have any share in it. They therefore regarded the occurrence of waswās, wa‘wā‘, and ‘az‘āz as verbal nouns as rare. Their proper function is to serve as intensive adjectives expressing the meanings of these verbs’ verbal nouns.

They say: Once this is established, any such form that admits both a verbal-noun and an adjectival interpretation should be understood as an adjective, in keeping with the predominant usage and to avoid an exceptional interpretation. Thus, whoever claims that waswās is a verbal noun preceded by an implicit dhū (“possessor of”) departs from both analogy and predominant usage.

Two considerations demonstrate the error of this view.

First, every verbal noun before which dhū is implicitly supplied occurs more frequently as a pure verbal noun than as an adjective, as with contentment, fasting, and breaking the fast. Yet fa‘lāl, with a as its first vowel, is attested as a pure verbal noun in only three words: waswās, wa‘wā‘, and ‘az‘āz. Even their status as verbal nouns can be disputed. The strongest evidence that can be offered for this status is the expression waswasa ilayhi al-shaytānu waswāsan (“Satan whispered to him”). Yet this does not establish that waswāsan must be a verbal noun, since it may instead be adjectival: waswāsan would then be accusative as an emphatic circumstantial qualifier. A circumstantial qualifier can indeed reinforce its governing verb when the two correspond in wording and meaning, as in the Most High’s words:

“We have sent you to mankind as a messenger” (4:79),

and:

“He has subjected to you the night and the day, the sun and the moon; and the stars are subjected by His command” (16:12).

To be sure, the status of waswās as a verbal noun would be established conclusively only if an expression such as “I seek refuge in Allah from Satan’s waswās” were attested, in which waswās is annexed to the agent performing the action, as is attested with waswasa (“whispering”). But where is your evidence for that? Produce an attested example. That would establish waswās as a verbal noun—not its occurrence in the accusative after the verb.

The second argument refuting the claim that waswās is a verbal noun preceded by an implicit dhū is that a verbal noun used in this way does not take feminine, dual, or plural forms. Rather, it retains a single form, making it clear that it is fundamentally a verbal noun and only incidentally