Insights and Lessons from Al-Alusi’s Ruh al-Ma’ani on Al-Isra Verse 7

Here is the verse:

﴿إِنۡ أَحۡسَنتُمۡ أَحۡسَنتُمۡ لِأَنفُسِكُمۡۖ وَإِنۡ أَسَأۡتُمۡ فَلَهَاۚ فَإِذَا جَاۤءَ وَعۡدُ ٱلۡـَٔاخِرَةِ لِیَسُۥۤـُٔوا۟ وُجُوهَكُمۡ وَلِیَدۡخُلُوا۟ ٱلۡمَسۡجِدَ كَمَا دَخَلُوهُ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةࣲ وَلِیُتَبِّرُوا۟ مَا عَلَوۡا۟ تَتۡبِیرࣰا﴾ [الإسراء ٧]

“If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, it is against them [yourselves]. So when the promise of the latter [time] came, [We sent enemies] to disfigure your faces, and to enter the Masjid as they entered it the first time, and to destroy utterly all that they overcame.”

Let me arrange every point and draw out the lessons.

1. “If You Do Good, You Do Good for Yourselves” — Deeds Transitive and Intransitive

Al-Alusi opens by widening the scope of “good” and “evil”:

“‘If you do good’ — your deeds, whether they are intransitive (confined to yourselves) or transitive (extending to others) — meaning: you performed them in the praiseworthy, fitting manner; or you did ihsan (excellence/good). ‘You do good for yourselves’ — i.e., for [your own] benefit, by the reward that results from that. ‘And if you do evil’ — your deeds, intransitive or transitive, by performing them in an unfitting manner, or you did isa’ah (evil).”

So “doing good” covers both deeds that stay with you (like your private prayer) and deeds that reach others (like charity or justice) — and likewise for evil.

KEY LESSON: Both your private and your public deeds return to you. Al-Alusi stresses that the verse covers both the deed that affects only you and the deed that reaches others. Whether your good is a hidden act of worship or a public benefit to people — and whether your evil harms only yourself or spreads to others — the ultimate account is written in your ledger. Nothing you do, inward or outward, falls outside your own reckoning.

2. “And If You Do Evil, It Is Against Them” — Five Readings of the Lam

The single small word fa-laha (“then for it”) generated several scholarly readings, and Al-Alusi lays them out with care:

Reading 1 — lam meaning ‘ala (“against”):

“‘Then for it’ — i.e., the evil is against it (the soul), by the punishment that results. So the lam is in the meaning of ‘ala (upon/against), as in the poet’s line: ‘And he fell down slain, on the hands and on the mouth’ [where the lam means ‘upon’]. It was expressed [with the lam] for formal correspondence (mushakalah) with what precedes it” — i.e., to mirror the lam in “li-anfusikum” in the first half of the verse.

Reading 2 — lam meaning ila (“returns to”):

“At-Tabari said: it is in the meaning of ila (to), so the meaning is: ‘its evil returns to it.'”

Reading 3 — lam of deservedness (istihqaq):

“And it is said: it is for deservedness — as in His saying ‘for them is a painful punishment (lahum ‘adhabun alim).'”

Reading 4 — lam of exclusive belonging (ikhtisas), from Az-Zamakhshari — and Al-Alusi’s correction:

“In al-Kashshaf [Az-Zamakhshari]: it is for exclusive belonging (ikhtisas).”

Al-Alusi then records the objection raised against Zamakhshari, and resolves it in a better way:

“This was critiqued [on the grounds] that it contradicts what is in the transmitted reports — that the harm of evil extends even to one who did not sin [the innocent suffering alongside the guilty] — unless one says that the harm of these particular people of Bani Israil did not extend beyond them. But that [defense] is a needless contrivance; because the otherworldly reward and punishment do not transfer [to others] at all — and that is what is meant here.”

So Al-Alusi rescues the “exclusive belonging” reading on firmer ground: it is true that worldly harm can spill onto the innocent, but the verse is about the Hereafter, where each soul’s reward and punishment are exclusively its own.

Reading 5 — lam of benefit, used sarcastically (tahakkum):

“And it is said: the lam is for benefit, like the first one [in ‘for yourselves’], but by way of irony (tahakkum)” — i.e., the evildoer’s “benefit” is, sarcastically, his punishment.

