إِنَّمَا تُوعَدُونَ لَصَادِقٌ وَإِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ لَوَٰقِعٌ
Innamā tūʿadūna la-ṣādiq · Wa inna'l-dīna la-wāqiʿ "What you are promised is surely true. And the reckoning will surely come to pass."
| al-Mursalāt 77/7 | al-Dhāriyāt 51/5-6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Text | إِنَّمَا تُوعَدُونَ لَوَٰقِعٌ | إِنَّمَا تُوعَدُونَ لَصَادِقٌ + وَإِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ لَوَٰقِعٌ |
| Predicate | wāqiʿ — it will come to pass | ṣādiq — true |
| How many sentences | One | Two |
| Where wāqiʿ stands | The predicate of the thing promised | The predicate of the reckoning |
al-Dhāriyāt, that is, splits al-Mursalāt's single sentence in two and shifts the word wāqiʿ from the first to the second.
The root analysis of the word wāqiʿ (و-ق-ع: to fall and to come to pass) was made in the section on al-Mursalāt; I do not repeat it. The summary of the finding there: in Arabic the concrete sense of the verb "to come to pass" is to fall; a thing's happening is its falling upon you.
- Is the word true? — that is, is the speaker lying?
- Will what is said happen? — that is, even if the word is true, will it come to pass?
These are different objections. The first is directed at the source, the second at the event. And al-Dhāriyāt closes them separately: the fifth verse guarantees the truth of the word, the sixth the occurrence of the event.
I record this as a reading drawn from the comparison of the two verses; the wordings of the two texts were given above.
Root: ص-د-ق. The lexicographers dwell on its concrete sense: at the core of the root lies firmness, durability. Rumḥun ṣadq — a firm, hard spear. From here comes the sense "a true word": a word that is true is one that holds; a lie collapses.
From the same root: ṣidq (truthfulness), ṣadaqa (what is given), taṣdīq (confirming), ṣadāqa (friendship), ṣiddīq.
And there is a point in the word order. The verse does not say "the one who promises you is true" — it calls not the promiser but the thing promised "true": innamā tūʿadūna la-ṣādiq.
In English the adjective "true" is given to a statement, not to an event. So it is in Arabic. The grammarians resolve this in two ways:
| View | Explanation |
|---|---|
| An elided governing noun | The original is "la-dhū ṣidqin" or "la-waʿdun ṣādiq"; that is, "a true promise" |
| The promise itself counted as a statement | A promise is already an utterance; an utterance is either true or false. No figure of speech is needed |
The second is simpler and needs no figure of speech. I do not impose a preference; it makes no difference to the sense.
Root: د-ي-ن. This root was analysed in the section on al-Fātiḥa in treating māliki yawmi'l-dīn; I do not repeat it. The summary of the finding there: the root has three branches — debt (dayn), judgement / requital (dāna yadīnu), and religion (a way, an order one follows). The shared core is a relation of obligation and requital.
Which branch is at work here? The context of the verse is the day of reckoning, and in the twelfth verse yawmu'l-dīn will occur explicitly. The dīn here, that is, is not "religion" but requital, the reckoning.
- Verse 6: inna'l-dīna la-wāqiʿ — the reckoning will come to pass.
- Verse 12: ayyāna yawmu'l-dīn — "when is this day of reckoning?"
The sixth verse lays down the ruling; the twelfth records the reaction to the ruling. Between them lie five verses, and those five verses explain why the reaction is what it is.