al-Fatḥ 48:15

Sa-yaqūlu'l-mukhallafūna idha'nṭalaqtum ilā maghānima li-taʾkhudhūhā dharūnā nattabiʿkum; yurīdūna an yubaddilū kalāma'llāh; qul lan tattabiʿūnā kadhālikum qāla'llāhu min qabl; fa-sa-yaqūlūna bal taḥsudūnanā; bal kānū lā yafqahūna illā qalīlā

"When you set out to take spoils, those who were left behind will say: 'Let us follow you.' They wish to change the word of God. Say: You shall never follow us; God said so before. Then they will say: 'No, you are envious of us.' No! They understand very little."

There was a sa-yaqūlu in the eleventh verse; here comes the second. And this time the qualifier has been cut short: there it said al-mukhallafūna mina'l-aʿrāb, here only al-mukhallafūn.

This is not an abbreviation but a settling: the word is no longer a description but has become a name. The text stated whom it meant at the first occurrence, and at the second it sees no need to state it.

What needs to be noticed is the difference in time between the two utterances.

• In verse 11 the words spoken are an excuse offered before setting out.
• In verse 15 the words spoken are a request made when the spoils are about to be shared out.

The same people, that is, frame two different sentences at two different moments. And the difference between them is a further proof of what the stance is: at the moment of risk an excuse, at the moment of gain a wish to take part.

I record this as my own reading: the force of the verse comes not from a moral accusation but from setting the two sentences side by side. The text delivers no verdict; it places the two sentences one after the other and leaves the verdict to the reader. This is a method the Qurʾān often uses.

The concrete sense of the root is surprising: غَنَم (ghanam) — sheep, small livestock.

From this غَنِيمَة (ghanīma) is born: what is obtained, what falls into one's hands. The link the lexicographers record is this: in a nomadic life the typical form of what falls into one's hands is a flock; the word was generalised from there.

The word has a second aspect, and it must be recorded: in Arabic ghunm also carries the sense "obtained without payment or unexpectedly". Indeed the maxim well known in legal theory, "al-ghunmu bi'l-ghurm" (gain is the counterpart of risk), uses the word in exactly this sense: the one who is entitled to the gain is the one who bears the risk.

And the logic of the verse is exactly this. Those who did not share the risk want to share the gain. The verse does not say this in a moral idiom; it merely records who was standing where.

The word occurs three times in this sūra: 15, 19, 20. The sūra, that is, takes up the question of spoils openly, and says two different things to two different groups.

ذَرُوا۟ — "let us". The word has an interesting side to it: in Arabic the perfect of this verb is not used; only the imperative and the imperfect are. This is a feature of usage recorded by the lexicographers.

نَتَّبِعْكُمْ — root ت-ب-ع: to go after, to follow. Tābiʿ, ittibāʿ, tabaʿa.

The subtlety in the language of the request: it is not "let us come too" but "let us follow you". The speakers, that is, put themselves from the outset in the position of followers; they are not claiming a right, they are asking a leave.

And the answer turns that very word back on them: lan tattabiʿūnā — "you shall never follow us." The same verb, negated and reinforced with the particle of certainty.

Root: ب-د-ل — to put something else in the place of a thing, to change it. Badal, tabdīl, istibdāl, mubādala.

And this root occurs twice in the sūra. The second occurrence is at verse 23:

The two verses answer one another. In the fifteenth a group wishes to change the word of God; the twenty-third states that no change can be found in God's way of working.

I record this link as my own reading, but the shared root in the two verses is a datum that can be verified, and that the sūra should use the same word eight verses apart with two different subjects is worth attention.

In the classical commentaries what the expression كَلَٰمَ ٱللَّهِ points to here is debated, and the disagreement must be recorded:

The text does not explain this, and I impose no preference either. The verse says only kadhālikum qāla'llāhu min qabl — "God said so before". What was said, and when, is not stated.

The verse gives the exchange in three stages, and this is one of the Qurʾān's narrative techniques:

1. The request: "Let us follow you" 2. The answer: "You shall never follow" 3. The counter-accusation: "No, you are envious of us"

The third stage is the most striking. Met with a refusal, the other side does not dispute the ground of it; it disputes the motive. It does not say "this decision is wrong", it says "you took this decision out of envy".

حَسَد — root ح-س-د: to wish that a blessing another has should perish. The lexicographers dwell on the concrete sense of the root: some connect the word with a worm that gnaws the heartwood of a tree. I do not offer this as a settled etymology.

I record this as my own reading: this three-stage structure shows how an argument changes direction. When a decision is refused, it is hard to refute the ground of the decision; it is easy to accuse the one who made it. The verse records that shift and gives no answer — because an accusation has no addressee; an accusation is not a ground.

فقه — root ف-ق-ه: to understand a thing by penetrating into it. The lexicographers tie the root to the idea of "splitting, opening the inside of". This is why fiqh is not merely knowledge but grasp: reaching the logic behind the information.

The choice of word is meaningful. The verse does not say "they do not know" (lā yaʿlamūn). There is something they do know: they know the spoils will be shared out, they know how the process works. What is missing is grasp — what all this means.

إِلَّا قَلِيلًا — "except a little". And this qualification must not be overlooked.

The verse does not make an absolute negation; it sets an exception. It does not say "they understand nothing", it says "they understand little". This is, within the text itself, the counterpart of the prohibition on wholesale rulings set out in Method: the Qurʾān itself limits the negative ruling it has just framed.

There are two readings of what the exception attaches to:

Both readings are found in the classical commentaries; I impose no preference. Both arrive at the same result: the ruling is not framed against the whole body.