وَحِيلَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَبَيْنَ مَا يَشْتَهُونَ كَمَا فُعِلَ بِأَشْيَاعِهِم مِّن قَبْلُ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا۟ فِى شَكٍّ مُّرِيبٍ
Wa ḥīla baynahum wa bayna mā yashtahūna kamā fuʿila bi-ashyāʿihim min qabl, innahum kānū fī shakkin murīb
"A barrier is set between them and what they desire — as was done before with those of their kind. For they were in a doubt that unsettles."
The concrete sense of the root: to turn, to change; and to come in between two things. Ḥāla bayna'sh-shayʾayn — it came between two things, it separated them. And from the same root ḥāʾil — a screen, a barrier; ḥawl — the surroundings of a thing, and a year (time that comes round).
I record this as an observation about the word order: in its last clause too the sūra does not name the agent. In the thirty-first verse there was mawqūfūn (those halted), in the thirty-eighth muḥḍarūn (those brought), in the fifty-first ukhidhū (they were taken). In the fifty-fourth verse, ḥīla (a barrier was set). Four passive verbs, distributed through the last section of the sūra.
ش-ه-و — root: intense wanting, appetite. And the verb is of Form VIII (ishtahā): to take the desire upon oneself, to crave.
And that the object is left indefinite is worth recording: mā yashtahūn — "what they desire". What it is is not said. The clause, that is, covers not one particular object but the whole of desire.
This indefiniteness joins with everything the sūra has enumerated from the beginning, and I record this as my own reading: throughout the sūra the things held in hand were counted out — gardens, roads, wealth, children, metals, buildings. The closing clause names none of them; it gathers them all into a single indefinite phrase. And what it says is not that they were lost — but that something came in between. The object does not cease to exist; the possibility of reaching it is cut off.
أَشْيَاع — the plural of shīʿa; root ش-ي-ع: to go after someone, to follow him, to spread. Shīʿa — the group that gathers around a person or a view. And shāʾiʿa (a report that spreads) is from this root too.
How the word is rendered must be recorded: "their like" or "those who took the same road". What is meant, that is, is not a lineage or a nation — but those who share the same stance.
A note per the method (Method): what the verse describes is an attribute. No blanket ruling is issued about a particular community; whoever bears that attribute is included in it.
And the clause builds the idea of a settled way once more: kamā fuʿila … min qabl — "as was done before". At Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/85 sunnata'llāhi'llatī qad khalat fī ʿibādih was treated in detail, and at Fāṭir 35/43 (fa-lan tajida li-sunnati'llāhi tabdīlā) the same concept was treated. I rely on those treatments.
The difference that belongs here must be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: Ghāfir and Fāṭir name the rule — they say sunnat Allāh. Sabaʾ does not name the rule; it only draws a likeness: "as was done before." The same continuity, that is, is given not as a concept but as a comparison.
In the twenty-first verse the distinction had been drawn between faith and doubt: li-naʿlama man yuʾminu bi'l-ākhirati mimman huwa minhā fī shakk. The fifty-fourth verse closes with the same word.
| Verse | Expression | Its work |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | Huwa minhā fī shakk | The measure of the distinction — one of the two groups |
| 54 | Kānū fī shakkin murīb | The ground of the outcome — the closing verdict |
The sūra uses as its closing verdict the measure it set down in its middle. This is a link that can be verified within the sūra.
مُرِيب — root ر-ي-ب: doubt, hesitation, uneasy suspicion. The active participle of Form IV: that which casts into doubt, that which makes uneasy.
And the construction is worth recording: shakkin murīb — "a doubt that puts in doubt". Two words from the same field of meaning set side by side.
The lexicographers record a difference between shakk and rayb: shakk is the equality of two possibilities — a lack of knowledge. Rayb is doubt that carries unease — a suspicion that troubles a person, that gnaws at him.
And what the construction does is this, and I record it as my own reading: in closing, the sūra does not deliver a diagnosis of denial. The diagnosis it delivers is doubt — and the kind of doubt is specified: a doubt that troubles, that leaves no peace.
That is, the sūra leaves the other side not as a settled denier but as someone in hesitation. And this is consistent with the attitude of the twenty-fourth verse: there too no final verdict was given, and two possibilities were set side by side. The sūra ends where it began: the verdict deferred, the reasoning left to the addressee.