Qur’anic Root A F K

1. Qur’anic forms and semantic core

A F K occurs 30 times in 29 ayahs, in four principal groups.

First are verbal forms such as yuʾfakūna, تُؤْفَكُونَ (tuʾfakūna), يُؤْفَكُ (yuʾfaku), أُفِكَ (ufika), يَأْفِكُونَ (yaʾfikūna), and لِتَأْفِكَنَا (li-taʾfikanā), occurring 16 times in total. According to voice and context, they concern turning, diverting, falsifying, or being turned away. Thirteen are passive and three active; li-taʾfikanā is subjunctive after the purpose lām.

Second is the noun ifk, occurring nine times in forms including الْإِفْكِ (al-ifki), إِفْكٌ (ifkun), إِفْكًا (ifkan), إِفْكِهِمْ (ifkihim), and إِفْكُهُمْ (ifkuhum). False speech, a fabricated claim, or slander is prominent in these uses.

Third is affāk, occurring twice. Its faʿʿāl pattern is intensive: in Qur’anic context it identifies someone prominently characterized by fabricating lies and false speech.

Fourth are الْمُؤْتَفِكَة (al-muʾtafikah) and al-muʾtafikāt, occurring three times. They belong to اِئْتَفَكَ (iʾtafaka) and concern overturned settlements in Qur’anic context. Morphologically, muʾtafikah is a feminine Form VIII active participle. “Overturned” expresses the intransitive verb’s meaning and the settlements’ context, rather than a passive-participle construction.

Arabic أَفَكَ (afaka) can concern turning and diverting. أَفَكَهُ عَنِ الشَّيْءِ (afakahu ʿani al-shayʾi) means turning someone away from something; أُفِكَ عَنْهُ (ufika ʿanhu) concerns being turned away from it or kept from it.

Arabic also records ifk for falsehood, أَفِيكَة (afīkah) for a lie or false statement, مَأْفُوك (maʾfūk) for someone turned away or diverted, and iʾtafaka for undergoing reversal or being overturned.

The family’s semantic core may be expressed as:

Turning something, or its changing, from its previous direction, condition, or form; in speech and belief, distorting truth or being turned away from it.

This relates the principal branches without making one translation sufficient for every derivative.

Material overturning may have no connection with lying. Speech may involve fabricating a claim contrary to fact. In belief, someone may turn away from what is presented as true.

The particular change must be examined separately in each ayah.

2. Arabic uses: turning, falsehood, and the limits of historical evidence

أَفَكَ الشَّيْءَ (afaka al-shayʾa): turning something from its direction

Earlier Arabic records afaka al-shayʾa for turning something and changing its direction.

When something is turned from the direction it occupied, a verb in this family can be used.

This is not limited to bodies. Afakahu ʿani al-shayʾi can concern preventing or diverting someone from an activity, path, or purpose.

The verb itself does not necessarily declare the first path right or the second wrong. That judgment depends on the situation and the verb’s complement.

Someone may prevent another from an action that the latter considers right, while the person preventing it considers that action wrong.

This linguistic capacity matters in Al-Aḥqāf 46:22: Hūd’s opponents accuse him of wanting to turn them away from their gods.

Turning must therefore be distinguished from judgment about whether that turning is right or wrong.

إِفْك (ifk): falsehood and the distortion of reality

Another use of ifk concerns lies and speech contrary to fact.

Its connection with turning is intelligible: when truth is presented contrary to its actual form, the hearer encounters a distorted picture of reality.

Attributing an action to someone who did not perform it, for example, misrepresents reality.

This explanation does not establish that every false statement historically developed from an image of physically overturning something.

Falsehood is a recorded Arabic meaning. Understanding it does not require speakers or hearers to imagine a turned body in every use.

Ifk alone also does not specify the kind of falsehood in every case.

It may concern a statement about The God, a wrongful attribution to a person, or a claim about a message or messengership.

All can fall within ifk’s scope without being its sole referent.

A poetic example after revelation: diversion from honorable conduct

A poem attributed to ʿUrwah ibn Udhaynah, an Umayyad-period poet, says:

إِنْ تَكُ عَنْ أَحْسَنِ الْمُرُوءَةِ مَأْفُوكًا
فَفِي آخَرِينَ قَدْ أُفِكُوا

in taku ʿan aḥsani al-murūʾati maʾfūkan / fa-fī ākharīna qad ufikū

“If you have been turned away from the finest honorable conduct, you are among others who have also been turned away.”

Maʾfūkan and ufikū here concern being removed from commendable conduct.

The subject is not a particular lie. The poet speaks of people diverted from honorable and good behavior.

This illustrates the turning-away sense in Arabic after revelation, a meaning also found independently of lying in the Qur’an itself.

