The Qur’anic Root ʾ B D

The semantic field in early Arabic

In early Arabic, the family أ ب د was not confined to time. The verb أبد بالمكان was used for remaining in a place without leaving it. Taʾabbada could describe an animal becoming wild and fleeing from people, or a place becoming deserted and wild. Awābid was also used for wild animals that flee from humans.

The Muʿallaqah attributed to Labīd contains the following verse:

عَفَتِ الدِّيَارُ مَحَلُّهَا فَمُقَامُهَا
بِمِنًى تَأَبَّدَ غَوْلُهَا فَرِجَامُهَا

ʿAfati d-diyāru maḥalluhā fa-muqāmuhā / bi-Minan taʾabbada Ghawluhā fa-Rijāmuhā.

The traces of the dwellings, both stopping places and settled homes, have vanished; the settlements of Ghawl and Rijām in the region of Minā stand deserted, emptied of their inhabitants.

Ghawl and Rijām are place names in this verse. Taʾabbada refers to the loss of the settlements’ inhabitants and human companionship; “becoming wild” here does not describe a living creature. Another branch of the same family concerns continuous remaining and duration through time.

One can see a certain semantic proximity between remaining, not leaving, passing beyond human reach, and prolonged duration. The available evidence does not, however, allow us to say confidently that the temporal sense of abad arose from the spatial image of a boundless or wild land. Such an image may help us think about the relationship between some branches, but it does not establish their derivational history.

For Qur’anic usage, the directly relevant branch is the temporal one.

Abadan in negation and prohibition

One of the clearest Qur’anic uses places abadan alongside a negation concerning the future:

وَلَنْ يَتَمَنَّوْهُ أَبَدًا بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِالظَّالِمِينَ

Wa-lan yatamannawhu abadan bi-mā qaddamat aydīhim wa-llāhu ʿalīmun bi-ẓ-ẓālimīn.

“They will never wish for it, because of what their hands have sent ahead; and The God knows the wrongdoers.”

Al-Baqarah 2:95

Lan negates the occurrence of the action in the future, and abadan extends that negation throughout the future in view. The natural English result is “never.”

The same role appears in prohibition:

لَا تَقُمْ فِيهِ أَبَدًا ۚ لَّمَسْجِدٌ أُسِّسَ عَلَى التَّقْوَىٰ مِنْ أَوَّلِ يَوْمٍ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَقُومَ فِيهِ ۚ فِيهِ رِجَالٌ يُحِبُّونَ أَنْ يَتَطَهَّرُوا ۚ وَاللَّهُ يُحِبُّ الْمُطَّهِّرِينَ

Lā taqum fīhi abadan la-masjidun ussisa ʿalā t-taqwā min awwali yawmin aḥaqqu an taqūma fīhi fīhi rijālun yuḥibbūna an yataṭahharū wa-llāhu yuḥibbu l-muṭṭahhirīn.

“Never stand in it. A mosque founded on taqwā from its first day is more deserving of your standing in it. In it are men who love to purify themselves, and The God loves those who purify themselves.”

Al-Tawbah 9:108

Lā taqum fīhi abadan does not mean that the person addressed must remain alive for an infinite duration for the command to continue. The prohibition covers the whole future during which that action can concern him: from now on, never do this there.

This example shows that the temporal comprehensiveness of abadan must be understood within the statement itself. The future in view may be the future of a person’s life, the period during which a situation applies, or, in another context, an unlimited future.

In negative sentences, abadan emphasizes negation throughout the future in view: the action will never occur. There is no need, however, to introduce a separate meaning such as “psychological rupture” into the root to explain this effect. The categorical force comes from combining negation or prohibition with a comprehensive time adverb.

Abadan and the limits specified by the sentence

One of the most important passages for understanding abadan precisely is a verse whose sentence also states the scope of the continuance:

قَالُوا يَا مُوسَىٰ إِنَّا لَنْ نَدْخُلَهَا أَبَدًا مَّا دَامُوا فِيهَا ۖ فَاذْهَبْ أَنْتَ وَرَبُّكَ فَقَاتِلَا إِنَّا هَاهُنَا قَاعِدُونَ

Qālū yā Mūsā innā lan nadkhulahā abadan mā dāmū fīhā fa-dhhab anta wa-rabbuka fa-qātilā innā hāhunā qāʿidūn.

