Ibrāhīm 14:22

Wa qāla'sh-shayṭānu lammā quḍiya'l-amru inna'llāha waʿadakum waʿda'l-ḥaqqi wa waʿadtukum fa-akhlaftukum · Wa mā kāna liya ʿalaykum min sulṭānin illā an daʿawtukum fa'stajabtum lī · Fa-lā talūmūnī wa lūmū anfusakum · Mā ana bi-muṣrikhikum wa mā antum bi-muṣrikhiyy · Innī kafartu bimā ashraktumūni min qabl

"When the affair was decided, Satan said: 'God promised you a true promise; I too promised you, but I broke my word to you. I had no power over you at all — I only called you, and you answered me. So do not blame me; blame yourselves. I cannot save you, nor can you save me. I disown your having associated me with Him before.'"

The note of time in the sentence must be recorded: the speech comes after the affair has been decided.

I record this as an observation about the word order: what Satan says is true; the verse does not deny it. But the moment at which it is said is the moment when what is said can serve no purpose whatever. The whole weight of the sentence gathers into this note of time.

That the whole of the influence is reduced to two verbs must be recorded:

There is no compulsion between the two verbs. Sulṭān (power, authority to decide) is plainly denied: mā kāna liya ʿalaykum min sulṭān.

This is an answer within the sūra: in the tenth verse the other side had demanded of the messengers a sulṭānin mubīn (a clear authority). The same word occurs here in Satan's mouth, as "I had no such thing." This is a weave of words that can be verified within the sūra.

And at al-Ḥijr 15/42 the same limit will be set once more, but this time as God's word: inna ʿibādī laysa laka ʿalayhim sulṭān. The same word in two sūras, once as a confession and once as a ruling.

Two imperatives from the same verb, one negative and one positive. Lawm — to blame, to reproach.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the sentence does not abolish the blaming — it changes its address. The same structure was used at Fāṭir 35/10 for might and at al-Zumar 39/43 for intercession: the wish or the act is not rejected; the place it is directed to is corrected. I rely on those treatments.

The root ص-ر-خ: to cry aloud, to call out for help. Ṣārikh — one who cries out; muṣrikh — one who runs to the cry, who comes to the rescue.

The pattern of the word is worth recording: the active participle of the ifʿāl form, that is, "one who answers a cry." And the sentence is negated in both directions at once: mā ana bi-muṣrikhikum wa mā antum bi-muṣrikhiyy — "neither do I come to your rescue, nor you to mine."

I record this as an observation: the second half may look superfluous — nobody was expecting help from Satan. But by building the symmetry the sentence says that the relationship was mutual and that it collapses mutually.

And a difference in the variant readings is transmitted: the readings differ over the vowel of the final yāʾ of the word bi-muṣrikhiyya (fatḥa / kasra). It gives rise to no difference of sense; I give no reciter's name.