al-Shūrā 42:14

Wa mā tafarraqū illā min baʿdi mā jāʾahumu'l-ʿilmu baghyan baynahum; wa lawlā kalimatun sabaqat min rabbika ilā ajalin musamman la-quḍiya baynahum; wa inna'lladhīna ūrithu'l-kitāba min baʿdihim la-fī shakkin minhu murīb

"They fell into division only after knowledge had come to them, out of rivalry among themselves. Were it not for a word from your Lord that had gone before, for an appointed term, it would have been decided between them. And those who were made to inherit the Book after them are in a disquieting doubt about it."

The overlap between this verse and al-Baqara 2/213 is one of the clearest instances of the Qurʾān's interpreting the Qurʾān. I set the two texts side by side.

al-Baqara 2/213: "…wa ma'khtalafa fīhi illa'lladhīna ūtūhu min baʿdi mā jāʾathumu'l-bayyinātu baghyan baynahum…" al-Shūrā 42/14: "Wa mā tafarraqū illā min baʿdi mā jāʾahumu'l-ʿilmu baghyan baynahum…"

What is shared:

What differs — and the difference matters:

The last difference is the most important, and it is this:

In al-Baqara the disagreement is recounted as a fact. In al-Shūrā it is reported that something forbidden in the preceding verse has been done.

The prohibitive and the perfect of the same root, in two consecutive verses. This is a fact that can be verified from the text, and it adds a sharpness not found in al-Baqara: the command and the breach stand side by side.

And the second difference must be dwelt on too: bayyināt → ʿilm.

Bayyināt are proofs that come from outside and can be pointed to. ʿIlm is the state of knowing — the result the proof produces in the other party. Al-Shūrā, that is, goes a step beyond al-Baqara: al-Baqara says "after the proofs came", al-Shūrā says "after the knowledge came".

I record this as my own reading: that a proof has come and that knowledge has formed are different things; the second narrows the room for excuse still further. The one to whom a proof has come may say "I did not understand"; the one in whom knowledge has formed cannot.

The root was treated in detail in al-Ḥujurāt at 49/9; I do not repeat it. The finding there was this:

"The root's original sense is to want, to seek, to demand. Ibtighāʾ — a seeking; bughya — the thing wanted… The transition the lexicographers record is this: the demand's overstepping the bound. A person wants what is his; when he begins to want what is not his, the act turns into baghy. Baghy, that is, is wanting in its boundary-crossing state."

And this too was recorded there: al-Ḥujurāt is a sūra "woven of boundary words"; fisq was coming out of a husk, baghy was demand that crosses the bound, ḥujra was the boundary itself.

Now let us look at the uses in al-Shūrā — the root occurs four times here:

These four occurrences draw the spine of the sūra, and all four sit on the same core of meaning: the crossing of a bound.

• In 14 the bound is crossed within religion — dividing while knowledge is present.
• In 27 the bound could be crossed in wealth — and so a measure is set.
• In 39 the bound is crossed in another's right — from the victim's side.
• In 42 the same thing on the scale of the earth — from the doer's side.

I record this as my own reading: baghy in al-Shūrā is both the cause of the division and the subject of the conflict. The balance of repayment and pardon the sūra will set up from the fortieth verse onward is built on this single word, named in the fourteenth.

And a note on the language: baghyan is in the accusative, and the grammarians count it a object of purpose (mafʿūl lahu): "because of rivalry". The sentence, that is, names the cause outright — not a lack of knowledge, but a state.

Lawlā states the negative consequence of a condition that does not hold: "were it not for this, that would have happened."

كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ — "a word that had gone before". What it is, is not stated. In the classical commentaries it is widely said that this is the decision to defer the reckoning to the day of resurrection; I give this as a transmitted report, not as certain knowledge.

ilā ajalin musammā — "for an appointed term". This construction was treated in al-Aḥqāf at 46/3; the note there was this: one of the two qualifications placed upon creation is a term — not endless, but with a named appointment.

And the sentence comes once more in the sūra, in almost the same wording:

The closing is word for word the same: la-quḍiya baynahum. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text and was recorded in the section on the structure of the sūra.

The difference is in the name of the "word":

Ūrithū — root و-ر-ث, passive: "they were made heirs". In al-Ḥadīd at 57/10, in connection with mīrāthu's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ, the root's sense of "what remains after its owner" was treated.

The choice of word carries a point of arrangement, and I give it as my own reading: an inheritance is what comes without being earned. One who inherits the Book has done nothing to obtain it. And the continuation of the sentence completes this: the heirs are in doubt.

شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مُرِيبٍ — a word qualified by itself

Shakk — doubt. Murīb — root ر-ي-ب, "that which casts into doubt". That is, "a doubt that gives doubt".

In Arabic the qualifying of a word by an adjective from its own root or from a close synonym conveys intensification. The nearest English rendering: "a doubt that will not settle", "a doubt that leaves one uneasy".

The difference between rayb and shakk is set out by the lexicographers thus: shakk is the equality of two possibilities, a mental state; rayb adds unease to it — the doubt that troubles a person. The construction, that is, adds to doubt the dimension of disquiet.

And a contrast with al-Baqara 2/2 can be recorded: there it was said of the Book lā rayba fīh — "there is no doubt in it". Here those who inherit the Book are named as fī shakkin minhu murīb — "in a disquieting doubt about it".

The same root (ر-ي-ب), one about the text and one about its readers. This is a verifiable fact. What I record is this: the doubt is located not in the text but in those who took it over.