“They said: Moses, we will never enter it as long as they remain in it. So go, you and your Lord, and fight; we are staying right here.”

Al-Māʾidah 5:24

If abadan is taken as an “absolute infinity” independent of its sentence, أَبَدًا مَا دَامُوا فِيهَا becomes difficult to explain. The construction is clear, however: they deny that they will enter throughout the time that the other group remains there. Mā dāmū fīhā defines the scope of the statement.

Another example is even more explicit:

قَدْ كَانَتْ لَكُمْ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ فِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ إِذْ قَالُوا لِقَوْمِهِمْ إِنَّا بُرَآءُ مِنْكُمْ وَمِمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ كَفَرْنَا بِكُمْ وَبَدَا بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ الْعَدَاوَةُ وَالْبَغْضَاءُ أَبَدًا حَتَّىٰ تُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَحْدَهُ إِلَّا قَوْلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لِأَبِيهِ لَأَسْتَغْفِرَنَّ لَكَ وَمَا أَمْلِكُ لَكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ ۖ رَبَّنَا عَلَيْكَ تَوَكَّلْنَا وَإِلَيْكَ أَنَبْنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ

Qad kānat lakum uswatun ḥasanatun fī Ibrāhīma wa-lladhīna maʿahu idh qālū li-qawmihim innā buraʾāʾu minkum wa-mimmā taʿbudūna min dūni llāhi kafarnā bikum wa-badā baynanā wa-baynakumu l-ʿadāwatu wa-l-baghḍāʾu abadan ḥattā tuʾminū bi-llāhi waḥdahu illā qawla Ibrāhīma li-abīhi la-astaghfiranna laka wa-mā amliku laka mina llāhi min shayʾin rabbanā ʿalayka tawakkalnā wa-ilayka anabnā wa-ilayka l-maṣīr.

“You have had a good example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: We disavow you and what you worship other than The God. We reject you, and enmity and aversion have become manifest between us and you, forever, until you believe in The God alone—except for Abraham’s saying to his father: I will certainly seek forgiveness for you, though I have no power to obtain anything for you from The God. Our Lord, in You we have put our trust, to You we have turned, and to You is the final return.”

Al-Mumtaḥanah 60:4

Here, أَبَدًا appears alongside حَتَّىٰ تُؤْمِنُوا. The stated situation continues, but the phrase following ḥattā makes clear what change would bring that situation to an end.

The more precise definition is therefore neither “abadan always means absolute endlessness” nor “abadan means only a very long time.” Rather:

Abadan expresses comprehensive coverage and continuance throughout the future in view. If the sentence contains an explicit qualification or condition, that comprehensiveness is understood within its scope. In an unqualified use, the word should not be reduced to merely an unknown or very long duration.

The meaning of abadan is distinct from the truth of a statement

One of the best Qur’anic examples for distinguishing a word’s meaning from external reality is the garden owner’s statement:

وَدَخَلَ جَنَّتَهُ وَهُوَ ظَالِمٌ لِنَفْسِهِ قَالَ مَا أَظُنُّ أَنْ تَبِيدَ هَٰذِهِ أَبَدًا

Wa-dakhala jannatahu wa-huwa ẓālimun li-nafsihi qāla mā aẓunnu an tabīda hādhihi abadan.

“He entered his garden, wronging himself, and said: I do not think this will ever perish.”

Al-Kahf 18:35

He uses abadan for his garden’s survival, but the rest of the account shows that the garden is destroyed. That event does not change the meaning of abadan to “a long time.” The owner really claims that the garden will never perish; his claim is false.

The same point appears elsewhere:

بَلْ ظَنَنْتُمْ أَنْ لَنْ يَنْقَلِبَ الرَّسُولُ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِيهِمْ أَبَدًا وَزُيِّنَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَظَنَنْتُمْ ظَنَّ السَّوْءِ وَكُنْتُمْ قَوْمًا بُورًا

Bal ẓanantum an lan yanqaliba r-rasūlu wa-l-muʾminūna ilā ahlihim abadan wa-zuyyina dhālika fī qulūbikum wa-ẓanantum ẓanna s-sawʾi wa-kuntum qawman būran.

