al-Aḥzāb 33:23

Mina'l-muʾminīna rijālun ṣadaqū mā ʿāhadu'llāha ʿalayh, fa-minhum man qaḍā naḥbahu wa minhum man yantaẓir, wa mā baddalū tabdīlā

"Among the believers are men who were true to the pledge they gave God. Some of them have fulfilled their vow (have given their lives), and some are waiting. They have made no change at all."

The word order of the verse is striking from its first word. The sentence begins by bringing the predicate forward: mina'l-muʾminīna rijālun — "among the believers are men". In Arabic this is a structure required when the subject is indefinite, and it produces emphasis.

مِّنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ — the partitive (indicating a part). The particle min here means "some of". That is, the verse is not speaking about all the believers; it is setting a part apart.

This must also be recorded in view of the method (Method): the verse does not load an attribute wholesale onto a group. Neither in praise nor in blame.

Root: ر-ج-ل. And the concrete sense of the root is the foot: rijl — a foot. Rājil — one who goes on foot. Rajul — a grown man.

The word's use here is assessed in two ways in classical exegesis:

The second explanation is supported by the Qurʾān's use of the word elsewhere: "And a man came running from the far end of the city" (Yā Sīn 36/20); "And a believing man from Pharaoh's household, who concealed his faith, said…" (Ghāfir 40/28) — this use was treated at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin). In both places the word emphasises someone standing alone.

I do not impose a preference. But this can be recorded: the two explanations do not conflict; the word can carry both a sex and a quality, and this is common in Arabic.

And there is a link with the fourth verse: there too li-rajulin occurred — "He has not made two hearts for a man". The sūra uses the word twice: once as the subject of indivisibility, once as the subject of keeping one's word. The two uses look to the same place: the one who is not divided, who stands by the word he gave.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is that both occurrences of the word in the sūra are in a context of "wholeness".

This sentence is the direct answer to the fifteenth verse.

The same root (ع-ه-د), two different outcomes. The pledge had been given on both sides; the difference lies in what was done with the pledge.

And that the verb ṣadaqū is constructed with an object is striking: not "they were truthful in their pledge" but a structure closer to "they made the pledge they had given come true". In Arabic the verb ṣadaqa can take a direct object. That is, truthfulness is depicted as a work done upon the word given.

This is the expression most often dwelt on in the verse.

نَحْب — root ن-ح-ب. The senses the lexicographers record:

قَضَىٰ — root ق-ض-ي. To complete a matter, to finish it, to settle it by a decision.

The construction occurs only here in the Qurʾān, and in classical exegesis these two explanations come to the fore:

The two explanations do not exclude one another and in classical exegesis they are mostly understood together: what was undertaken was completed — and in the context of this sūra the completion came by the giving of a life.

I do not impose a preference. But the datum the word order gives is this: the sentence sets up a contrast — qaḍā / yantaẓir. And since intiẓār (waiting) is a continuing state, the qaḍā set against it conveys something finished.

And the wording of the verse gives no names. Certain names are mentioned in connection with this verse in the classical sources. No name is given in this commentary, because the reports differ at the level of detail, and the verse itself is making a description, not an identification.

ٱنْتَظَرَ — root ن-ظ-ر. To look; and intiẓār — to look while waiting for a thing to come.

That the verb comes in the imperfect is worth noting: the first part is perfect (qaḍā), the second imperfect (yantaẓir). One is closed, the other open.

And the clause has no object. The verse gives no answer to the question "waiting for what?" In classical exegesis it is said that this is waiting for what the first group reached (that is, the completion of the word given).

This aspect of the verse says something worth recording, and I give it as my own reading: the verse divides those who kept their word into two groups and names both in the same sentence, with the same praise. That is, keeping one's word does not require the word to have been completed. The one who has not yet completed it is inside the same description.

This shows where the measure is set: the measure lies not in the outcome but in not changing.

بَدَّلَ — root ب-د-ل. To put another thing in the place of a thing. Badal, tabdīl, istibdāl are from the same root.

And again a cognate accusative: mā baddalū tabdīlā. Like zulzilū zilzālan shadīdā in the eleventh verse, the verb is reinforced by its verbal noun.

The reciprocal position of the two reinforcements within the sūra is worth recording:

The same grammatical instrument, once in an affirmative and once in a negative sentence, twelve verses apart. The sūra says first how violent the shaking was, then how absolutely those who did not change failed to change in spite of it.

And when the two verses are read together, the measure of the sūra is completed: to be shaken is not a fault (11); to change is a fault (23). The same people were both shaken and did not change.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the use of the same grammatical structure in the two verses.

And the word tabdīl will occur once more in this sūra: in the sixty-second verse, of sunnat Allāh: "You will find no change (tabdīl) in the way of God." The same word, once for people and once for a way of working.

The measure of the verse turns an outcome-focused view upside down.

Two measures can be used in assessing an undertaking: was it completed, and was it changed. The verse chooses the second.

Its practical consequence is this: not having finished yet is not a deficiency. The deficiency is giving up on the road. The verse says this by naming the one who completed and the one who waits in the same sentence.

And the choice of the expression mā baddalū matters too: the verse does not say "they did not give up" or "they did not flee". It says "they did not change". That is, the measure is fidelity to the text of the word given. The word remained what it was.

This is the exact opposite of the excuse in the thirteenth verse: there the word stood in place but its content had been altered (on the ground that the circumstances had changed). Here, with the circumstances at their heaviest, the word stayed the same.