إِنَّمَا ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا۟ بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
"The believers are but brothers. So set things right between your two brothers. And guard yourselves against God, that you may be shown mercy."
Root: inna + mā. As was recorded in the section on al-Mursalāt, innamā is the particle of restriction (ḥaṣr), and this very verse was given as the example: "Only, solely — innama'l-muʾminūna ikhwa."
The work of restriction is this: it locks a ruling onto a subject and cuts off what is outside. The sentence "the believers are brothers" gives a piece of information; the sentence "the believers are but brothers" leaves room for no other form of relation.
And the place where the particle stands is important: the ninth verse related an armed conflict. The tenth verse, immediately after that conflict, gives the single definition of the relation. The sentence, that is, is placed not as a wish but as a finding: even if there has been a conflict, the name of the relation has not changed.
The same pattern will come again in the fifteenth verse: innama'l-muʾminūna'lladhīna āmanū bi'llāhi wa rasūlih. The two innamā sentences say two different things about the believers: the one their relation with one another (brotherhood), the other their definition (the conditions of faith). The two stand in two different blocks of the sūra and complete one another.
Root: أ-خ-و. Akh — brother. Its plural comes in two forms, and there is a difference of usage between them:
| Plural | Generally | Example |
|---|---|---|
| إِخْوَة (ikhwa) | Brotherhood of descent (lineage) | Yūsuf 12/7: In Joseph and his brothers there are signs — wa ikhwatihī |
| إِخْوَان (ikhwān) | Brotherhood of friendship, companionship | "As brothers" (al-Ḥijr 15/47) |
This distinction is a tendency the lexicographers record, not an absolute rule — in the Qurʾān both plurals are found in different contexts. I do not present it as a settled ruling.
But that the form ikhwa was chosen in the verse is worth recording, and the classical commentaries dwell on this: if the distinction holds, then the verse names the bond among believers with the pattern of lineage brotherhood and not of friendship.
And the difference has a practical consequence: friendship is chosen and can be given up; brotherhood is not chosen and cannot be given up. A person may be angry with his brother, may fall out with him, may not speak to him for years — but he cannot make him cease to be his brother.
Read together with the ninth verse, this explains why the verse stands where it does: the relation of the two sides in conflict is defined as being of a kind that does not come to an end with the conflict.
The head of the sentence is plural: al-muʾminūna ikhwatun — the believers are brothers. The command is plural too: aṣliḥū — set right.
The expected form would have been bayna ikhwatikum (between your brothers). The verse uses the dual.
| Explanation | Ground |
|---|---|
| A link back to the ninth verse | There were two sides there (ṭāʾifatān); the dual here refers back to that |
| Making it concrete | However large the conflict, the work of setting right is done each time between two persons |
The second explanation is worth recording, and I stress it as my own reading: a rift within a community is not repaired in the mass. There is no such operation as "let everyone make peace". Reconciliation is always made between two sides, one pair at a time. The verse's use of the dual shows the scale of the operation: two people, then two more.
A note on the variant readings: the sources state that a plural reading بَيْنَ إِخْوَتِكُمْ (ikhwatikum — your brothers) is also transmitted. Since I cannot state with certainty which imam it belongs to, I write no name. This reading removes the emphasis of the second explanation above and generalises the command; it does not change the substance of the sense.
The third occurrence of taqwā in the sūra (see 49/1). In the first verse it was placed at the end of the relation with the Prophet; here it is placed at the end of the relation with brothers.
And that the verb is passive is worth recording: turḥamūn — "that you may be shown mercy". The agent is not named.
Moreover the choice of the root is meaningful and cannot be counted a coincidence in this verse: the root ر-ح-م comes from raḥim (the womb), and raḥim is at the same time the name of the bond of kinship — in Arabic relatives are called dhawu'l-arḥām (those of the wombs).
The verse, that is, ends a sentence that speaks of brotherhood with a word whose root is kinship: ikhwa (brothers) → turḥamūn (you will be shown mercy).
The link is this: those who treat one another as brothers are met with a mercy whose source is kinship. I record this as my own reading; the semantic field of the two words is plain, but I make no claim that the verse sets up such a link.
| Stage | 49/9 | 49/10 |
|---|---|---|
| Situation | Two groups are fighting | — |
| First operation | Set things right between them | — |
| Deviation | One of them attacks | — |
| Response | Stop the attacker | — |
| Limit | Until it returns | — |
| Final operation | Set things right with justice | — |
| Ground | mina'l-muʾminīn | ikhwa — the name of the relation |
The tenth verse is the ground of the ninth. The ninth verse said what is to be done; the tenth says why it is to be done.
And the ground is not an advantage but a definition: they are brothers. The verse does not say "peace is more useful" or "conflict does harm". It says what the relation is and derives the command from there.