Ṣād 38:31-33

Idh ʿuriḍa ʿalayhi bi'l-ʿashiyyi'ṣ-ṣāfinātu'l-jiyād · Fa-qāla innī aḥbabtu ḥubba'l-khayri ʿan dhikri rabbī ḥattā tawārat bi'l-ḥijāb · Ruddūhā ʿalayya, fa-ṭafiqa masḥan bi's-sūqi wa'l-aʿnāq

"When there were presented to him in the late afternoon the noble racing horses that stand poised on the tip of one hoof. He said: 'I have loved the love of the good out of (/for) the remembrance of my Lord' — until it was hidden behind the veil. 'Bring them back to me.' And he set to stroking/striking their legs and their necks."

These three verses are the place in the sūra over which there has been the greatest divergence. And the note at the twenty-first verse holds here too:

A great many reports have gathered around this scene in the classical commentaries, and some of them ascribe to Solomon acts unbefitting a prophet. Those narratives are not entered into in this commentary. It is transmitted that a considerable body of the classical exegetes rejected these reports.

Below only the wording of the verses will be dwelt on, the disagreement will be given in a table, and no preference will be imposed.

They are described with two words, and both are technical terms.

صَافِنَات — root ص-ف-ن. The lexicographers describe the word by a very distinct stance: صَفَنَ الفَرَسُ — the horse stood on three legs and set the fourth on the tip of its hoof.

This is a stance known in horsemanship, and it shows two things: that the animal is fresh (a tired horse plants all four legs) and that it is trained.

جِيَاد — its singular jawād. Root ج-و-د: to be good, to be generous. Jawād — both a generous man and a swift horse. The common point: the generous man does not hold back his hand when he gives, and the swift horse does not hold itself back when it runs.

The two epithets together, that is, say one single thing: these are not ordinary horses.

Some exegetes have also understood ṣāfināt not as "raising one foot" but as "drawn up in rows" (from the closeness of the roots ص-ف-ن and ص-ف-ف). Both explanations are transmitted.

And this word occurs for the second time in the sūra. In the eighteenth verse it was the hour at which the mountains gave praise together with David: bi'l-ʿashiyyi wa'l-ishrāq.

This is a verbal repetition that can be verified. The one who makes the link is I, and I record it as my own reading: the same hour, two prophets, two different occupations. The sūra does not interpret this further; it sets the two scenes side by side and leaves them.

The sentence is disputed on account of three words: aḥbabtu, al-khayr, and ʿan.

First the lexicon:

ٱلْخَيْر — root خ-ي-ر: that which is good, that which is preferred. And the word has a particular use in Arabic which the lexicographers record: al-khayr is used in the sense of horses. This is a settled use in the language.

عَنْ — in Arabic it basically conveys moving away: "from". But it is used in other works as well.

Now the table of the disagreement:

The first and third readings take it as the confession of a fault; the second as a justification.

I do not impose a preference. This much can be recorded, and it rests on the wording: there is not one word in the sentence conveying regret or a plea for forgiveness. In the thirty-fourth verse thumma anāb (then he turned back) will come, but that sentence follows a separate event (the throne and the body).

And aḥbabtu ḥubba — the verbal noun coming together with the verb conveys emphasis in Arabic: "I loved, and what a loving."

تَوَارَتْ — root و-ر-ي: to cover, to conceal. Form VI (tafāʿul): to hide oneself, to pass behind something.

حِجَاب — root ح-ج-ب: a veil, a barrier; the thing standing between. This word was treated in Fuṣṣilat at 41/5 (the other side's saying wa min bayninā wa baynika ḥijāb).

And the subject of the verb is not stated in the verse. This is the source of the disagreement:

I do not impose a preference. The two readings give the following verse different senses: on the first, what is meant by "bring them back" is the horses and the event takes place after sunset; on the second, the horses had gone off and are called back.

And this is the most disputed half-sentence in the sūra.

طَفِقَ — in Arabic it is among the verbs that convey "to begin, to set about a thing" (afʿāl al-shurūʿ). The word that follows states the work begun.

مَسْح — root م-س-ح. And the original sense of the root: to pass the hand over a thing, to stroke it, to wipe it. The wiping (masḥ) of the head in the ablution is from this root (al-Māʾida 5/6).

And the lexicographers record a second use of the root as well: masaḥahū bi'l-sayf — he struck him with the sword, he cut him. This use is derived from the picture of the sword passing over its target.

Now the table of the disagreement:

In this disagreement I certainly do not impose a preference, and I write my reason out plainly: the wording of the verse admits of all three readings and contains no indication that excludes any of them.

This much can be recorded:

• The original and common sense of the root supports the first view. The second sense is figurative and less used.
• The indication supporting the second view is the naming of the parts that are cut (sūq — legs; aʿnāq — necks).
• The indication supporting the first view is the command ruddūhā ʿalayya (bring them back to me): to have a thing brought back is an act of drawing near.

And I do not enter into the detailed narratives that have gathered around the second view in the classical commentaries; it is transmitted that the source of these narratives is report, and that they have been disputed among the exegetes.

سُوق — its singular sāq: the shank, the leg. أَعْنَاق — its singular ʿunuq: the neck.

I record this as an observation: the two parts are where the horse's two basic qualities reside — the leg carries the running, the neck the stance. The two epithets of the thirty-first verse (ṣāfināt — stance, jiyād — running) correspond exactly to these two parts. This is an equivalence of wording; I establish no ruling as to what it means.