ٱلَّتِى تَطَّلِعُ عَلَى ٱلْأَفْـِٔدَةِ
Allatī taṭṭaliʿu ʿala'l-afʾida "That fire which climbs over the hearts / which works into the hearts."
Root: ط-ل-ع. Its primary sense in the lexicon is to rise, to climb, to dawn, to appear. The rising of the sun is this verb: ṭalaʿa. Maṭlaʿ — the place of rising; in the Qurʾān: "until the rising of the dawn" (al-Qadr 97/5).
The تَطَّلِعُ of the verse is the imperfect of Form VIII (iṭṭalaʿa → taṭṭaliʿu), and this form adds a new layer to the sense of the root: to become apprised — to climb up over a thing and see it, to learn its inner face, to come to know it.
- "He looked, and saw him in the midst of Hell." (al-Ṣāffāt 37/55). Fa'ṭṭalaʿa — he looked and became apprised.
- "Perhaps I may become apprised of — may climb up to — the god of Moses (Mūsā)." (al-Qaṣaṣ 28/38, the word of Pharaoh). Here the word carries both the sense "to climb" and the sense "to learn"; and for that reason the verse is rendered in two ways.
One. To rise and climb over. The fire wraps the hearts, climbs over them, covers them. A physical encircling.
Two. To work into, to become apprised of the inner face. The fire reaches into the hearts — not from without but from within.
The second sense agrees with the whole of the sūra, because the fault the sūra describes belonged to the inside. And the sense of becoming apprised adds one thing more: the fire does not only burn, it also sees. What was hidden in the heart is brought out into the open.
The concrete sense of the root is worth dwelling on. According to what the lexicographers record, the verb faʾada means to roast on a fire, to burn; mifʾad or muftaʾad is the place or the instrument of roasting. In the root of the word fuʾād, that is, there is burning.
This brings out the most striking side of the verse: the name of the organ the fire reaches means, by its root, "the thing that burns". Between the choice of word and the verb there is a concord that comes from the root.
I transmit this lexical information as the lexicographers record it; it is not my own inference, but in the places in the exegetical literature where this link is treated it too is offered as an interpretation, not as a definite ruling.
In the classical sources a distinction is drawn between these two words. The distinctions commonly voiced are these:
| قلب (qalb) | فؤاد (fuʾād) | |
|---|---|---|
| The sense of the root | ق-ل-ب: to turn, to be turned about, to pass from state to state | ف-أ-د: to burn, to roast |
| Its emphasis | General; the centre that thinks, believes, turns | The kindling, stirring, sensitive side of the heart |
| Frequency of use | Far more frequent in the Qurʾān | Rarer, generally in places that convey intensity |
That the root of the word qalb is "to turn" is worth recording separately: the heart has taken this name because it passes from state to state. The word carries its own unsteadiness in its name.
But honesty is required here. These distinctions are drawn in the classical sources, but the scholars do not agree in the detail of the distinction; and the Qurʾān's usage does not sharply confirm it everywhere. Part of what has been written about the differences between the words qalb, fuʾād, ṣadr and lubb consists of interpretations drawn out of the contexts in which the words occur. I transmit this not as a fact of the lexicon but as a distinction the tradition has dwelt upon.
- يحسب (he supposes) — this is a verb of the mind, of the heart. What is wrong is not a work done by the hand but a reckoning set up inside.
- Belittling — the acts of humaza-lumaza are done with the tongue and with the hand, but their source is an evaluation: to count the man in front of you lower than yourself. That evaluation is made in the heart.
- The expectation of permanence — it is a hope and a fear; and both are the work of the heart.
The punishment, that is, goes to the place where the fault is. The man gathered the wealth with his hands but took possession of it with his heart; he made his mockery with his tongue but decided it in his heart.
This has one further consequence: the sūra takes as its basis the difference between the life that shows from outside and what is going on inside. The man described is successful from outside — he has wealth, he has position, his word carries. The verse does not touch the outside at all; it goes straight inside.