The line has transmitted variants: some sources give أَحْسَنِ الصَّنِيعَةِ (aḥsani al-ṣanīʿati) and others أَفْضَلِ الْخَلِيقَةِ (afḍali al-khalīqati) instead of أَحْسَنِ الْمُرُوءَةِ (aḥsani al-murūʾati). The poet is sometimes named ʿAmr ibn Udhaynah, whereas Al-Ṣiḥāḥ and the correction in Lisān give ʿUrwah. Across these variants, the verb still concerns being turned away.

ʿUrwah ibn Udhaynah lived after Qur’anic revelation. The line illustrates older Arabic usage, rather than demonstrably pre-Qur’anic poetry. This investigation found no reliable poetic witness demonstrably dated before the Qur’an; these two later examples are not independent evidence for revelation-era meaning.

تَأْفِيك (taʾfīk): falsehood in a poetic example after revelation

Arabic records taʾfīk for false speech, distorting statements, and turning truth away from its proper form.

Ruʾbah ibn Al-ʿAjjāj, a poet after revelation who lived in the Umayyad and early Abbasid periods, says in his rajaz:

لَا يَأْخُذُ التَّأْفِيكُ وَالتَّحَزِّي
فِينَا وَلَا طَيْخُ الْعِدَى ذُو الْأَزِّ

lā yaʾkhudhu al-taʾfīku wa-l-taḥazzī / fīnā wa-lā ṭaykhu al-ʿidā dhū al-azzi

“Neither fabrication nor divination takes effect among us, nor the enemies’ clamorous, abusive slander.”

Taʾfīk here concerns false or misleading speech in a setting of hostility. طَيْخ (ṭaykh) in this transmission concerns abusive speech and conduct; another wording has قَوْلُ الْعِدَى (qawlu al-ʿidā), “the enemies’ speech.”

This is close to the root’s speech branch. Truth may be distorted through a range of misleading claims and statements, beyond a single false report.

The line does not establish that every ifk necessarily involves divination or claims to unseen knowledge. These belong to this particular witness, rather than the root’s fixed meaning. The line also postdates revelation and does not establish when the sense arose.

اِئْتِفَاك (iʾtifāk): overturning and changing direction

Arabic records iʾtafaka for being overturned or changing from a previous condition.

Muʾtafikah describes something undergoing such overturning. Morphologically, it is the active participle of an intransitive verb, even though English renders the result as “overturned.”

Older recorded uses also apply al-muʾtafikāt to winds whose directions change.

A familiar transmitted Arabic expression associates plentiful winds of changing direction with growth and fertility of the earth.

Here overturning means neither destruction nor lying; the subject is changing wind direction.

Some lexical reports also record أَرْضٌ مَأْفُوكَةٌ (arḍun maʾfūkatun) for dry land deprived of rain and fertility.

These uses should not all become “lying land” or “a wind that distorts truth.”

Their shared feature is change or departure from a previous condition or direction.

Qur’anic muʾtafikah concerns overturned settlements, so its spatial and material meaning must be preserved.

3. أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ: being turned away from truth

A frequent Qur’anic construction with this root is interrogative annā yuʾfakūna or fa-annā tuʾfakūna.

It asks about how turning away or diversion occurs.

In such a context, أَنَّىٰ (annā) can approach “how” or “from which direction.” Yuʾfakūna is passive and concerns their being turned away.

The passive alone does not identify who or what causes that diversion.

Some ayahs concern people’s false claims, some the worship of constructed gods, and others the inconsistency between acknowledging The God as Creator and their worship practices.

An example of inconsistency in belief and worship

Al-ʿAnkabūt 29:61 says:

وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ مَنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ

wa-la-in saʾaltahum man khalaqa al-samāwāti wa-l-arḍa wa-sakhkhara al-shamsa wa-l-qamara la-yaqūlunna allāhu fa-annā yuʾfakūna

“And if you ask them who created the heavens and earth and subjected the sun and moon, they will surely say, ‘The God.’ How, then, are they turned away from truth?”

Al-ʿAnkabūt 29:61

Their answer is clear: they attribute creation and the governance of sun and moon to The God.

Fa-annā yuʾfakūna asks about the inconsistency between that recognition and their other orientation.

Yuʾfakūna here therefore concerns more than ignorance alone.

Someone may accept a truth in one area while acting or believing elsewhere contrary to its implication.

Al-Zukhruf 43:87 has a similar construction. Asked who created them, the audience answers, “The God”; the same question about being turned away follows.

Al-Anʿām 6:95, Yūnus 10:34, Fāṭir 35:3, and Ghāfir 40:62 also place this root in contexts of creation, governance, and The God’s oneness.

Together, these uses show that yuʾfakūna can concern diversion from a conclusion supported by available evidence or even the audience’s own statement.

Does the passive imply loss of choice?

In uses such as yuʾfakūna, the verb does not name the agent of turning.

This grammatical construction does not establish that people are necessarily drawn into error without choice or contrary to every decision of their own.