“Rather, you thought that the Messenger and the believers would never return to their families. That was made appealing in your hearts, and you entertained an evil suspicion; you were a people given to ruin.”

Al-Fatḥ 48:12

Here, too, they thought that this return would never take place, but their assumption was wrong. Abadan expresses the comprehensiveness of that negation.

This distinction is essential when studying roots. A word’s meaning, the content of a statement, and the truth of that statement are three different things. If someone says, “This will never disappear,” “never” still has its meaning; the error lies in the speaker’s prediction.

Conversely, when the same word occurs in a promise or a direct divine statement, the speaker’s identity and the context also bear on how the truth of the statement is understood. A person’s mistaken use cannot establish that abadan in another statement necessarily describes something that will end.

Abadan in affirmative promises

In an affirmative sentence, the same temporal extension appears as “always” or “forever”:

Al-Kahf 18:1

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ الْكِتَابَ وَلَمْ يَجْعَلْ لَهُ عِوَجًا ۜ

Al-ḥamdu li-llāhi lladhī anzala ʿalā ʿabdihi l-kitāba wa-lam yajʿal lahu ʿiwajan.

Al-Kahf 18:2

قَيِّمًا لِيُنْذِرَ بَأْسًا شَدِيدًا مِنْ لَدُنْهُ وَيُبَشِّرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ أَجْرًا حَسَنًا ۝

Qayyiman li-yundhira baʾsan shadīdan min ladunhu wa-yubashshira l-muʾminīna lladhīna yaʿmalūna ṣ-ṣāliḥāti anna lahum ajran ḥasanan.

Al-Kahf 18:3

مَاكِثِينَ فِيهِ أَبَدًا

Mākithīna fīhi abadan.

“Praise belongs to The God, who sent down the Book to His servant and placed no crookedness in it; upright, to warn of severe might from Him and to give good news to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward; remaining in it forever.”

Al-Kahf 18:1, 18:2, 18:3

Mākithīn expresses remaining, while abadan emphasizes its continuation forever. This statement contains no qualification limiting that continuation to a finite period.

This construction prepares us to understand one of the most important combinations involving this root.

Khālidīna fīhā abadan: the distinct roles of khulūd and abad

The Qur’an repeatedly places abadan after khālidīna fīhā:

وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ سَنُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ۖ لَهُمْ فِيهَا أَزْوَاجٌ مُطَهَّرَةٌ وَنُدْخِلُهُمْ ظِلًّا ظَلِيلًا

Wa-lladhīna āmanū wa-ʿamilū ṣ-ṣāliḥāti sa-nudkhiluhum jannātin tajrī min taḥtihā l-anhāru khālidīna fīhā abadan lahum fīhā azwājun muṭahharatun wa-nudkhiluhum ẓillan ẓalīlan.

“Those who believe and do righteous deeds—We will admit them into gardens beneath which rivers flow, remaining in them forever. They will have purified spouses there, and We will bring them into ample shade.”

Al-Nisāʾ 4:57

And concerning Hell:

إِلَّا طَرِيقَ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ۚ وَكَانَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرًا

Illā ṭarīqa jahannama khālidīna fīhā abadan wa-kāna dhālika ʿalā llāhi yasīran.

“Except the path of Hell, remaining in it forever; and that is easy for The God.”

Al-Nisāʾ 4:169

Grammatically, khālidīn and abadan do different work. Khālidīn describes the state of those who remain in a place; fīhā identifies where they remain; and abadan is the time adverb qualifying that state.

If we translate the whole phrase simply as “they are eternal,” we convey its overall result but compress the Qur’an’s wording. The rendering

“Remaining in it forever”

better preserves the distinction between the two components.

This combination also matters for the study of خ ل د, but should not predetermine that study’s conclusion. The presence of abadan after khālidīn allows us to say that, in these verses, the Qur’an explicitly states continuation throughout the future in addition to describing a state of remaining. It does not follow that every use of khulūd without abadan necessarily ends. The absence of a qualifier does not, by itself, establish the opposite of what that qualifier makes explicit elsewhere.

Likewise, abadan in verses about the Garden and Hell should not be confused with its use in the garden owner’s speech. In both, the word performs the same temporal function; the speaker, statement, and context differ.

