Qur’anic Root KH Ṣ M

1. Introducing the root and its Qur’anic forms

The three-letter Arabic root KH Ṣ M concerns disagreement and confrontation between two parties over a claim, right, issue, or position. This disagreement may emerge through speech and argument, lead to a claim for rights and a request for judgment, or develop into hostility and contentiousness.

The Qur’an uses this root for defending people, disagreement over Mary’s guardianship, two parties bringing a case before David, human groups disputing about God, human argument about creation, and disputes among groups at the Resurrection.

This variety shows that a dispute, as a linguistic category, neither establishes one party’s rightness nor means that both parties are wrong. Each dispute must be assessed through its subject, the parties’ claims, their reasoning, and the available evidence.

KH Ṣ M occurs eighteen times in seventeen verses across twelve surahs. The morphological counts in this article follow the reading of Ḥafṣ.

Quranic Arabic Corpus: eighteen occurrences in six morphological groups

Important forms in its lexical family include:

• خَصْم: A party to a dispute, an opposing side, or someone pursuing a claim against another. Qur’anic: yes; الْخَصْمِ in Ṣād 38:21 and خَصْمَانِ in Al-Ḥajj 22:19 and Ṣād 38:22.
• خَصِيم: Someone who disputes, defends or objects, and takes a position in verbal confrontation. Qur’anic: yes; three times, in Al-Nisāʾ 4:105, Al-Naḥl 16:4, and Yā Sīn 36:77.
• خَصِم: Disposed to dispute, or skilled or intense in verbal opposition. Qur’anic: yes; the plural خَصِمُونَ in Al-Zukhruf 43:58.
• خِصَام: A verbal noun of خَاصَمَ, meaning disputation; also the plural of خَصْم, meaning disputants, notably in one analysis of أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ. Qur’anic: yes; Al-Baqarah 2:204 and Al-Zukhruf 43:18.
• اِخْتَصَمَ / يَخْتَصِمُ: To enter a dispute, or present a claim or objection against another. Qur’anic: yes; eight Form VIII verbal occurrences.
• تَخَاصُم: Mutual disputation and contention between parties. Qur’anic: yes; once in Ṣād 38:64.
• خَاصَمَ / يُخَاصِمُ: To contend or argue with another. Qur’anic: no, in this Form III verbal form.
• خُصُومَة: Dispute, disagreement, or litigation between parties. Qur’anic: no, as this independent noun.
• مُخَاصَمَة: Argument and mutual confrontation between disputing sides. Qur’anic: no, as an independent verbal noun.
• خَصَمَ / يَخْصِمُ: To prevail over an opponent in a dispute, especially through argument. Qur’anic: no, as an independent verb with this meaning in the reading followed here.
• خَصِمَ / يَخْصَمُ: To enter a dispute or be disposed to disputation. Qur’anic: no, as an independent verb.
• خَصُوم: Very contentious or disputatious. Qur’anic: no, in this adjectival form.
• خُصَمَاء: Opposing parties or people disputing with one another. Qur’anic: no.
• خُصُوم: Plural of khaṣm: disputants. Qur’anic: no, as this independent plural.
• اِخْتِصَام: Disputation and disagreement between parties. Qur’anic: no, as an independent verbal noun, although its verb occurs.
• أَخْصَمَ: To teach someone an argument or method for overcoming an opponent, or in some uses to help that person in a dispute. Qur’anic: no.
• خُصْم: The side, edge, or corner of a vessel and certain other objects. Qur’anic: no, in this physical sense.
• أَخْصَام: Edges, corners, or lateral parts of objects; alternatively a plural for opposing parties. Qur’anic: no.
• خَصْمَة: In an early usage, a bead or stone carried in the belief that it afforded protection or success in a dispute. Qur’anic: no.

Every Qur’anic occurrence involves disagreement, argument, or a party to a dispute. The uses referring to the side of a vessel, a cloud, an eye, or physical objects do not occur in the Qur’an.

These physical uses therefore belong to the study of the language’s history; they must not replace the clear sense of dispute in the verses without evidence.

