al-Ṣāffāt 37:27-32

Wa aqbala baʿḍuhum ʿalā baʿḍin yatasāʾalūn · Qālū innakum kuntum taʾtūnanā ʿani'l-yamīn · Qālū bal lam takūnū muʾminīn · Wa mā kāna lanā ʿalaykum min sulṭān, bal kuntum qawman ṭāghīn · Fa-ḥaqqa ʿalaynā qawlu rabbinā, innā la-dhāʾiqūn · Fa-aghwaynākum innā kunnā ghāwīn

"They turn to one another, questioning. They say: 'You used to come at us from the right.' The others: 'No, you were not believers to begin with. And we had no power over you; you were a people who transgressed. The word of our Lord has come true against us; we too shall taste it. We led you astray, because we ourselves had gone astray.'"

This sentence occurs twice in the sūra, with one letter of difference:

This is one of the plainest structural data of the sūra, and it is entirely countable.

The difference of conjunction is also worth noting: in the twenty-seventh verse wāw (simple joining), in the fiftieth fāʾ (succession without interval). In the garden the conversation begins immediately after the picture of the favours, without a pause; in the fire it comes as a separate movement after the scene of the halting. I record this as an observation.

Aqbala — root ق-ب-ل: to turn toward, to turn one's face. Qibla — the direction faced; qabl — front. The verb announces, that is, a turning of the face: they turned to one another.

Yatasāʾalūn — root س-أ-ل, Form VI: to question one another. In the twenty-fourth verse it had been said masʾūlūn (they are to be questioned). Here they question one another. The same root, two different interrogations: one vertical, one horizontal. This is a textual datum.

And this expression is one of the most disputed places in the sūra.

Yamīn — root ي-م-ن. The root has three separate branches in Arabic, and all are used in the Qurʾān:

And on the sense of the expression here there is more than one view in the classical commentaries. I give them in a table and impose no preference:

The weakness of the second view is read off the text, and this must be recorded: in the thirtieth verse the other side rejects the claim of power by saying "we had no sulṭān over you". The text, that is, produces within itself an objection to this reading. This is not a preference; it is a datum of the text.

As my own reading — and it is not binding: the preposition in the expression ʿani'l-yamīn (ʿan, "from, from the side of") announces a direction, and this gives a ground to the first view. "To come from the right" is the picture of an enemy approaching from the unexpected and unguarded side. But I do not set this down as a ruling; the word is open to more than one branch and the text does not specify.

The verse names neither side. There is only qālū … qālū.

In the classical commentaries two divisions are transmitted:

Both are transmitted and the text is open to both. The expression fa-aghwaynākum ("we led you astray") in the thirty-second verse suits the second reading, while mā kāna lanā ʿalaykum min sulṭān in the thirtieth suits both. I do not impose a preference.

The scene of the quarrel in the fire was treated in detail at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/47-50. The three-stage chain table there is not repeated; here I set down a comparison of the two scenes.

The most marked difference between the two scenes is this, and it is read off the text: in Ghāfir the weak make a request (share the burden); in al-Ṣāffāt there is no request at all, only accusation. In Ghāfir the quarrel is looking for a solution; in al-Ṣāffāt a settling of scores is going on.

The second difference: Ghāfir gives names to the parties (the weak / those who grew proud); al-Ṣāffāt does not. The result of this is that the scene in al-Ṣāffāt turns into a quarrel whose parties are undefined — and, as was recorded above, in the classical commentaries this indefiniteness has led to two different divisions.

I record this as my own reading: in Ghāfir the quarrel has an addressee (the keepers), in al-Ṣāffāt it has none. This is why the scene in al-Ṣāffāt seems to take place in a closed room: no one calls out, everyone turns to the one beside him. The question asked in the twenty-fifth verse ("why do you not help one another?") is answered by this scene: in place of help they produce accusation.

Root س-ل-ط: to gain mastery over something, to dominate it. Sulṭān — a proof, an argument; and the power of rule. The root was treated at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/56 (bi-ghayri sulṭānin atāhum) and at al-Najm 53/23 (mā anzala'llāhu bihā min sulṭān).

A point the lexicographers record: sulṭān is connected with salīṭ (oil, olive oil) from the same root — as the oil takes up the wick and keeps the light standing, so a proof keeps a claim standing. I give this link as a transmission from the lexicographers.

Min here comes as zāʾida (a reinforcing particle): mā kāna lanā … min sulṭān — "we had no power or proof whatever". It generalises the negation.

Root ح-ق-ق: a thing's being fixed and in place. Ḥaqqa ʿalayhi — it came true against him, it became unavoidable. The root was treated in Qāf.

Qawlu rabbinā — "the word of our Lord". Which word is not said here; elsewhere the Qurʾān names the word about the filling of the fire (al-Sajda 32/13; Hūd 11/119). I give no name; the verse gives none.

Root غ-و-ي: to go from the way, to lose one's bearings, to miss the mark. Ghayy — waywardness; ghāwī — one who goes astray.

And the structure of the sentence is worth noting:

• fa-aghwaynākum — Form IV, transitive: "we led you astray".
• innā kunnā ghāwīn — an active participle from Form I, intransitive: "we ourselves had gone astray".

The confession thus has two layers: they admit the act they did, but they give as its ground their own condition. "We led you astray — because we had already gone astray."

I record this as my own reading: this is not a defence but an equalising. The other side was saying "you led me astray"; the answer becomes "yes, but we too had gone astray." The guilt is admitted, that is, but the difference is abolished. And the next verse seals it: fa-innahum yawmaʾidhin fi'l-ʿadhābi mushtarikūn.