إِنَّهُمْ يَكِيدُونَ كَيْدًا · وَأَكِيدُ كَيْدًا
This word was treated in the section on Sūrat al-Fīl (a-lam yajʿal kaydahum fī taḍlīl). What was recorded there:
The root k-y-d: to try to do something secretly and by an indirect route; to prepare an arrangement the other side cannot see. The most decisive feature of the word is secrecy — an open attack is not called kayd.
And there, these two verses of al-Ṭāriq were mentioned thus: "They are like the general statement of the principle of Sūrat al-Fīl."
Let us now open that observation up. Sūrat al-Fīl recounts a particular event: an army comes, its plan comes to nothing. Al-Ṭāriq states the same principle without an event: they lay a plot, I lay a plot. In al-Fīl the outcome is recounted (fī taḍlīl — within a going astray); in al-Ṭāriq the outcome is not stated, and it is only made known that the other side too is doing something.
The measure recorded in al-Fīl holds here as well: the Qurʾān makes the subject of discussion not the evil plan itself but in whose hand the plan will end.
In Arabic this is called the absolute object (mafʿūl muṭlaq), and its basic function is emphasis. English has no exact equivalent; it can be approached with expressions such as "they plot and plot", or "they are laying a plot — and what a plot".
That the same structure is used in both verses tells of the two sides in exactly the same language. This is not a coincidence; it will be dwelt on below.
This is a known device in the Qurʾān, and in Arabic rhetoric it is called mushākala (using the same wording in the response).
How these expressions are to be understood has been discussed at length in the classical literature of theology and exegesis. The general acceptance is this: the word is used as the name of the response. That is, the kayd ascribed to God is not a malicious trick; it is the response that turns the plot back on the one who laid it. As was recorded in the section on al-Fīl too, at Yūsuf 12/76 kayd is ascribed to God and carries no negative sense there.
Why is the same word used? In order to show that the response is exactly equal to the act. Had a different word been used, the response would have fallen into a separate category. The same word establishes the equality: neither less nor more.
| Verse 15 | Verse 16 | |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | Plural — innahum (they) | Singular, first person — akīdu (I) |
| Form of the verb | yakīdūna — imperfect, continuous | akīdu — imperfect, continuous |
| Particle of emphasis | إِنَّ is present | Absent |
First: singularity against plurality. They are a crowd; they make their plans together. The one facing them is one. The sūra sets up this disproportion by grammar.
Second — and the more striking: "I". For divine acts the Qurʾān mostly uses the plural of majesty (taʿẓīm): innā anzalnāhu, fa-sa-nuyassiruhū, naḥnu. Here the first person singular comes: akīdu — "I lay a plot".
This change makes the encounter one to one. Against a crowded side, a single one. And the institutional distance carried by the plural of majesty is removed.
Third: there is emphasis in the first sentence and none in the second. Innahum — "surely they". Akīdu — plain. Their plot is recounted with emphasis; the response is stated in a calm sentence.
This difference of sound prepares the close of the sūra. The text does not raise the dose of the threat; it lowers it.
First their plot, then the response. The order in Sūrat al-Fīl was the same: first Abraha's plan, then the outcome of that plan.
This order states a principle: the response comes after the act. The Qurʾān does not break this order — no one is punished before the deed.