2. The lexical core: two parties confronting one another over a claim

Dispute: more than simple disagreement

In Arabic, خَصْم (khaṣm) denotes someone who stands opposite another person in a dispute.

The dispute may concern property, a right, a responsibility, judgment, belief, or another claim.

For example, two people may each claim ownership of an asset. Once one rejects the other’s claim and the matter involves demands and answers, each may be the other’s khaṣm.

A dispute thus involves more than simply holding two different views.

Two people may disagree over a scientific question and examine it without making demands against one another or engaging in hostile confrontation.

When each takes a position against the other, defends a claim, or challenges the opposing claim, the field of disputation becomes clearer.

This distinction does not mean that a dispute always involves personal hostility, violence, or hatred.

In a legal dispute, both sides may appear respectfully before a judge and present their reasons.

They are parties to a case, but they are not necessarily personal enemies.

Two parties, not necessarily two individuals

An important feature of this family is that khaṣm can denote one person, one side of a dispute, or a group of people.

One individual may be in dispute with another.

Two large groups may likewise confront one another over a shared issue.

Each group may then count as a single khaṣm.

This matters in Al-Ḥajj 22:19: هَٰذَانِ خَصْمَانِ uses the dual, while the following verb اخْتَصَمُوا is plural.

The dual khaṣmān therefore does not establish that the verse necessarily concerns two individuals rather than two groups.

Does a dispute mean that one side is wrong?

Linguistically, a dispute does not itself determine right and wrong.

One person may claim a right while another denies it.

Both are khaṣm in their roles as parties to the case, although only one may be right.

Both parties may also be mistaken about part of their claims.

A disagreement may arise from incomplete information or misunderstanding.

The mere existence of a dispute therefore does not establish that both sides are sinful or knowingly conceal the truth.

This distinction appears clearly in David’s story and in the prohibition on defending the treacherous in Al-Nisāʾ 4:105.

خَصَمَهُ: prevailing in a dispute

Classical Arabic uses خَصَمْتُهُ (khaṣamtuhu) when someone prevails over an opponent in disputation or argument.

Here, prevailing chiefly concerns evidence, reasoning, or the ability to answer.

Winning a debate, however, is not the same as establishing that one is actually right.

Someone may be more eloquent and present a claim more effectively while the truth lies with the other side.

Conversely, someone may have a rightful claim but lack the speaking skills needed to defend it effectively.

The ability to dispute, the apparent outcome of an argument, and the truth of the matter must therefore be distinguished.

3. The physical image: an edge or side

Arabic uses خُصْم (khuṣm), with ḍammah on the khāʾ, for the side or corner of something.

The edge of a leather waterskin, the corner of a load, or the side of an object may be called khuṣm.

خُصُوم السَّحَابَة is also recorded for a cloud’s sides or lateral portions.

In Maqāyīs al-Lughah, Ibn Fāris initially identifies two principles for KH Ṣ M: disputation and the side of a vessel.

He then brings them back to one principle through the image of a side: each disputant stands on one side of the disagreement.

This explanation is understandable as a lexical image.

We can picture two people standing on opposite sides of a disagreement, each presenting claims and reasons.

This image alone, however, does not prove that the word for dispute historically developed from the name of a vessel’s corner.

Ibn Fāris offers an analogical lexical analysis; that analysis alone does not establish the historical sequence in which the two uses developed.

Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lughah: two principles and their proposed connection

The Qur’anic definition must therefore rest on the established meaning of disagreement and disputation.

The image of two sides may help explain the parties’ positions, but it does not establish the historical origin of every derivative.

4. Early Arabic witnesses: disputants, argumentative ability, and the sides of things

Khaṣm in Dhū al-Rummah’s poetry

A verse by Dhū al-Rummah reads:

أَبَرُّ عَلَى الْخُصُومِ فَلَيْسَ خَصْمٌ
وَلَا خَصْمَانِ يَغْلِبُهُ جِدَالَا

abarru ʿalā al-khuṣūmi fa-laysa khaṣmun / wa-lā khaṣmāni yaghlibuhu jidālā

English translation

He excels the opposing parties in argument; neither one opponent nor two can defeat him in disputation.