The Arabic passive can focus on an event and a person’s situation without stating every contributing cause.

Ghāfir 40:63 describes those turned away as people who used to deny The God’s signs.

Their own conduct is therefore part of that description.

Human choice, external influences, and divine will require examination across the ayahs, rather than deduction from the passive voice alone.

Diversion in judging time

Al-Rūm 30:55 says:

وَيَوْمَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ يُقْسِمُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ مَا لَبِثُوا غَيْرَ سَاعَةٍ كَذَٰلِكَ كَانُوا يُؤْفَكُونَ

wa-yawma taqūmu al-sāʿatu yuqsimu al-mujrimūna mā labithū ghayra sāʿatin ka-dhālika kānū yuʾfakūna

“And on the day the Hour arises, the offenders will swear that they remained no more than an hour. In this way they used to be turned away from truth.”

Al-Rūm 30:55

This matters for A F K’s range because its immediate subject is neither inventing a god nor spreading slander about another person.

It concerns the offenders’ judgment of how long they remained.

Ka-dhālika kānū yuʾfakūna connects this situation with their diversion and erroneous judgment.

The root can thus concern mistaken perception and understanding.

This does not make every human error in measuring time or remembering the past morally identical to blameworthy ifk.

The ayah concerns offenders in the resurrection context, which also informs its moral significance.

يُؤْفَكُ عَنْهُ مَنْ أُفِكَ: the pronoun’s referent

Al-Dhāriyāt 51:9 says:

يُؤْفَكُ عَنْهُ مَنْ أُفِكَ

yuʾfaku ʿanhu man ufika

“Turned away from it is whoever has been turned away.”

Al-Dhāriyāt 51:9

A F K occurs twice in this ayah.

Yuʾfaku is an imperfect passive; ufika is a perfect passive.

The repetition emphasizes the condition of someone turned away from or kept from something.

The ayah does not explicitly name the referent of ʿanhu, “from it.”

Al-Dhāriyāt 51:8 describes the audience as engaged in differing speech. The pronoun may therefore be connected with that speech’s subject and the disputed truth.

Other readings take it to refer to the Qur’an, the Prophet, or the disputed message.

This difference matters to the ayah’s precise interpretation. A translation should not conceal valid disagreement by inserting a single certain referent.

For the root study, the clear point is being turned away and removed from a subject or truth.

4. لِتَأْفِكَنَا عَنْ آلِهَتِنَا: turning in the words of Hūd’s opponents

Al-Aḥqāf 46:22 says:

قَالُوا أَجِئْتَنَا لِتَأْفِكَنَا عَنْ آلِهَتِنَا فَأْتِنَا بِمَا تَعِدُنَا إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ

qālū a-jiʾtanā li-taʾfikanā ʿan ālihatinā faʾtinā bi-mā taʿidunā in kunta mina al-ṣādiqīna

“They said, ‘Have you come to turn us away from our gods? Then bring us what you promise us, if you are truthful.’”

Al-Aḥqāf 46:22

This is a particularly useful witness for A F K’s verbal meaning.

The people of ʿĀd address Hūd, asking whether he has come to turn them from their gods.

Li-taʾfikanā is an active imperfect after the purpose lām, with nā as its object. It is subjunctive; the nūn begins the object pronoun nā and is not an emphatic nūn.

ʿAn ālihatinā specifies what they do not want to be turned away from.

The sentence directly concerns turning them from the gods present in their belief and worship.

Does the Qur’an describe Hūd as a misleader?

No: these are the words of Hūd’s opponents.

From their perspective, their path and gods are right; they regard Hūd’s call as an effort to remove them from that path.

Reporting their judgment does not mean the Qur’an endorses it.

In the story’s context, Hūd calls them to worship The God and restrains them from wrongful belief and conduct.

The action they call “turning us away from our gods” is, within Hūd’s call, release from wrongful worship.

This shows that afaka as turning does not itself determine whether the destination is true or false.

Agent, speaker, and context must be identified.

Li-taʾfikanā should also not become simply “to lie to us”: ʿan and its complement make turning away from something explicit.

5. إِفْك (ifk): false speech and fabricated attribution

Elsewhere in the Qur’an, ifk denotes speech or a claim misrepresenting truth.

This occurs both in the Qur’an’s own statements and in opponents’ accusations against Prophets or revelation.

Falsehood in making and worshipping other gods

Al-ʿAnkabūt 29:17 says:

إِنَّمَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ أَوْثَانًا وَتَخْلُقُونَ إِفْكًا إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَمْلِكُونَ لَكُمْ رِزْقًا فَابْتَغُوا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الرِّزْقَ وَاعْبُدُوهُ وَاشْكُرُوا لَهُ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ

innamā taʿbudūna min dūni allāhi awthānan wa-takhluqūna ifkan inna alladhīna taʿbudūna min dūni allāhi lā yamlikūna lakum rizqan fa-btaghū ʿinda allāhi al-rizqa wa-ʿbudūhu wa-shkurū lahu ilayhi turjaʿūna

“You worship only idols apart from The God and fabricate falsehood. Those you worship apart from The God do not control provision for you. Seek provision with The God, worship Him, and give thanks to Him; to Him you will be returned.”