KEY LESSONS:

• Five scholars read one preposition five ways — and all five magnify your responsibility. Whether the evil is against you, returns to you, is what you deserve, belongs exclusively to you, or is sarcastically “for” you — every reading drives the consequence back to the doer. The depth of the Quran is such that even a single letter yields layers of meaning, all pointing to one truth: you own your deeds.
• Al-Alusi corrects even a giant like Az-Zamakhshari — but fairly. Rather than discard the ikhtisas reading because of a real objection (the innocent sometimes suffer for others’ sins in this world), he relocates it to its true domain: in the Hereafter, no soul’s account ever transfers to another. This is sound method — improving a view rather than dismissing it, and grounding it in the right context (cross-ref the principle that “no bearer of burdens bears another’s burden,” 17:15).
• In the next life, exclusive ownership of your deeds is absolute. Whatever the entanglements of this world, the Hereafter is perfectly individual: your good is yours alone, your evil is yours alone. No one will share your reward, and no one can be made to carry your sin.

3. Why “Good” Is Repeated but “Evil” Is Not

Al-Alusi notes the preference of the muhaqqiqin (the verifying scholars) for the broad reading of “good” and “evil,” and then draws out a beautiful subtlety of the verse’s wording:

“The generalizing of ihsan and its opposite — so that they include both the transitive and the intransitive — is what some of the verifying scholars considered most apparent… and one said: it is more fitting and more complete. And for that reason it is said: the repetition of ihsan in the noble verse — without [repeating] isa’ah — is an indication that the side of good is more predominant, and that when good is done it ought to be repeated, unlike its opposite.”

Notice the verse’s structure: “If you do good, you do good (ahsantum… ahsantum) for yourselves” — the verb “do good” is stated twice. But “if you do evil, it is against them (asa’tum… fa-laha)” — the verb “do evil” is not repeated.

Al-Alusi then cites a luminous statement of ‘Ali:

“It came from ‘Ali (may Allah ennoble his face) that he said: ‘I have never done good to anyone, nor done evil to anyone’ — and he recited this verse.”

His meaning: whatever good he did, he did for himself (its reward returns to him), and whatever evil anyone might do is ultimately against himself — so in the deepest sense, deeds are never truly “to” others; they return to their author.

KEY LESSONS:

• The grammar itself teaches you to multiply good and minimize evil. Good is mentioned twice — do it, and do it again; evil is not even repeated in the wording — do not let it recur, do not even dwell on it. The Quran’s very structure encourages the abundance of good and the avoidance of even naming evil twice.
• “The side of good is more predominant.” Built into the verse is the optimism that goodness is the larger, stronger reality. Approach life expecting that good outweighs evil and deserves repetition — let righteousness be your habit, returned to again and again, while sin is the rare exception you do not rehearse.
• ‘Ali’s words are a master key to sincerity: every deed is really to yourself. When you grasp that your good is a gift to your own soul and your evil a wound to it, you stop performing for others’ eyes and you stop blaming others for your losses. You are the first and ultimate recipient of everything you do. This dissolves both vanity (since good is for you, not a favor to others) and resentment (since evil is against the doer, not truly against you).

4. How the Verse Connects to What Came Before (al-Qutb)

Al-Alusi gives the link, citing al-Qutb:

“When they disobeyed, Allah gave power over them to those who sought them with plunder and captivity; then when they repented and obeyed, their condition became good — so it became clear that the goodness of deeds and their evil is specific to them. The verse contained that, and in it is encouragement (targhib) toward good and warning (tarhib) against evil — which is not hidden, so reflect.”

KEY LESSON: The whole history of verses 4–7 is one long proof of “your deeds return to you.” Disobedience brought the plunderers; repentance brought restoration. The cycle demonstrated the principle the verse states. Bani Israil’s history is the case study; the law it proves is universal — encouragement to do good, warning against evil, written across centuries of consequence.

5. “When the Promise of the Latter Came” — The Omitted Answer

Al-Alusi explains the grammar:

“‘So when the promise of the latter time came’ — of the two times of your corruption. ‘To disfigure’ is connected to a verb that has been omitted, because what preceded indicates it; and that [omitted verb] is the answer of ‘when’ (idha) — i.e., ‘We sent them (ba’athnahum) to disfigure your faces.'”

The “We sent them” is left unspoken but understood from the earlier “We sent (ba’athna)” in verse 5.

