al-Qalam 68:5-7

Fa-sa-tubṣiru wa yubṣirūn — bi-ayyikumu'l-maftūn — inna rabbaka huwa aʿlamu bi-man ḍalla ʿan sabīlihī wa huwa aʿlamu bi'l-muhtadīn "Soon you will see, and they will see: which of you it was that was stricken. Your Lord surely knows best who has strayed from His path; and He knows best those who are rightly guided."

Root: ب-ص-ر. In the discussion of al-Mulk it was treated how this root forms a backbone running through that sūra. Here the root is in another function: the deferral of the verdict.

The structure of the sentence is worth noting: two verbs, two subjects, one root.

• fa-sa-tubṣiru — "you will see" (singular, addressee).
• wa yubṣirūn — "and they will see" (plural, absent third person).

And the verb is the same. The act of seeing is distributed equally to both sides. There is nothing that one side will see and the other will not.

This says how the dispute will close: no one will persuade anyone; the event will appear to both at once.

And the prefix س (sa-) conveys the near future. In Arabic sa- is used for the near and sawfa for the distant future (the distinction is not absolute, but this is the general tendency). Its use here says that the waiting will not be long.

It is worth comparing the sentence at al-Mulk 67/29:

"Soon you will know who is in manifest error" (al-Mulk 67/29 — fa-sa-taʿlamūn).

The two verses do the same work: they leave the verdict to time. The difference is that al-Qalam makes both sides partners in the act of seeing.

This expression is the most disputed place in the sūra grammatically. And the dispute turns on a single letter: بِ.

ٱلْمَفْتُون — root ف-ت-ن. And the concrete sense of the root is very clear: fatana'l-dhahab — he put the gold into the fire. Melting a metal in fire to learn its purity. Fitna is first the name of that operation; then it widened to "trial", then to "disorder, collapse".

Maftūn is a passive participle: put into the fire, tested — and from there turned in the head, stricken, driven mad.

Now the problem: how is bi-ayyikum to be resolved?

All four views exist in the classical sources. The second and third are close to one another, and it is these that fit a translation best.

My preference is toward the second/third view, and the ground is the context: the charge of majnūn occurred in the second verse; here the same charge is handed back. It is not binding; the fourth view too has support from the context — the sūra really is describing an atmosphere of fitna (division, disorder).

Whatever the case, what the sentence does is plain: the accusation is returned, but not with an accusation — with a question.

The verse does not say "you are the ones who are mad". It says "it will be seen in which of you it lies". That is, no verdict is given; it is announced that a verdict will be given.

This is an instance of the principle recorded in the discussions of al-Ghāshiya and al-Mulk: the authority to call to account has not been given to the messenger. And here a further step is taken — the messenger does not even accuse the other side.

The seventh verse closes the question of the sixth: He is the one who knows.

And the structure of the sentence is symmetrical:

• huwa aʿlamu bi-man ḍalla ʿan sabīlih — He knows best the one who has strayed.
• wa huwa aʿlamu bi'l-muhtadīn — He knows best those who are rightly guided.

The same expression for both sides. No partisan sentence of the kind "He knows the one who strays, and He will save you" is built; both groups are objects of the same knowledge.

A point of word order: in the first half there is a verbal clause (man ḍalla — the one who strays), in the second half a noun (al-muhtadīn — those in guidance).

In classical grammar a verbal clause conveys occurrence and renewal, a noun fixity. This distinction was used in the discussions of al-Ghāshiya and al-Mulk as well.

The reading that follows, as my own reading: straying is named as an act, guidance as a state. Straying is something done; being in guidance is a position occupied.

This reading should not be pressed — in the Qurʾān these two words occur in other constructions too. But the choice in this verse stands in the text.

سَبِيل — path. In the discussion of al-Fātiḥa the words for way were distinguished: sabīl a particular way of going, a route; ṣirāṭ a broad main road. Here we have sabīlihī — "His way" — a construct, so a particular route.

I think the sentence "soon you will see" contains an ethic of disputation, and I record that as my own reading.

In a dispute, when you cannot persuade the other side there are three options: apply pressure, keep arguing, or wait for the outcome.

The sūra chooses the third. And the condition of that choice is this: believing that the outcome will come. The one who can wait is the one who has something to wait for.

And the converse also holds: if no outcome is coming, the argument must be won today. So it is not strange that a disputant who does not believe in an afterlife should be in a hurry.

A second aspect: not returning the accusation.

The sixth verse avoids the easy course of saying "you are the mad ones". And this is a rare stance today — the commonest answer to an accusation is to send the same accusation back.

What the sūra does is to turn the accusation into a question. The difference between a question and an accusation is whether or not it puts the other on the defensive.