Al-ʿAnkabūt 29:17

Ifkan is the object of takhluqūna.

The subject is producing falsehood: a claim assigning idols and other gods a position contrary to truth.

The continuation explains that those objects of worship do not control provision.

The falsehood thus concerns attributing power or a position to constructed gods.

Ifk itself does not mean making a statue. Making an idol and inventing a false claim about it are related but distinct matters.

Takhluqūna ifkan emphasizes producing falsehood in this context.

أَئِفْكًا آلِهَةً (a-ifkan ālihatan): Ibrāhīm’s question

Al-Ṣāffāt 37:86 says:

أَئِفْكًا آلِهَةً دُونَ اللَّهِ تُرِيدُونَ

a-ifkan ālihatan dūna allāhi turīdūna

“Is it out of falsehood that you desire gods apart from The God?”

Al-Ṣāffāt 37:86

This belongs to Ibrāhīm’s questioning of his people about worshipping other gods.

Ifkan appears first, prefixed by the interrogative hamzah.

Its exact syntactic role has several analyses. It can be related to the reason for or nature of desiring other gods; alternatively, those gods and the divinity attributed to them may themselves be the falsehood intended.

In either case, the ayah concerns the untruth of such worship.

This syntactic disagreement should not be concealed by combining incompatible meanings in a translation.

For the root, the clear point is falsehood and distortion of the true object of worship’s position.

مِنْ إِفْكِهِمْ (min ifkihim): attributing offspring to The God

Al-Ṣāffāt 37:151 says:

أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ مِنْ إِفْكِهِمْ لَيَقُولُونَ

a-lā innahum min ifkihim la-yaqūlūna

“Behold, out of their falsehood they certainly say:”

Al-Ṣāffāt 37:151

The next ayah says:

وَلَدَ اللَّهُ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ

walada allāhu wa-innahum la-kādhibūna

“‘The God has begotten’; and they are certainly liars.”

Al-Ṣāffāt 37:152

Ifkihim concerns the false attribution they make about The God.

La-kādhibūna in the next ayah also identifies their claim as contrary to truth.

Ifk and kadhib should not be considered lexically identical merely because they occur together here.

Ifk concerns falsehood and distortion of truth, whereas kādhibūna identifies the claim’s speakers as liars.

Their different construction and role matter.

Is ifk always a statement about The God?

No. Other ayahs use the same word for accusations about people or a claim about the divine message.

The root’s meaning should therefore not be limited to associating others with The God or attributing offspring to Him.

Truth may be distorted concerning The God, human conduct, or a message’s origin.

6. الْإِفْك in Al-Nūr: slander and responsibility for spreading false speech

Al-Nūr 24:11 says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ جَاءُوا بِالْإِفْكِ عُصْبَةٌ مِنْكُمْ لَا تَحْسَبُوهُ شَرًّا لَكُمْ بَلْ هُوَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ لِكُلِّ امْرِئٍ مِنْهُمْ مَا اكْتَسَبَ مِنَ الْإِثْمِ وَالَّذِي تَوَلَّىٰ كِبْرَهُ مِنْهُمْ لَهُ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

inna alladhīna jāʾū bi-l-ifki ʿuṣbatun minkum lā taḥsabūhu sharran lakum bal huwa khayrun lakum li-kulli imriʾin minhum mā iktasaba mina al-ithmi wa-alladhī tawallā kibrahu minhum lahu ʿadhābun ʿaẓīmun

“Those who brought the slander are a group from among you. Do not consider it evil for you; rather, it is good for you. Each of them has what he earned of sin, and the one among them who undertook its greatest share will have a great punishment.”

Al-Nūr 24:11

Al-ifki concerns a false statement brought and spread by a group.

The following ayahs show that the accusation concerns people’s honor and chastity.

Ifk therefore takes the particular sense of slander here.

This does not make ifk throughout the Qur’an solely a sexual accusation or wrongful allegation about chastity.

Al-Nūr’s subject and continuation specify that instance. Elsewhere, the same word can concern a fabricated claim about The God or revelation.

Why does al-ifk mean slander here?

Al-Nūr 24:12 says:

لَوْلَا إِذْ سَمِعْتُمُوهُ ظَنَّ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ خَيْرًا وَقَالُوا هَٰذَا إِفْكٌ مُبِينٌ

lawlā idh samiʿtumūhu ẓanna al-muʾminūna wa-l-muʾminātu bi-anfusihim khayran wa-qālū hādhā ifkun mubīnun

“Why, when you heard it, did the believing men and women not think well of one another and say, ‘This is manifest slander’?”