KEY LESSON: The Quran leaves the blow unstated — and the silence is heavier than speech. “So when the promise of the latter came…” and then the sentence breaks off, the verb of catastrophe (“We sent them against you”) supplied only by the reader’s mind. What is left unsaid forces you to feel the dread for yourself.

6. “To Disfigure Your Faces” — Three Readings, and Why This Phrasing

Al-Alusi gives the literal reading first:

“‘To disfigure your faces’ — i.e., so that the sent servants make the marks of grief and gloom apparent on your faces. For the states of the soul appear in the face: with joy, freshness and radiance; with grief and fear, gloom and darkness. So the faces are upon their literal meaning.”

Then the two further possibilities:

“It is said: it is possible that ‘the face’ expresses the whole self — for they harmed them by killing, plunder, and captivity, so the harm befell all their persons; and supporting this is His saying ‘and if you do evil, it is against them.’ And it is possible that what is meant by ‘the faces’ is their masters and great ones — though that [last] is doubtful, as you can see.”

Al-Alusi then explains why the verse chose this indirect phrasing:

“This [‘to disfigure your faces’] was chosen over [the more direct] ‘to harm you’ — despite the latter being more immediate and obvious — as an indication that both the pain of the soul and the pain of the body were gathered upon them: the [bodily pain] being indicated by His saying ‘and to destroy’ etc.”

KEY LESSONS:

• The face is the soul’s billboard. Al-Alusi’s observation is timeless: joy lights the face with radiance; grief and fear darken it. The Quran says “disfigure your faces” because catastrophe writes itself on the human countenance. What is in the heart shows on the face — which is why Allah describes the punishment as appearing precisely there.
• The phrasing was chosen to combine pain of soul and body. “Disfigure your faces” (the grief of the soul) plus “destroy” (the ruin of the body and property) together capture a total affliction — inward anguish and outward devastation at once. Allah’s words are economical and complete: a single phrasing conveys both the broken heart and the broken home.

7. The Immediacy of “So When…” — Struck at the Peak

Al-Alusi draws a striking lesson from the immediacy implied by the construction:

“The coming of the promise of the latter punishment did not delay beyond their multiplying and gathering — as an indication of the severity of their stubbornness in ingratitude for blessings; and that whenever they increased in number and resources, they increased in transgression and arrogance — until, when the means of wealth and abundance were complete, Allah seized them suddenly, by surprise. We seek refuge in Allah from the sudden assault of His punishment.”

KEY LESSONS:

• More blessings became more rebellion — so the reckoning came at the summit. Their growth in numbers and wealth did not soften them; it hardened them into greater transgression and pride. So Allah let them reach the very peak of prosperity — and then struck. Increase that is met with ingratitude does not delay the reckoning; it accelerates it. A people swelling in wealth and arrogance is not ascending — it is ripening for a sudden fall.
• Al-Alusi’s own prayer is the right response: “We seek refuge in Allah from the sudden assault of His punishment.” The most fearful punishment is the one that arrives ‘ala al-ghirrah — by surprise, at the height of false security. Never let prosperity lull you into feeling safe from Allah’s reckoning (cross-ref 7:99, “Do they then feel secure from Allah’s plan? None feels secure from Allah’s plan except the losing people”).

8. The Variant Recitations (Qira’at)

Al-Alusi gives the fullest catalogue of readings of liyasū’ū:

• Abu Bakr, Ibn ‘Amir, and Hamzah read “liyasū’a” (singular) — the pronoun referring either to Allah, to the promise, or to the sending (indicated by the omitted answer). The attribution is figurative on the latter two (the promise/the sending “disfiguring”) and literal on the first (Allah disfiguring).
• ‘Ali, Zayd ibn ‘Ali, and Al-Kisa’i read “linasū’a” — with the nun of majesty (“so that We disfigure”); here the pronoun can only refer to Allah. (This supports the first option above.)
• Ubayy read “linasū’anna” — with the lam of command and the nun of majesty at the start, and the light nun of emphasis at the end. The lam of command entering upon a first-person verb has a parallel in His saying “and let us carry your sins (wa li-nahmil khatayakum)” [Al-‘Ankabut 29:12]. On this reading, the answer of “when” is the imperative sentence (with an implied fa).
• From ‘Ali also: “linasū’anna” and “layasū’anna” — with the nun and the ya’ at the start respectively, and the heavy nun of emphasis at the end. Here the lam is the lam of oath, and the sentence is the answer of an oath, standing in place of the answer of “when.”