This verse is particularly useful as linguistic evidence.

The poet places three forms together: الخصوم, خصم, and خصمان.

The plural comes first, then the singular, then the dual.

This usage shows that the khaṣm family can refer to one person or to several opposing parties.

Prevailing in argument is expressed separately by the verb يَغْلِبُهُ.

Khaṣm therefore does not itself mean a victor; it denotes a party engaged in the dispute.

Dhū al-Rummah was an Umayyad poet. This is consequently an early Arabic witness after the Qur’an’s revelation, rather than a pre-Islamic witness.

Intense contention in the poetry of Thaʿlab ibn Ṣuʿayr

A verse attributed to Thaʿlab ibn Ṣuʿayr al-Māzinī reads:

وَلَرُبَّ خَصْمٍ قَدْ شَهِدْتُ أَلِدَّةٍ
تَغْلِي صُدُورُهُمْ بِهِتْرٍ هَاتِرِ

wa-la-rubba khaṣmin qad shahidtu aliddatin / taghlī ṣudūruhum bi-hitrin hātiri

English translation

How many fiercely contentious opponents I have witnessed, their breasts boiling with false and offensive speech.

Here, dispute is accompanied by a description of intensity and contentiousness.

That intensity comes from أَلِدَّة and the image of offensive speech, rather than from a claim that every khaṣm behaves this way.

This witness shows that a dispute may become tense and filled with harmful speech.

That situation must not be made the definition of every use of the root.

A cloud’s sides in al-Akhṭal’s poetry

A verse by al-Akhṭal reads:

إِذَا طَعَنَتْ فِيهِ الْجَنُوبُ تَحَامَلَتْ
بِأَعْجَازِ جَرَّارٍ تَدَاعَى خُصُومُهَا

idhā ṭaʿanat fīhi al-janūbu taḥāmalat / bi-aʿjāzi jarrārin tadāʿā khuṣūmuhā

English translation

When the south wind drives into that cloud, it sets the rear of the heavy, water-laden mass in motion, and the cloud’s sides answer one another with thunder.

خُصُومُهَا here refers to the cloud’s sides and edges.

This use is separate from human disputation.

It shows that early Arabic had a physical use of khuṣm for the side of something alongside khaṣm for an opposing party.

Al-Akhṭal was also an Umayyad poet. This witness is valuable for studying early usage but is not firm evidence of a pre-Qur’anic occurrence.

Lisān al-ʿArab and classical lexicons: poetic witnesses and the physical branch

What the witnesses establish

These witnesses establish three points: khaṣm can denote one or several opposing parties; dispute may accompany argumentative ability or intense contentiousness; and another branch of the family denotes a physical side or edge.

In the Qur’an, however, the root’s principal field remains disagreement and disputation.

5. الْخِصَام and خَصِيم: attractive speech and defending the treacherous

Al-Baqarah 2:204

Qur’anic text

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ مَا فِي قَلْبِهِ وَهُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ

wa-mina al-nāsi man yuʿjibuka qawluhu fī al-ḥayāti al-dunyā wa-yushhidu Allāha ʿalā mā fī qalbihi wa-huwa aladdu al-khiṣāmi

English translation

Among people is one whose speech about worldly life pleases you, who calls The God to witness what is in his heart, although he is the fiercest of disputants.

Examining the usage

الْخِصَامِ here has two lexical analyses: the plural of khaṣm, meaning disputants, or a verbal noun of خَاصَمَ, meaning disputation. This article’s translation follows the plural analysis.

Al-Qurṭubī: verbal-noun and plural analyses of khiṣām

The word appears in the expression أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ.

أَلَدّ belongs to L D D and concerns fierce contentiousness and obstinate opposition.

The force of the criticism therefore comes from aladd and the full context, rather than from khiṣām alone.

The opening describes the person’s speech as pleasing.

Pleasing speech, however, does not guarantee inward truthfulness or upright conduct.

Al-Baqarah 2:205 goes on to describe the person’s corrupting behavior.

The Qur’an thus distinguishes the ability to impress listeners from actual integrity.