Al-Nūr 24:12

Ifk is a claim circulated about people, which should be approached with care, fairness, and a good opinion of them.

Al-Nūr 24:13 raises the question of producing four witnesses.

This connection highlights the difference between an established report and an accusation circulated without valid testimony.

Ifk here is more than the name of a false sentence. It concerns human honor and dignity, and its circulation can have serious consequences.

Is every hearer equally responsible?

Al-Nūr 24:11 explicitly speaks of each person’s share of sin and singles out whoever undertook the affair’s greatest share.

People’s participation in producing and spreading slander can therefore differ.

Al-Nūr 24:15 also describes passing speech from tongue to tongue and saying what the speakers had no knowledge of.

The issue extends beyond the first inventor of the claim. Those repeating and spreading it without knowledge are also censured in context.

A F K alone should not supply an entire legal system of speakers’ responsibility. Rules concerning testimony, accusation, and circulation come from the relevant ayahs together.

For the root, the essential point is that ifk can misrepresent truth about a person and attack that person’s honor.

إِفْكٌ مُبِينٌ (ifkun mubīnun): manifest slander

Al-Nūr 24:12 describes ifkun as mubīnun.

Mubīn belongs to another root and expresses the falsehood’s manifest character.

Manifestness is therefore not a fixed component of ifk. A lie may be obvious or crafted so that a hearer finds it difficult to recognize.

Here the Qur’an expects believers to recognize the accusation’s falsehood and refrain from questioning others’ honor without evidence.

Ifk names the falsehood; mubīn further describes its condition.

7. When truth itself is called إِفْك (ifk)

Ifk does not always appear in the Qur’an’s direct speech to identify falsehood.

Sometimes opponents of Prophets and revelation call what they reject ifk.

An accusation against the Qur’an

Al-Furqān 25:4 says:

وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا إِفْكٌ افْتَرَاهُ وَأَعَانَهُ عَلَيْهِ قَوْمٌ آخَرُونَ فَقَدْ جَاءُوا ظُلْمًا وَزُورًا

wa-qāla alladhīna kafarū in hādhā illā ifkun iftarāhu wa-aʿānahu ʿalayhi qawmun ākharūna fa-qad jāʾū ẓulman wa-zūran

“And those who disbelieved said, ‘This is nothing but falsehood he fabricated, and other people helped him with it.’ They have indeed brought injustice and falsehood.”

Al-Furqān 25:4

The opponents call the Qur’an ifkun.

The continuation censures their own claim as ẓulman wa-zūran, injustice and falsehood.

The mere presence of ifk in a Qur’anic sentence therefore does not establish endorsement of that judgment.

In the opponents’ speech, ifk is their accusation about the Qur’an’s origin.

Sabaʾ 34:43 has the same situation. Opponents call the ayahs ifkun muftaran, “fabricated falsehood,” while accusing the Prophet of wanting to turn people from what their fathers worshipped.

Al-Aḥqāf 46:11 likewise describes those who rejected guidance calling it ifkun qadīmun, an old falsehood.

In these cases, speakers call a message a lie, but the Qur’an reports this as their claim.

A word’s meaning within speech must therefore be distinguished from the speaker’s judgment being correct.

Distinguishing إِفْك (ifk) and افْتَرَىٰ (iftarā)

Al-Furqān 25:4 has two distinct forms: ifkun and iftarāhu.

Ifk denotes falsehood or a claim contrary to fact.

Iftarā belongs to F R Y and concerns fabricating and attributing false speech in this context.

The concepts are close but belong to different roots.

The opponents first accuse the message of being false, then allege that Muḥammad made it up.

Ifk can thus name the false claim itself, while iftirāʾ emphasizes fabrication and attribution.

Their co-occurrence does not make them exact synonyms in every use.

8. مَا يَأْفِكُونَ: the sorcerers’ falsification

Al-Aʿrāf 7:117 says:

وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰ أَنْ أَلْقِ عَصَاكَ فَإِذَا هِيَ تَلْقَفُ مَا يَأْفِكُونَ

wa-awḥaynā ilā mūsā an alqi ʿaṣāka fa-idhā hiya talqafu mā yaʾfikūna

“And We revealed to Mūsā, ‘Cast your staff.’ Then suddenly it was swallowing what they falsely presented.”

Al-Aʿrāf 7:117

Al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:45 also says:

فَأَلْقَىٰ مُوسَىٰ عَصَاهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ تَلْقَفُ مَا يَأْفِكُونَ

fa-alqā mūsā ʿaṣāhu fa-idhā hiya talqafu mā yaʾfikūna

“Then Mūsā cast his staff, and suddenly it was swallowing what they falsely presented.”

Al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:45

Yaʾfikūna is an active imperfect in both ayahs.