Comparison with ʾ M D, KH L D, and S R M D

Abad is close to several temporal concepts in the Qur’an, but these words are not fully synonymous.

The root أ م د is used in the Qur’an for a stretch or distance of time whose length or remoteness can be considered:

تَوَدُّ لَوْ أَنَّ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَهُ أَمَدًا بَعِيدًا

Tawaddu law anna baynahā wa-baynahu amadan baʿīdan.

“It wishes that there were a great distance between itself and that.”

Āl ʿImrān 3:30

And:

فَطَالَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْأَمَدُ

Fa-ṭāla ʿalayhimu l-amad.

“Then the time grew long for them.”

Al-Ḥadīd 57:16

Amad can make the length, distance, or limit of a span the subject of discussion. By contrast, Qur’anic abadan does not measure a span: it emphasizes the temporal comprehensiveness of what is said, taking account of any qualifications in the sentence.

خ ل د also concerns remaining and enduring. In khālidīna fīhā abadan, however, the grammatical distinction is clear: khālidīn describes people, while abadan is a time adverb. The precise range of khulūd must be examined in the separate study of that root.

س ر م د also expresses continuity, but the Qur’an shows that continuity can be accompanied by an explicit limit:

قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمُ اللَّيْلَ سَرْمَدًا إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ مَنْ إِلَٰهٌ غَيْرُ اللَّهِ يَأْتِيكُمْ بِضِيَاءٍ ۖ أَفَلَا تَسْمَعُونَ

Qul a-raʾaytum in jaʿala llāhu ʿalaykumu l-layla sarmadan ilā yawmi l-qiyāmati man ilāhun ghayru llāhi yaʾtīkum bi-ḍiyāʾin a-fa-lā tasmaʿūn.

“Say: Have you considered—if The God were to make the night continuous over you until the Day of Resurrection, what deity other than The God could bring you light? Will you not listen?”

Al-Qaṣaṣ 28:71

The presence of إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ reminds us that a word expressing continuity must be read together with the scope its sentence assigns to it.

Translation proposals for Forqan

Abadan should be translated according to the sentence’s construction, while preserving its temporal core in every case.

In a negative sentence, “never” is usually the most natural equivalent:

Wa-lan yatamannawhu abadan.

In a prohibition:

Lā taqum fīhi abadan.

In an affirmative sentence:

Mākithīna fīhi abadan.

In a construction with khulūd:

Khālidīna fīhā abadan.

When the sentence itself specifies a scope, that scope must remain clear in translation:

Lan nadkhulahā abadan mā dāmū fīhā.

We should therefore not translate abadan as “always” in one place, “never” in another, and “forever” elsewhere, and assume we are dealing with unrelated meanings. The different English renderings arise from the sentence’s affirmative, negative, or qualified construction.

Summary

The root أ ب د appears in the Qur’an in the form أَبَدًا. It is a time adverb expressing the continuation or negation of a state, action, or ruling throughout the future in view.

In a negative sentence, its natural equivalent is “never”; in an affirmative one, “always” or “forever.” This comprehensiveness must be understood within the sentence itself. Expressions such as مَا دَامُوا فِيهَا and حَتَّىٰ تُؤْمِنُوا show that a sentence can specify a scope or condition for the situation. Abadan is therefore neither merely “a very long time” nor a mathematical term for infinity independent of context. At the same time, the absence of a limiting qualification does not permit us to turn “forever” into “an unknown period.”

Its use in false human statements does not alter the word’s meaning. The garden owner says that his garden will “never” perish, and he is mistaken; the error lies in his statement, not in the meaning of abadan. The same distinction prevents us from using a false human claim to limit a different statement.

In خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا, too, it is better to preserve both components in translation: khālidīn expresses the state of remaining, and abadan its temporal continuation. “Remaining in it forever” thus shows the construction more clearly than an equivalent that merges both into a single word.

A concise definition of this root can be formulated as follows:

Abad: comprehensive coverage and continuance throughout the future in view. Accordingly, abadan is translated as “never” under negation and “always” or “forever” in affirmation. An explicit qualification or condition in the sentence can define the scope of this comprehensiveness; in an unqualified use, however, the word should not be reduced to merely an unknown or very long duration.