Is a powerful speaker necessarily contentious?

No.

Someone may defend a right with clear reasons and good expression.

Another may speak attractively while acting against what is right.

Al-Baqarah 2:204 addresses the latter situation.

The verse does not establish that every eloquent person or skilled debater is deceitful.

It criticizes the gap between an impressive appearance and the reality of the person’s conduct.

ألد الخصام should not be reduced to “someone who talks a lot.”

Excessive speech is not the same as fierce contention.

Al-Nisāʾ 4:105: the prohibition on defending the treacherous

Qur’anic text

إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَا أَرَاكَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَكُنْ لِلْخَائِنِينَ خَصِيمًا

innā anzalnā ilayka al-kitāba bi-al-ḥaqqi li-taḥkuma bayna al-nāsi bi-mā arāka Allāhu wa-lā takun li-al-khāʾinīna khaṣīman

English translation

We have indeed sent down the Book to you in truth so that you may judge between people by what The God has shown you; do not become a disputant and advocate on behalf of the treacherous.

Examining the usage

خَصِيمًا describes someone who defends a position in a dispute.

لِلْخَائِنِينَ identifies whom that defense serves.

The Qur’an thus prohibits arguing and defending on behalf of the treacherous.

This distinction matters in legal and ethical reasoning.

Someone may enter a dispute to support a relative, friend, faction, or powerful person despite knowing the evidence of that person’s betrayal.

Such conduct conflicts with judgment based on truth.

The prohibition should not be turned into a ban on every defense of an accused person.

Being accused is not the same as proven betrayal.

Defending an accused person’s legal rights, seeking the truth, and preventing unjust punishment do not necessarily constitute defending treachery.

The continuing context, Al-Nisāʾ 4:107, Al-Nisāʾ 4:108, and Al-Nisāʾ 4:109, discusses disputing and defending concerning people who betray themselves.

KH Ṣ M and J D L therefore meet in this subject without becoming complete synonyms.

Disputation and judgment

The verse includes لِتَحْكُمَ, from Ḥ K M.

That verb expresses judging.

Khaṣīman concerns taking a position in a dispute and defending one party.

Being a judge and being a disputant are different roles.

The judge must decide between the parties, whereas a disputant normally pursues one side’s claim or defense.

The two roles should not be confused.

This distinction helps explain why the command to judge truthfully is followed by the prohibition on becoming an advocate for the treacherous.

Lexical conclusion: In this context, khaṣīm denotes someone taking a defensive position in a dispute. The wrongdoing lies in knowingly supporting betrayal, rather than in every defense or dispute being inherently wrong.

6. خَصِيمٌ مُبِينٌ: the human capacity for evident argument

Al-Naḥl 16:4

Qur’anic text

خَلَقَ الْإِنْسَانَ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُبِينٌ

khalaqa al-insāna min nuṭfatin fa-idhā huwa khaṣīmun mubīnun

English translation

He created the human being from a drop; then, suddenly, that person is an evident disputant.

Examining the usage

خَصِيمٌ describes the human being.

مُبِينٌ belongs to B Y N and concerns being clear or making something clear.

The expression therefore highlights the human being’s evident capacity or condition in disputation.

The verse begins with human creation from a drop.

It then presents a person who can now take a position, argue, or enter a dispute.

This contrast between the physical beginning and the person’s present condition matters.

Khaṣīm alone does not establish that a human being lives in conscious hostility and contentiousness from birth.

The verse highlights the distance between the beginning of creation and the person’s present capacity or conduct.

Yā Sīn 36:77

Qur’anic text

أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الْإِنْسَانُ أَنَّا خَلَقْنَاهُ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُبِينٌ

a-wa-lam yara al-insānu annā khalaqnāhu min nuṭfatin fa-idhā huwa khaṣīmun mubīnun

English translation

Has the human being not seen that We created him from a drop? Then, suddenly, he is an evident disputant.

Examining the usage

The wording closely resembles Al-Naḥl 16:4.

The following context in Yā Sīn clarifies the subject further.

