قُل لَّا تُسْـَٔلُونَ عَمَّآ أَجْرَمْنَا وَلَا نُسْـَٔلُ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ · قُلْ يَجْمَعُ بَيْنَنَا رَبُّنَا ثُمَّ يَفْتَحُ بَيْنَنَا بِٱلْحَقِّ وَهُوَ ٱلْفَتَّاحُ ٱلْعَلِيمُ
Qul lā tusʾalūna ʿammā ajramnā wa lā nusʾalu ʿammā taʿmalūn · Qul yajmaʿu baynanā rabbunā thumma yaftaḥu baynanā bi'l-ḥaqq, wa huwa'l-fattāḥu'l-ʿalīm
"Say: 'You will not be questioned about the crime we have committed, nor shall we be questioned about what you do.' Say: 'Our Lord will gather us together, then He will open judgement between us with the truth. He is the best of judges, the all-knowing.'"
| Half | Verb | About whom |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lā tusʾalūna ʿammā ajramnā | Us — ajramnā (we committed a crime) |
| 2 | Wa lā nusʾalu ʿammā taʿmalūn | You — taʿmalūn (you do) |
And here lies the most striking detail of the sentence: the two halves are symmetrical, but the words are not.
For his own side the heavy word is chosen: ajramnā — root ج-ر-م: to commit a crime. For the other side the light word is chosen: taʿmalūn — root ع-م-ل: to do, to work (neutral).
I record this as my own reading, and its support is the semantic weight of the two roots: while saying that responsibility is separate, the sentence assigns the heavy word to itself and the neutral word to the other side. That is, even while the separation is being drawn, the other side is not accused.
And this continues the preceding verse: in the twenty-fourth verse the verdict was suspended; in the twenty-fifth the language of accusation is abandoned. The two verses are two steps of the same discipline.
And as a principle what it says overlaps with the principle of burden treated at Fāṭir 35/18 (lā taziru wāziratun wizra ukhrā) — there it was recorded that the principle is tested in its hardest form. I rely on that treatment. The difference here is this: in Fāṭir the principle was laid down as a ruling; in Sabaʾ it is used as a sentence within a dispute. The principle, that is, has been turned into a rule of conduct governing the relation with the other side.
The root ف-ت-ح was analysed in detail at al-Fatḥ on the occasion of that sūra's name (to open what is closed; fattāḥ, miftāḥ). I do not repeat it here.
What belongs here is the root's sense of giving judgement, and it must be recorded. In Arabic fataḥa bayna'l-khaṣmayn means "he gave judgement between two adversaries". It is transmitted by the lexicographers that in the Yemeni dialect a judge is called fātiḥ.
And the relation of the senses is worth recording: to give judgement is to open a matter that was closed. A dispute is a knot; judgement is the untying of the knot.
I give this as an observation about the language, and the word order of the verse supports it: yajmaʿu baynanā (He gathers us) → yaftaḥu baynanā (He opens between us). First a bringing together, then a parting. Both verbs come with baynanā (between us).
ٱلْفَتَّاح — an intensive form: the one who opens much, who gives judgement. In the Qurʾān this name occurs only here. And al-ʿalīm has been set beside it: the one who judges, who knows. That is, the ground of the judgement is given in the same sentence.
At al-Zumar 39/46 (anta taḥkumu bayna ʿibādika fī mā kānū fīhi yakhtalifūn) the same structure was treated: the disagreement is named as a matter and its judgement is reckoned deferred. I rely on that treatment. Sabaʾ has the same thing said from the mouth of one of the parties to the disagreement.