. The notion of delaying destruction is a theme that is most prominent in the constellation of Suras 10:15.
Sura 14 contains the most extensive reiterations of the notion of delay, as developed in Sura 1 I (see the previous section). The unbelievers are dramatically portrayed as begging or the opportunity to use this leeway, the delaying of the coming of chastisement, to escape God’s wrath (Q 14:44). Once more, repentance and a supplication or orgiveness would trigger a delay. This ta ‘khir (usually expressed in the phrase “till another appointed time,” ila ajalin musamma; c. Q 1 6:61 , 35:45, and 71 :4) should not be conused with isti ‘khar (the taying of ate, as in verses Q 7:34, 1 0:49, 1 5 :5, 23:43, and 34:30, in which God promises not to delay his punishment when it comes). It is clear that the Qur’an is walking a thin line between the possibility of tarrying and the impossibility of postponement. The point is clear that God is willing to be patient, but he will punish when he decides. However, these distinctions do not ameliorate the Meccan view that divine punishment is yet to come.
