Sabaʾ 34:51-53

Wa law tarā idh faziʿū fa-lā fawta wa ukhidhū min makānin qarīb · Wa qālū āmannā bihī wa annā lahumu't-tanāwushu min makānin baʿīd · Wa qad kafarū bihī min qabl, wa yaqdhifūna bi'l-ghaybi min makānin baʿīd

"If you could but see the moment they are seized with terror! There is no escape now; they are taken from close at hand. 'We believe', they say. But how are they to reach out from a far place? They had denied it before, and kept throwing at the unseen from a far place."

The root ف-ز-ع occurred in the twenty-third verse: ḥattā idhā fuzziʿa ʿan qulūbihim — when the terror was lifted from their hearts. Here the same root comes in Form I and in the active: faziʿū — they were seized with terror.

The same root in two opposite directions — and twenty-eight verses lie between them. This is a contrast that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as my own reading: on one side fear is lifted, on the other side fear descends.

The root was analysed in detail at al-Mulk 67/3 (mā tarā fī khalqi'r-raḥmāni min tafāwut). The summary of what was recorded there is this: the primary sense of the root is to escape, to slip out of one's hands, to get away through a gap; fātahu'l-amr — the matter escaped him. And tafāwut (Form VI) is two things' failing to match, a gap remaining between them. I do not repeat it here.

What belongs here is the use of the root in its bare form and negated: fa-lā fawta.

The pattern is lā al-nāfiya li'l-jins (the lā that negates a whole class): "there is no escape at all." It corresponds to the English "there is nowhere left to run".

And the way the two sūras use the root can be compared:

The same root: in one it is said that there is no gap in the creation, in the other that there is no gap to escape through. I record this as an observation about the language.

وَأُخِذُوا۟ مِن مَّكَانٍ قَرِيبٍ — "they were taken from a place close at hand."

The verb is passive (ukhidhū) and in the perfect. It is worth recording: the scene is told of the future, but the verb is given in the past tense. In Arabic this use conveys the certainty of the event: as certain as if it had already happened.

And the phrase min makānin qarīb is the first link in the weave of distance built in the last three verses of the sūra.

The concrete sense of the root: to stretch out the hand and take a thing, to reach so as to take. Nāsha'sh-shayʾa — he reached out for it, he took it.

And the pattern is of Form VI (tafāʿul): tanāwush — to reach out mutually, or with exertion.

The picture in the word must be recorded: tanāwush is the stretching out of the hand towards something within reach. Like taking a fruit from its branch. And precisely for this reason the contradiction in the sentence emerges: annā lahumu't-tanāwushu min makānin baʿīd — "how are they to reach out from a far place?"

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the meaning of the word itself: tanāwush is already a verb that requires nearness. It cannot be done from a distance — the definition of the word does not allow it. The sentence states the impossibility not as a ruling but from inside the word.

And there is a variant reading of the word:

Both readings are transmitted. On the second reading the sense of "an attempt to take from a distance" is reinforced; I do not impose a preference.

أَنَّىٰ — in Arabic an interrogative particle meaning "how / from where"; here it conveys denial: "it is not possible."

And what the verse says is a rule recorded several times in the series.

At al-Zumar 39/56-59 three excuses were tabulated, and the third was law anna lī karratan (if only I could return once more); it was recorded there that the second excuse cuts off the third. I rely on that treatment.

And at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/77-85 the exact counterpart of this sentence was treated: fa-lammā raʾaw baʾsanā qālū āmannā bi'llāhi waḥdah … fa-lam yaku yanfaʿuhum īmānuhum lammā raʾaw baʾsanā — "their faith after they had seen Our might did not avail them" — and there it was named sunnata'llāhi'llatī qad khalat fī ʿibādih: not an exception but an ongoing way of working. I rely on that treatment.

I set the three places side by side:

The three verses give the same rule with three different grounds: one by the warning's having already come, one by the continuity of the way, and one by the meaning of a word.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the third row above: Sabaʾ does not state the ground as a rule. It gives a picture: a hand reaching from far away. And the picture already contains the outcome.

And the fifty-third verse brings back the verb of the forty-eighth. I tabulated it above in the treatment of 34/48-49.

The lexicographers dwell on the sense of the construction, and what the transmitted explanations have in common is this: to throw stones at the unseen is to speak about something one has not seen without taking any measure. It is a picture close to the English "shooting in the dark". I give this comparison as a convenience of explanation, not as something transmitted.

And that the word is ghayb must be recorded: what is thrown is what the thrower does not know. That is, the sentence gives both the subject of the claim and the state of knowledge behind it in a single construction.

The last three verses of the sūra build a weave of distance, and this is the backbone of the close:

Three verses, three makāns, two distances. And the contrast must be recorded: the one who seizes is near, the one who is seized is far.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the construction the three verses share: the distance needed for escape is not there (they were seized from near), and the nearness needed for holding on is not there either (they reach from far off). In both directions the distance works against them.

And this ties back to the nineteenth verse: the people of Sabaʾ had said rabbanā bāʿid bayna asfārinā — "set our journeys far apart". The distance that was asked for comes back at the end of the sūra as the distance that cannot be closed. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.