Its subject refers to the sorcerers. Reading mā as a relative pronoun gives what they falsely presented; reading it as a verbal-noun particle gives “their falsification”. Neither analysis alone determines every detail of the scene.

The preceding Al-Aʿrāf 7:116 describes sorcerers casting a spell on people’s eyes and frightening them.

Ṭā Hā 20:66 describes their ropes and staffs appearing to move through their sorcery.

The subject is thus more than uttering a false sentence: a deceptive display presents something to people’s eyes contrary to its reality.

Does yaʾfikūna mean making real objects?

The sorcerers had implements and used them to produce a display.

Yaʾfikūna itself does not mean manufacturing a rope or staff.

Falsehood and misrepresentation concern their presentation and its effect on people’s observation.

The verb alone should not settle every physical detail of the event.

Precisely what was swallowed in Mūsā’s miracle requires examination of the related ayahs and the narrative’s construction.

For the root, afaka can concern a deceptive display and the distortion of an audience’s perception.

Do sorcery and ifk mean the same thing?

The sorcerers’ action is described with yaʾfikūna in this story.

This does not make every Qur’anic use of sorcery equivalent to ifk, or every ifk a magical act.

Sorcery here concerns an action affecting people’s observation.

Yaʾfikūna emphasizes the falsehood and misrepresentation of what is presented.

The words can apply to one event while making distinct semantic contributions.

9. أَفَّاكٍ أَثِيمٍ: fabricating lies and sinfulness

Al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:222 says:

تَنَزَّلُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ أَفَّاكٍ أَثِيمٍ

tanazzalu ʿalā kulli affākin athīmin

“They descend upon every sinful fabricator of lies.”

Al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:222

The subject of tanazzalu connects with the devils named in the preceding ayah.

Affāk is paired with athīm.

Affāk follows faʿʿāl and here describes someone prominently characterized by fabricating lies.

Athīm belongs to A TH M and concerns being sinful.

These descriptions are connected but not identical.

Fabricating lies may be sinful, but athīm has a broader meaning and cannot be limited to lying in every form.

Al-Jāthiyah 45:7 also says:

وَيْلٌ لِكُلِّ أَفَّاكٍ أَثِيمٍ

waylun li-kulli affākin athīmin

“Woe to every sinful fabricator of lies.”

Al-Jāthiyah 45:7

The next ayah describes someone hearing The God’s signs, then arrogantly persisting in his position.

This connects fabricating lies with defiance and rejection of truth.

Does affāk mean someone who made one mistake?

Arabic faʿʿāl can indicate frequency, intensity, or being known for an activity.

Affāk is therefore stronger than simply calling someone a liar: it can identify a person in whose conduct falsehood and misrepresentation are prominent.

The morphological pattern alone does not specify a number of lies, duration of conduct, or exact degree of intention and awareness.

Affāk should also not be equated with everyone who has uttered a false statement.

Someone may be mistaken about a subject without intending to deceive another person.

In both ayahs, the censuring affāk is paired with athīm and a context of opposing truth.

“Fabricator of lies” or “habitual liar” is therefore appropriate, without deriving every inner motive from the morphological pattern itself.

10. الْمُؤْتَفِكَات: settlements that were overturned

Al-muʾtafikah and al-muʾtafikāt are an important, distinct use of this root.

Al-Tawbah 9:70 says:

أَلَمْ يَأْتِهِمْ نَبَأُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ وَعَادٍ وَثَمُودَ وَقَوْمِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَأَصْحَابِ مَدْيَنَ وَالْمُؤْتَفِكَاتِ أَتَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيَظْلِمَهُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ كَانُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ

a-lam yaʾtihim nabaʾu alladhīna min qablihim qawmi nūḥin wa-ʿādin wa-thamūda wa-qawmi ibrāhīma wa-aṣḥābi madyana wa-l-muʾtafikāti atathum rusuluhum bi-l-bayyināti fa-mā kāna allāhu li-yaẓlimahum wa-lākin kānū anfusahum yaẓlimūna

“Has the report not reached them of those before them: the people of Nūḥ, ʿĀd, Thamūd, the people of Ibrāhīm, the people of Madyan, and the overturned settlements? Their Messengers came to them with clear signs. The God would not wrong them; rather, they were wronging themselves.”

Al-Tawbah 9:70

Al-muʾtafikāt occurs alongside peoples and settlements whose histories are recalled as warnings.

Familiar Arabic usage and the network of related ayahs connect this title with the settlements of Lūṭ’s people.

Its lexical meaning is not “lying people”: the form concerns overturning.

Al-Najm 53:53 says:

وَالْمُؤْتَفِكَةَ أَهْوَىٰ

wa-l-muʾtafikata ahwā

“And the overturned settlement He cast down.”

Al-Najm 53:53

Al-muʾtafikata is singular here.

Ahwā also concerns casting down.

Together, the words depict a place’s overturning and fall.