KEY LESSON: Every recitation preserves a true dimension of one event. The disfigurement is attributed — across the readings — to Allah (who decreed and sent it), to the promise (the appointed disaster), to the sending (the dispatch of the invaders), and even framed as a divine oath (“We shall surely disfigure…”). All causation ultimately returns to Allah, even as the human invaders remain fully responsible — and the oath-readings underline that this punishment was an absolute, sworn certainty.

9. “And to Enter the Masjid as They Entered It the First Time”

Al-Alusi on the grammar and meaning:

“The lam in ‘and to enter the Masjid’ is the lam of purpose (kay), coordinated on the preposition before it, connected to the omitted ‘We sent’… What is meant by ‘the Masjid’ is Bayt al-Maqdis, and it is the object of ‘enter.’ In the Sihah [of al-Jawhari]: the correct analysis of ‘I entered the house (dakhaltu al-bayt)’ is that you mean ‘I entered into the house (ila al-bayt)’ — the preposition being omitted and ‘the house’ made accusative as the object.”

“‘As they entered it’ — i.e., an entering like their entering it ‘the first time’… The intent of the comparison, as in al-Bahr [Abu Hayyan’s al-Bahr al-Muhit], is that they enter it by the sword, by subjugation, by domination, and by humiliation.”

And a crucial cross-reference back to the debate over the first corruption:

“And in it [al-Bahr] also: that this renders unlikely the view of those who held that the first of the two times had no fighting, no killing, and no plunder [the minority ‘reconnaissance’ view].”

KEY LESSONS:

• “As they entered it the first time” means: by the sword, in conquest and humiliation. This was no peaceful entry — it was violent subjugation, repeated. The phrase is a chilling refrain: they had been here before, and they returned to the very sins that once cost them their sacred place. History repeated because they repeated their sins.
• This phrase settles an earlier dispute. Recall the minority opinion (Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid — discussed in the verse-5 commentary) that the first invasion was merely a probe, with no real fighting. Abu Hayyan points out that “as they entered it the first time” — describing a violent, sword-in-hand entry — makes that minority view unlikely: the comparison only works if the first entry, too, was a true conquest with killing and plunder. The Quran’s own wording is the strongest evidence.

10. “And to Destroy Utterly All That They Overcame”

Al-Alusi on liyutabbirū:

“‘And to destroy utterly’ — i.e., to annihilate. Qutrub said: to demolish, and he recited the poet’s line: ‘People are but two workers: a worker who destroys what he builds, and another who raises [it] up.’ And some said: demolition is also a form of annihilation.”

A distinctive lexical note follows:

“Ibn al-Mundhir and others brought out from Sa’id ibn Jubayr that at-tatbir (utter destruction) is a Nabataean word.”

And on mā ‘alaw (“all that they overcame”):

“‘All that they overcame’ — i.e., that which they conquered and took control of. ‘Ma’ is a relative noun, its returning pronoun omitted… and it is permitted that ‘ma’ be temporal — i.e., ‘to destroy [them] throughout the duration of their being dominant and subjugating.’ ‘With utter destruction (tatbīrā)’ — a hideous destruction beyond description.”

KEY LESSONS:

• The poet’s line is a sermon in one verse: every person is a builder or a destroyer. “One worker destroys what he builds; another raises it up.” Ask yourself which worker you are — the one whose deeds raise up, or the one whose sins tear down even what he himself constructed.
• The very word for “utter ruin” was borrowed from another tongue — a foreign word for a foreign catastrophe. Al-Alusi preserves Sa’id ibn Jubayr’s note that tatbir is Nabataean (Aramaic) in origin. The Quran’s vocabulary is vast enough to draw the precise word for total destruction from wherever it most exactly conveys the horror.
• The destruction was “beyond description.” Al-Alusi’s gloss on tatbīrā — faziʻan la yusaf, a hideous ruin that cannot be described — captures the totality of what befell them. When a people who “rose in great arrogance” (verse 4) is brought down, the levelling is complete and indescribable. Their ‘uluw (rising high) is answered by tatbir (utter flattening).

11. Who Were the Invaders? — The Chronology Debate

This is the most detailed historical investigation among the commentators, and Al-Alusi engages it fully — beginning from the fact that the latter corruption is tied to the killing of Yahya:

View 1 — Bukhtnassar (and As-Suhayli’s objection):

“More than one said: they are Bukhtnassar and his soldiers. As-Suhayli critiqued this as invalid, because the killing of Yahya was after the raising of ‘Isa, while Bukhtnassar was before ‘Isa by a long time.”

