Sabaʾ 34:31

Wa qāla'lladhīna kafarū lan nuʾmina bi-hādha'l-qurʾāni wa lā bi'lladhī bayna yadayh, wa law tarā idhi'ẓ-ẓālimūna mawqūfūna ʿinda rabbihim yarjiʿu baʿḍuhum ilā baʿḍini'l-qawl, yaqūlu'lladhīna'stuḍʿifū li'lladhīna'stakbarū law lā antum la-kunnā muʾminīn

"Those who disbelieved said: 'We will not believe in this Qurʾān, nor in what came before it.' If you could but see the wrongdoers halted before their Lord, sending speech back and forth between them! Those who were made weak will say to those who were arrogant: 'But for you, we would surely have been believers.'"

The denial is directed at two things at once: bi-hādha'l-qurʾān and bi'lladhī bayna yadayh.

At Fāṭir 35/31 the expression muṣaddiqan limā bayna yadayh (confirming what is before it) was treated, and there al-Aḥqāf 46/12 and 46/30 were relied on: the attachment to a chain. I rely on that treatment.

The difference that belongs here must be recorded: in Fāṭir the expression was in a context of acceptance (the Book confirms what came before it); here the same expression comes in a context of rejection. That is, those who reject build their rejection too along the same chain: both at once.

I record this as an observation: the objection is not presented as an objection raised against a new text. What is rejected is a whole chain.

لَن — the particle that negates the future outright: "we will never believe." The same particle was treated at al-Taghābun 64/7 (there an lan yubʿathū). In both verses lan carries a claim of certainty issuing from the other side's own mouth.

And in mid-sentence the direction changes: wa law tarā — "if you could but see!"

لَوْ here is the use that conveys a wish or astonishment, and its apodosis is not stated. In Arabic this structure (law plus the suppression of the apodosis) conveys indescribability: "if you saw — [what you would see cannot be told]."

مَوْقُوفُون — root و-ق-ف: to stand, to be halted. The passive participle: halted. The word carries the sense that they are not waiting of their own will.

يَرْجِعُ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ٱلْقَوْلَ — "they send speech back and forth to one another."

The construction is striking: yarjiʿu … al-qawl — to send back speech. Not conversation, that is, but mutual return. The word goes from one side to the other and back.

I record this as an observation about the language: the verb is not takallum (to speak) or taḥāwur (to converse) — it is irjāʿ (to send back). The scene is drawn not as a conversation but as a ball being sent to and fro.

Both words are of the same form, but their voices differ — and this difference must be recorded.

I give this as my own reading; its support is the voice of the two verbs: weakness is named as something that came upon them (passive: they were made weak), while arrogance is named as their own doing (active: they made themselves great). That is, the text sets a distinction already at the stage of naming.

But note: the verse had opened by naming both groups together as aẓ-ẓālimūn (the wrongdoers). The difference of voice, that is, grants no exemption; it only records how the positions came about.

لَوْلَآ أَنتُمْ لَكُنَّا مُؤْمِنِينَ — "but for you, we would have been believers."

The sentence is on the pattern law lā (imtināʿ, prevention): one thing's failing to come about because of the existence of another. That is, the fault is tied not to their own choice but to the existence of the other party.

At al-Zumar 39/57 the same line was treated: law anna'llāha hadānī la-kuntu mina'l-muttaqīn — there responsibility was passed on to God, here to a human being. The two excuses have the same structure: an unfulfilled condition and a responsibility handed over.

This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.