Al-Ḥāqqah 69:9 also says:

وَجَاءَ فِرْعَوْنُ وَمَنْ قَبْلَهُ وَالْمُؤْتَفِكَاتُ بِالْخَاطِئَةِ

wa-jāʾa firʿawnu wa-man qablahu wa-l-muʾtafikātu bi-l-khāṭiʾati

“And Firʿawn, those before him, and the overturned settlements committed the grave wrong.”

Al-Ḥāqqah 69:9

Al-muʾtafikāt again accompanies groups that disobeyed The God and encountered their conduct’s consequences.

Connection with Lūṭ’s people

Hūd 11:82 and Al-Ḥijr 15:74 describe the fate of Lūṭ’s people by presenting the settlement’s overturning, with its upper part made its lower part.

These provide a clear context for understanding al-muʾtafikāt.

Its connection with overturned settlements is therefore supported by the Qur’an’s description of the same history, beyond a conjecture based on semantic similarity.

This connection should not supply scientific or geological details of the event.

The Qur’an describes the settlements’ overturning and fate. A F K itself does not specify a fault type, earthquake intensity, or physical mechanism.

Does muʾtafikāt mean lying settlements?

No. This distinction must remain clear.

Although speech-related ifk concerns falsehood, muʾtafikah in these ayahs describes a place that was overturned.

The root’s derivatives therefore cannot all be limited to the moral sense of falsehood.

“Overturned settlements” also does not mean houses or land morally committed lies.

The blameworthy conduct belongs to people; the spatial title describes the settlements’ condition or fate.

This is a particularly clear counterexample to defining A F K solely as lying.

11. Distinguishing A F K from related roots

A F K (إِفْك, ifk) and K DH B (كَذِب, kadhib)

Study of K DH B

Arabic kadhib concerns a report or statement being contrary to fact.

Ifk can also mean a lie, but its lexical explanation highlights distorting truth and turning speech from its proper form.

This does not allocate every ordinary lie to K DH B and every great lie to A F K.

The words overlap in Arabic, and both can express serious falsehood.

Al-Nūr 24:11 and Al-Nūr 24:12 use ifk for slander, while Al-Nūr 24:13 has kādhibūna, “liars.”

Different words can thus describe the false accusation itself and its speakers.

A F K (إِفْك, ifk) and F R Y (افْتِرَاء, iftirāʾ)

Study of F R Y (Not yet published)

Qur’anic iftirāʾ concerns fabricating and attributing false speech.

Al-Furqān 25:4 uses ifk and iftarāhu in one sentence.

Ifk concerns the claim’s falsehood; iftirāʾ in that context concerns its fabrication and attribution.

Their co-occurrence should not establish an absolute boundary between the roots: both can express lies and fabricated attribution in Arabic.

A F K (إِفْك, ifk) and B H T (بُهْتَان, buhtān)

Study of B H T

Buhtān concerns a wrongful attribution or accusation charging someone with something they did not do.

Ifk in Al-Nūr occupies this field.

Not every ifk occurrence is an accusation against a person, however.

Al-ʿAnkabūt 29:17 concerns falsehood about constructed gods; in Al-Aḥqāf 46:11, opponents call revelation an old falsehood.

“Slander” is therefore a suitable contextual equivalent for ifk in Al-Nūr 24:11 and Al-Nūr 24:12, but not a permanent translation of every use.

A F K (إِفْك, ifk) and Z W R (زُور, zūr)

Study of Z W R (Not yet published)

Zūr concerns falsehood and untrue speech and may involve false testimony or a false claim.

Al-Furqān 25:4 follows the opponents’ accusation against the Qur’an with ẓulman wa-zūran.

Falsehood may thus be described with both ifk and zūr.

They remain independent roots; the features of every use of one should not be transferred to the other.

A F K (أَفَكَ, afaka) and Ṣ R F (صَرَفَ, ṣarafa)

Study of Ṣ R F (Not yet published)

Ṣarafa concerns turning and changing direction.

Older lexical usage also explains afakahu ʿani al-shayʾi through ṣarafahu ʿanhu.

Qur’anic Ṣ R F can occur without falsehood or untruth, as in directing and varying phenomena or presenting signs in different ways.

Many A F K occurrences instead concern diversion from truth.

This is a tendency, rather than an absolute rule for all Arabic.

Muʾtafikah itself shows that A F K also has material and spatial capacity.

A F K (ائْتَفَكَ, iʾtafaka) and Q L B (انْقَلَبَ, inqalaba)

Study of Q L B

Arabic qalaba concerns turning something and changing its condition.

Iʾtafaka can also concern being overturned.

The overturning of the settlements in Lūṭ’s story relates to both roots’ semantic fields.

This closeness does not make every Qur’anic inqilāb an ifk.

Q L B and inqilāb can also occur without negative moral judgment, whereas speech-related Qur’anic ifk generally expresses blameworthy falsehood.