View 2 — Alexander (and As-Suhayli’s objection, then his resolution):

“And it is said: Alexander and his soldiers. He [As-Suhayli] critiqued this also, because between Alexander and ‘Isa is about three hundred years. Then he said: but if it is held that their corruption in the latter time was the killing of Sha’ya (Isaiah), it is permissible that the one sent be Bukhtnassar and those with him — because he was alive at that time.”

View 3 — ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr: King Khardush and his commander:

“It is narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr that the one who raided them was King Khardush, and the one who carried out their killing over the blood of Yahya was a commander of his — and [the blood] subsided.”

Al-Alusi preserves the boiling-blood narration in brief:

“In some reports: the commander of the army entered the slaughter-place of their offerings and found blood boiling there. He asked them, and they said: ‘The blood of an offering that was not accepted from us.’ He said: ‘You have not told me the truth,’ and killed thousands of them over it — but the blood did not subside. Then he said: ‘If you do not tell me the truth, I will leave none of you,’ so they said: ‘It is the blood of Yahya.’ He said: ‘With the like of this your Lord takes vengeance on you.’ Then he said: ‘O Yahya, my Lord and your Lord has known what befell your people for your sake — so subside, by Allah’s permission, before I leave none of them.’ And it subsided.”

View 4 — al-Kashf’s view, which Al-Alusi reports as “the truth”: Birdus, of the Party Kings:

“The author of al-Kashf chose — and said it is the truth — that the one sent against them the second time was Birdus, of the Muluk at-Tawa’if (the ‘Party Kings’). It is as if he is the same Khirdush mentioned just now, for it was said he was a king of Babylon, one of the Party Kings. And it is said his name was Juzur.”

Al-Alusi then supplies the historical background of these “Party Kings”:

“These kings appeared after Alexander killed Darius (Dara) and seized the kingdom of the Persians — which Alexander did following the advice of his teacher Aristotle [to divide Persia among many kings]. Their number exceeded seventy kings, and the duration of their rule, according to some histories, was five hundred twelve years. The Persians were [finally] reunited after this period under Ardashir ibn Babak, willingly and unwillingly — and he had been one of the Party Kings, over Istakhr.”

The chronological reckoning between the two punishments:

“On this [view], the king sent for the corruption of Bani Israil by the killing of Yahya would be from the last of the Party Kings… For in some histories: Alexander killed Darius four hundred thirty-five years after Bukhtnassar; and about three hundred years after Alexander’s conquest, the Messiah was born. The killing of Yahya was after the birth [of ‘Isa] by some time, and the sending after the killing likewise — so between the two sendings would be more than seven hundred thirty-five years.”

The Jewish reckoning (preserved in full):

“What the Jews held is that the first one sent was Bukhtnassar, in the time of Irmiya (Jeremiah) — who had warned them of his coming explicitly, after forbidding them from corruption and idol-worship (as his book records), so they imprisoned him in a well and wounded him. Bukhtnassar’s destruction of Bayt al-Maqdis was in the nineteenth year of his reign; and between that and the descent of Adam is three thousand three hundred thirty-eight years; and it remained in ruins seventy years. Then Vespasian (Aspiyanus), the Caesar of Rome, sent his minister Titus (Tutuz) to destroy it, and he destroyed it in the year three thousand eight hundred twenty-eight. So between the two sendings, according to them, is four hundred ninety years. The detail of this is in their books, and Allah knows best the reality of the matter.”

The methodological conclusion:

“How excellent is what was said: that knowing the sent peoples by their specific identities, and the date of the sending and the like, is not something on which any great purpose hangs; for the intent is that when their sins multiplied, Allah gave power over them to one who would take vengeance on them, time after time.”

