قُلْ يَٰٓأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَٰبِ تَعَالَوْا۟ إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَآءٍۭ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهَ
Qul yā ahla'l-kitābi taʿālaw ilā kalimatin sawāʾin baynanā wa baynakum allā naʿbuda illa'llāha wa lā nushrika bihī shayʾan wa lā yattakhidha baʿḍunā baʿḍan arbāban min dūni'llāh, fa-in tawallaw fa-qūlu'shhadū bi-annā muslimūn
"Say: 'People of the Book! Come to a word that is common between us and you: that we serve none but God, that we associate nothing with Him, and that none of us take others as lords apart from God.' If they turn away, say: 'Bear witness that we are those who have handed themselves over.'"
This verse opens the third block of the sūra and is one of its most-quoted verses. I shall treat it in detail, because both the form of the call and its content are worth recording.
And the picture of the word must be recorded, and the lexicographers dwell on it: in Arabic taʿāla is properly the calling up of one below by one who is in a high place. In time it took on a general sense of "come"; but the upward movement in its root has remained.
I record this as an observation about the language, and I build no claim of superiority on it — because the verse itself blocks that: the place called to is the middle between the two sides, not the caller's own side.
كَلِمَة — the root ك-ل-م. It was treated at verse 45. And here it comes indefinite: kalimatin — "a word".
سَوَآء — the root س-و-ي: to be equal, to be even, to be level. Sawāʾ — equal, common, at the same distance from both sides.
The concrete sense of the root is worth recording: istawā — it became level, it came into balance. Sawiyy — even. At the centre of the root stands the absence of tilt: what does not lean to one side.
بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ — "between us and you". And the repetition of the word bayna must be recorded: it says baynanā wa baynakum, not baynanā wa kum. In Arabic this repetition stresses that the two sides are counted separately.
That is, the construction says: an utterance standing at an equal distance from both sides, imposed by neither upon the other.
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the absence of tilt in the root of the word: the call is not "come over to our side". The ground itself is named as neutral. And this is the reverse of what is usual at the opening of a dispute — what is usual is to declare one's own position the ground.
And the content of the call is given at once. It is three items, and the word order of all three must be recorded:
| # | Item | Its person | Whom it binds |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Allā naʿbuda illa'llāh | First person plural — "let us not serve" | Both sides at once |
| 2 | Wa lā nushrika bihī shayʾā | First person plural | Both sides at once |
| 3 | Wa lā yattakhidha baʿḍunā baʿḍan arbāban min dūni'llāh | Third person, reciprocal | Both sides at once |
And this is the most important fact of word order in the verse, and it is usually passed over: all three items are in the "we" person.
The verse does not say "do not you associate". It says "let us not serve, let us not associate, let us not take one another as lords".
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the inflection of the verbs: the call is not a correction directed at the other side; it is set up as an obligation the two sides will take on together. And this is the one thing that makes the call acceptable — no one says yes to a sentence that begins "you are in the wrong".
The first two items are vertical: they order the relation between a human being and God. The third item is horizontal: it orders the relation between one human being and another.
رَبّ — the root ر-ب-ب: the one who nurtures, who owns, who takes charge of another's affair. The root was treated in detail in al-Fātiḥa.
What this item describes is explained in the classical commentaries and is generally connected with absolute obedience to religious authorities. I transmit this and add the following as my own reading:
The wording of the item names no class. Baʿḍunā baʿḍan — "some of us, others of us". A reciprocal pronoun. That is, the item does not say who takes whom as a lord; it describes the operation.
And that the item comes third is worth recording. I give this as an observation about the word order: after the common ground is declared, how that ground will be broken is also stated. For even if the two sides agree on the first two items, if the third is violated the partnership turns into a hierarchy set up afresh.
The same line was treated at 29/46 in al-ʿAnkabūt, and there the utterance to be spoken was itself given. The table there was this:
| Part | What it does |
|---|---|
| Āmannā bi'lladhī unzila ilaynā wa unzila ilaykum | Common ground — the two revelations are named together |
| Wa ilāhunā wa ilāhukum wāḥid | A common addressee |
| Wa naḥnu lahū muslimūn | Declaring one's own position |
| al-ʿAnkabūt 29/46 | Āl ʿImrān 3/64 | |
|---|---|---|
| Context | Jidāl — the method of disputing | Taʿālaw — an invitation |
| To whom the command is given | To the believers: lā tujādilū… wa qūlū | To the Prophet: qul |
| Where the common ground is set | In the revelations — unzila ilaynā wa unzila ilaykum | In a word — kalimatin sawāʾin |
| The common addressee | Wa ilāhunā wa ilāhukum wāḥid — a statement | Allā naʿbuda illa'llāh — an obligation |
| The person of the verbs | Āmannā — first person plural | Naʿbuda, nushrika — first person plural |
| The close | Wa naḥnu lahū muslimūn | Fa-qūlu'shhadū bi-annā muslimūn |
| Is there a horizontal item | No | Yes — lā yattakhidha baʿḍunā baʿḍan arbābā |
| If the other side refuses | (Not in the verse) | Fa-in tawallaw — a closing sentence is given |
One. The two verses end with the same word: muslimūn. In al-ʿAnkabūt wa naḥnu lahū muslimūn, in Āl ʿImrān bi-annā muslimūn. And in both, this word is not a ruling directed at the other side but the speaker's declaration of his own position.
Two. Both verses state what is shared first and what divides afterwards. In al-ʿAnkabūt the two revelations are named together, then naḥnu lahū muslimūn comes. In Āl ʿImrān three shared items are counted, then fa-in tawallaw comes. That is, the sentence of division is spoken after the sentence of sharing, and only if there is a refusal.
Three. Āl ʿImrān says one item more, and that item is horizontal. In al-ʿAnkabūt there is no note about the relation between human beings. I record this as my own reading: the context of the two sūras explains this difference. Al-ʿAnkabūt is a Meccan sūra and its subject is the method of disputing; Āl ʿImrān is Medinan, and what it addresses is not only an opinion but an established order. When one speaks with an order, the question of hierarchy among human beings becomes unavoidable.
What is commanded to be said is not a threat, not an accusation, not even an answer. Ishhadū — "bear witness". What is asked of the other side is not acceptance but testimony.
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the verb: ishhadū does not put the other side into a position; it gives them a role — the one who records what he has seen. That is, even the side that refuses is not thrown outside the conversation.
And the same verb occurred earlier in the sūra, in the mouth of the disciples: wa'shhad bi-annā muslimūn (52). There the addressee was God; here the addressees are people.
The same verb, the same pattern, two different addressees. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.
This verse gives a method for speaking with one who differs, and that method lies in four steps. I draw the steps from the wording of the verse:
| Step | Its counterpart in the verse | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Taʿālaw ilā kalimatin sawāʾin | The ground is declared common |
| 2 | Allā naʿbuda… wa lā nushrika | The obligation falls on both sides at once |
| 3 | Wa lā yattakhidha baʿḍunā baʿḍan arbābā | The hierarchy between them is removed |
| 4 | Fa-in tawallaw fa-qūlū ishhadū | Even in the case of refusal the door is not closed |
And the fourth step is the one most easily passed over. The verse takes the possibility of refusal into account from the start and gives what is to be said in that case as well. What is given is not a sentence of rupture but a sentence of record.
Per the method (Method) I record this: no blanket ruling about any community can be drawn from this verse — neither favourable nor unfavourable. The verse sets up a call; who answers the call and how is not the subject of the verse. And verse 113 of the sūra will record plainly that the answer is not of one kind.