﴿ وَلَوْ شِئْنَا لَرَفَعْنَٰهُ بِهَا وَلَٰكِنَّهُۥٓ أَخْلَدَ إِلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَٱتَّبَعَ هَوَىٰهُ ۚ فَمَثَلُهُۥ كَمَثَلِ ٱلْكَلْبِ إِن تَحْمِلْ عَلَيْهِ يَلْهَثْ أَوْ تَتْرُكْهُ يَلْهَث ۚ ذَّٰلِكَ مَثَلُ ٱلْقَوْمِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا۟ بِـَٔايَٰتِنَا ۚ فَٱقْصُصِ ٱلْقَصَصَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ ﴾

“Now had We so willed, We could indeed have exalted him by means of those [messages]: but he always clung to the earth and followed but his own desires. Thus, his parable is that of an [excited] dog: if thou approach him threateningly, he will pant with his tongue lolling; and. if thou leave him alone, he will pant with his tongue lolling. Such is the parable of those who are bent on giving the lie to Our messages. Tell [them], then, this story, so that they might take thought.”

And had We willed We would have raised him up to the ranks of the scholars thereby by facilitating his way to good deeds; but he was disposed to at peace in the earth — that is this world — and inclined to it and followed his whims by calling others to them and so We abased him. Therefore his likeness his description is as the likeness of a dog if you attack it by driving it away or curbing it it lolls its tongue out and if you leave it it lolls its tongue out and no other animal is like it in this way both conditional sentences constitute a circumstantial qualifier that is to say it has its tongue lolling out despicably in all circumstances. The purpose here is to point out the similarity between the one who follows his whims and a dog in terms of condition and vileness judging by the contextualising fā’ of fa-mathaluhu ‘therefore his likeness’ which relates what comes after it to what came before it in the way of ‘inclining towards this world and following whims’ and judging by God’s saying That likeness is the likeness of those people who deny Our signs. So recount the tale to the Jews that they might reflect upon it and so believe.