KEY LESSONS:

• The scholars subordinated tafsir to verified history — and corrected popular accounts. As-Suhayli rejected both the “Bukhtnassar” and “Alexander” identifications on chronological grounds (the dates don’t fit a post-‘Isa killing of Yahya). Truth is tested against evidence, not against popularity — and a sincere scholar will revise a widespread story when the timeline refutes it.
• Even the Jewish historical records are weighed and reported honestly. Al-Alusi cites the Jews’ own reckoning — Bukhtnassar in Jeremiah’s time (whom they imprisoned in a well and wounded), then the Romans under Vespasian and Titus — landing on the Babylonian-then-Roman scheme. Sound scholarship engages the sources of the People of the Book where they bear on the matter, while reserving final certainty to Allah (“Allah knows best the reality”).
• The trigger, in every version, is the persecution of a prophet. Whether Jeremiah (imprisoned and wounded), Isaiah (killed), or Yahya (beheaded) — the catastrophe always follows a community’s assault on the warner sent to it. How a people treats the truth-bearer sent to it determines which side of this prophecy it stands on.
• The specific names and dates do not matter; the pattern matters. Al-Alusi (echoing Ar-Razi) endorses the verdict that identifying the exact kings serves “no great purpose.” The lesson is timeless and transferable: multiplied sin invites a divine instrument of vengeance, again and again. Do not get lost cataloguing the kings; attend to the law that summons them.

12. Were the Two Sets of Invaders the Same? — The Closing Grammatical Point

Al-Alusi ends with a fine grammatical observation:

“The apparent sense of the verse requires the unity of those sent first and second [i.e., grammatically the pronouns point to one and the same group]. And whoever does not hold that [who says they were two different peoples] makes the return of the pronouns to ‘the servants’ the way the pronoun returns to ‘the dirham’ in your saying: ‘I have a dirham and its half (indi dirhamun wa nisfuhu)’ — so understand.”

The point: in “I have a dirham and its half,” the pronoun “its” does not refer to that same dirham, but to the category (another half-dirham). Likewise, those who say the first and second invaders were different peoples (Babylonians, then Romans) read the pronoun as referring to the category of “sent servants,” not the identical individuals.

KEY LESSON: Grammar leaves room for both the “same invaders” and “different invaders” readings — and the law holds either way. Whether it was one people sent twice or two different peoples in two eras, the principle is unchanged: Allah raises up against a corrupt nation whatever instrument He wills, of whatever identity, as often as their sins demand it. The precise referent of the pronoun is a fine point of language; the certainty of the consequence is the point of the verse.

The Master Lesson from Al-Alusi on Verse 7

Al-Alusi’s treatment, for all its linguistic and historical depth, returns again and again to one luminous truth:

🌙 Your deeds — inward or outward, to yourself or to others — return to you. Read the lam five ways, and every reading sends the consequence home to the doer. As ‘Ali said, reciting this very verse: “I have never done good to anyone, nor evil to anyone” — for in the deepest sense, all of it is to and for one’s own soul.

🌙 Good is to be repeated; evil is not even to be doubled. The verse states “you do good” twice and “you do evil” only once — because the side of good is predominant, meant to be done again and again, while evil should not even be rehearsed.

🌙 In the Hereafter, ownership of your deeds is absolute and untransferable. Whatever the entanglements of this world, no soul will share your reward or be made to bear your sin.

🌙 The punishment came suddenly, at the very peak of their prosperity — because their growing wealth and numbers only grew their arrogance and ingratitude. We seek refuge in Allah from the sudden assault of His punishment.

🌙 “As they entered it the first time” — the second desecration of the Masjid mirrored the first, by the sword and in humiliation, because they returned to the very sins that had once destroyed them. History repeats for those who refuse to learn it.

🌙 The names of the kings and the dates of the invasions are disputed — and unimportant. Babylonians or Romans, Bukhtnassar or a Party King, 490 years or 735 — the pattern is the whole point: when sins multiply, Allah sends one who takes vengeance, time after time. And the trigger, in every telling, is a community’s persecution of the prophet sent to save it.

In ahsantum ahsantum li-anfusikum wa in asa’tum fa-laha. Fa-idha ja’a wa’du-l-akhirati liyasū’ū wujūhakum wa liyadkhulū-l-masjida kama dakhalūhu awwala marratin wa liyutabbirū mā ‘alaw tatbīrā.

“If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, it is against them. So when the promise of the latter came, [We sent enemies] to disfigure your faces, and to enter the Masjid as they entered it the first time, and to destroy utterly all that they overcame.”

The law is fixed and the language is bottomless: good returns to its doer and ought to be multiplied; evil returns to its doer and ought never be repeated; in the next life each soul stands utterly alone with its own account; sacred places are protected only by the faithfulness of their people; and a nation that grows arrogant in its blessings and turns on its prophets will be seized — often suddenly, at its very peak — by an instrument of Allah’s choosing, whoever and whenever He wills. So do good, and do it again, before the promise of the latter arrives.