Overturning may be shared, while the roots’ ranges and uses remain distinct.

12. Translation proposals for Forqan

No single fixed English equivalent suits every Qur’anic form of A F K.

The verbal branch may require “turning,” “diverting,” “keeping someone from a path,” or “being turned away from truth,” according to the sentence.

In speech, “falsehood,” “a lie,” “a fabricated claim,” and, for accusations against people, “slander” are more precise.

For places, “overturned” or “upturned” is clearer.

يُؤْفَكُونَ (yuʾfakūna) and تُؤْفَكُونَ (tuʾfakūna)

For constructions such as fa-annā tuʾfakūna, the proposed translation is:

“How, then, are you turned away from truth?”

Where belief and worship are the subject, “How, then, do you stray from the right path?” may also give natural prose.

The second is more explanatory: “the right path” comes from context.

In most cases, “are turned away” better preserves the verb’s connection with changed direction.

لِتَأْفِكَنَا عَنْ آلِهَتِنَا (li-taʾfikanā ʿan ālihatinā)

For Al-Aḥqāf 46:22, the proposed translation is:

“To turn us away from our gods.”

This preserves the active voice and the role of ʿan.

“To lie to us” is unsuitable: the sentence specifies what the opponents speak of being turned away from.

إِفْك (ifk)

The proposed general equivalents are “falsehood” and “a lie.”

“False speech” is also natural where the subject is a fabricated claim about truth.

“Distortion of truth” does not suit every occurrence: a long analytical explanation may replace a short noun.

The translation should preserve the principal meaning concisely, leaving the turning image to the lexical explanation.

الْإِفْك (al-ifk) in Al-Nūr

“Slander” is the principal proposal for Al-Nūr 24:11 and Al-Nūr 24:12.

“False accusation” also conveys the meaning, while “slander” clearly describes a fabricated accusation injuring people’s honor.

This equivalent comes from the ayahs’ context and should not extend to every ifk occurrence.

مَا يَأْفِكُونَ (mā yaʾfikūna)

For Al-Aʿrāf 7:117 and Al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:45, one may say:

“What they falsely presented.”

This preserves the verb’s connection with the sorcerers’ misrepresentation.

“What they fabricated falsely” may also be considered in context, but could suggest that physically making objects is the verb’s direct meaning.

أَفَّاك (affāk)

For affākin athīmin, the principal proposal is:

“A sinful fabricator of lies.”

“A habitual liar” is also defensible for affāk.

Affāk should not become merely “someone mistaken”: both Qur’anic occurrences censure the person and pair the word with sinfulness.

الْمُؤْتَفِكَات (al-muʾtafikāt)

For al-muʾtafikah and al-muʾtafikāt, the proposed translations are:

“The overturned settlement” and “the overturned settlements.”

The explanation may clarify their connection with Lūṭ’s people’s settlements.

“Lying cities” or “people who fabricate lies” is unsuitable as a direct translation, erasing this form’s spatial meaning and overturning.

13. Conclusion

Arabic A F K concerns turning, changing direction, and being overturned.

In speech, it concerns falsehood and misrepresenting truth. In conduct and understanding, it can involve turning away or diverting another. In the spatial branch, it concerns overturning and reversal.

The Qur’an presents this family in four principal forms.

Verbs such as yuʾfakūna and tuʾfakūna mostly concern being turned away from truth or diversion in belief and judgment. Al-Aḥqāf 46:22 uses the verb in Hūd’s opponents’ words for turning people away from their gods. The speaker’s judgment should therefore be distinguished from the Qur’an’s own.

In speech, ifk concerns lies, fabricated claims, and misrepresentation of truth. Al-Nūr uses it for slander targeting people’s honor, whose circulation carries serious moral responsibility.

Other ayahs use it for false claims about The God and constructed gods. Opponents of Prophets and the Qur’an also call truth itself ifk, without the Qur’an endorsing their judgment.

Affāk describes someone in whose conduct fabricating lies is prominent. The Qur’an pairs it with athīm, but its pattern alone should not supply every characteristic or inner motive.

Al-muʾtafikah and al-muʾtafikāt concern overturned settlements, showing that the root retains material reversal as well as speech-related falsehood.

Across these uses, lexical meaning, morphology, syntax, speaker identity, and context must be distinguished.

Falsehood and diversion are censured in many Qur’anic uses of this family, but changing direction or overturning something is not, in itself, lying or sin.

Forqan’s final definition of A F K:

“Turning something, changing its direction, or overturning it from its previous condition or orientation. In speech and belief, this concerns falsehood, misrepresenting truth, and being turned away or diverting others from it. Qur’anic ifk denotes false speech and, in Al-Nūr, slander; affāk describes a fabricator of lies; verbal forms concern turning or being turned away; and muʾtafikah concerns an overturned settlement. Moral value and the kind of change depend on the word’s form, complement, and context, rather than the root alone.”