al-Mulk 67:25-27

Wa yaqūlūna matā hādha'l-waʿdu in kuntum ṣādiqīn — qul innama'l-ʿilmu ʿinda'llāhi wa innamā anā nadhīrun mubīn — fa-lammā raʾawhu zulfatan sīʾat wujūhu'lladhīna kafarū wa qīla hādha'lladhī kuntum bihi taddaʿūn "They say: 'When is this promise, if you are truthful?' Say: 'The knowledge is with God alone; I am only a clear warner.' When they see it close at hand, the faces of those who denied will darken, and it will be said: 'This is what you kept calling for.'"

This question is often repeated in the Qurʾān and every time it comes out of the same mouths.

And the question is not, as it appears, a request for information. A date is being asked for; but it is known that the date cannot be given. That is, the question is asked because it cannot be answered — the lack of an answer will be counted as the refutation of the claim.

This is a tactic of debate and it is widespread today too: to demand from the other side a detail he cannot supply, and when it is not supplied, to bring down the whole claim.

إِن كُنتُمْ صَٰدِقِينَ — "if you are truthful". This reservation brings out the intention of the question: the question has been tied to a test of truthfulness.

And note: the question is put to a plural addressee (kuntum — you). That is, not only to the Prophet but to those who follow him.

And the answer is to give no answer.

This is a point that must be dwelt on. The messenger says "I do not know" to the question put to him — and says it not as a weakness but as a statement of position.

The particle إِنَّمَا has been used twice and both convey restriction:

1. innama'l-ʿilmu ʿinda'llāh — the knowledge is only with God. 2. wa innamā anā nadhīrun mubīn — I am only a warner.

The two restrictions draw the job description of the messenger. In the discussion of al-Ghāshiya this description was treated: "You are only a reminder; you are not one who compels them" (88/21-22). The finding there was: not being a musayṭir is not a deficiency but an exemption.

Sūrat al-Mulk draws the same boundary from another direction: the messenger is neither a compeller nor one who knows everything.

نَذِيرٌ مُّبِين — "a clear warner".

Mubīn — root b-y-n: to separate, to be clear. Bayān — explanation; bayna — between. In the root there is opening a space between two things; clarity is separatedness.

The pattern of the word (the active participle of Form IV) can be understood in two ways and both occur in the classical sources: one who is himself clear or one who makes clear. Both suit the context.

زُلْفَة — root ز-ل-ف. Nearness, drawing near. Zulaf — a portion of the night; Muzdalifa — the place drawn near to, one of the stations of the pilgrimage. In the root there is the closing of distance.

And the word's syntactic place here is disputed: zulfatan is in the accusative, but of what is it the circumstantial qualifier? Of the thing seen (the punishment being near), or of the act of seeing (seeing from close up)? Both readings are possible and both give the same result: the distance has closed.

And now an internal link: in the eleventh verse suḥqan (away with them) was said. Here zulfa (nearness). In the same sūra, two faces of the same event: the punishment draws near, the one who undergoes the punishment is put far away.

The form of the verb is striking too: fa-lammā raʾaw — the perfect. An event that has not yet happened is told as though it had happened. This is a form repeated in the Qurʾān's scenes of the hereafter and its effect is this: what is to come is presented, at the level of language, as settled. The same was said of aʿtadnā (We have prepared) in the fifth verse.

Root: س-و-أ. To be bad, to become ugly. Sayyiʾa — an evil deed; sūʾ — badness, ugliness.

The verb is passive: sīʾat — "were made bad". That is, the faces do not change of themselves; they are changed.

And again faces. In the discussion of al-Ghāshiya this choice was treated: the face is the part of a person that cannot be hidden; a person's state is read there first. The Qurʾān speaks insistently of faces in the scenes of the day of reckoning.

There is an added fine point here: before the verse there is the verb raʾaw (they saw). That is, the seer is in the face and the seen is opposite. Seeing and the face in the same sentence: they looked, and the trace of the look fell on their faces.

There is disagreement over the reading and the meaning of this verb:

The difference of meaning is not great and both suit the context. In the twenty-fifth verse they had asked "when?" — that is, they had been in haste. The sentence answers that question: this is what you asked for.

I record the detail of the variant reading, but because I cannot give with certainty which reading belongs to which imam, I write no name.

And the irony of the sentence is sharp: when the thing people asked about mockingly, saying "when will it come?", does come, they are told "this is what you wanted". The request has been granted.