In Yā Sīn 36:78, the person offers an example concerning God while forgetting his own initial creation, then asks about bringing decayed bones back to life.

Disputation in this context therefore concerns an objection to the possibility of resurrection.

Khaṣīm itself, however, does not mean someone who denies resurrection.

That specific application comes from the following verses.

Is khaṣīmun mubīn always praise?

No.

In Al-Naḥl and Yā Sīn, the construction can show the human capacity for argument, but the context sets that capacity against the person’s position as a creature formed from a drop.

The following verses in Yā Sīn clarify the blameworthy direction of the argument.

This criticism does not establish that all human reasoning and defense are wrong.

People can also use their ability to speak and argue in defense of truth.

The value of that capacity depends on its subject and use.

7. Disputes in human affairs: guardianship, a messenger’s call, and divided groups

Āl ʿImrān 3:44: disagreement over Mary’s guardianship

Qur’anic text

ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ أَنْبَاءِ الْغَيْبِ نُوحِيهِ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا كُنْتَ لَدَيْهِمْ إِذْ يُلْقُونَ أَقْلَامَهُمْ أَيُّهُمْ يَكْفُلُ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا كُنْتَ لَدَيْهِمْ إِذْ يَخْتَصِمُونَ

dhālika min anbāʾi al-ghaybi nūḥīhi ilayka wa-mā kunta ladayhim idh yulqūna aqlāmahum ayyuhum yakfulu Maryama wa-mā kunta ladayhim idh yakhtaṣimūna

English translation

That is among the accounts of the unseen which We reveal to you. You were not with them when they cast their pens to determine which of them would take charge of Mary, nor were you with them when they disputed.

Examining the usage

يَخْتَصِمُونَ is a present-tense Form VIII verb.

The disagreement concerns Mary’s guardianship.

The verb itself does not determine why the parties wanted this responsibility or who eventually assumed it.

Those matters are understood from the verse’s other expressions and the narrative context.

Nor does ikhtiṣām establish that everyone present had an improper intention.

People may disagree over assuming a real responsibility.

The disagreement itself does not determine each party’s motive or ethical standing.

Al-Naml 27:45: two groups disputing among Thamūd

Qur’anic text

وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَىٰ ثَمُودَ أَخَاهُمْ صَالِحًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ فَإِذَا هُمْ فَرِيقَانِ يَخْتَصِمُونَ

wa-la-qad arsalnā ilā Thamūda akhāhum Ṣāliḥan ani uʿbudū Allāha fa-idhā hum farīqāni yakhtaṣimūna

English translation

We indeed sent their brother Ṣāliḥ to Thamūd, saying, “Worship The God.” Then they became two groups disputing with one another.

Examining the usage

فَرِيقَانِ and يَخْتَصِمُونَ appear together.

This construction shows that the dispute is between two groups.

Disputation is therefore not always limited to two individuals.

Here, the groups confront one another over Ṣāliḥ’s call and the worship of God.

يختصمون itself does not mean disbelief or faith.

Each group’s position is understood from the surrounding verses.

Yā Sīn 36:49: يَخِصِّمُونَ

Qur’anic text

مَا يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَّا صَيْحَةً وَاحِدَةً تَأْخُذُهُمْ وَهُمْ يَخِصِّمُونَ

mā yanẓurūna illā ṣayḥatan wāḥidatan taʾkhudhuhum wa-hum yakhiṣṣimūna

English translation

They await only a single blast that will seize them while they dispute with one another.

Examining the usage

In the reading of Ḥafṣ, يَخِصِّمُونَ is a form derived from يَخْتَصِمُونَ.

The tāʾ of Form VIII has assimilated to the ṣād and merged into it.

A doubled ṣād therefore does not automatically make this a Form II verb.

Accounts of Qur’anic readings record other forms, some related to the unaugmented verb.

A morphological index based on Ḥafṣ consequently treats يَخِصِّمُونَ under Form VIII while retaining the reading differences in a specialist note.

Lisān al-ʿArab and Lane: variant readings in Yā Sīn 36:49

The verse depicts people disputing when a blast seizes them.

The verb does not itself identify the subject of their disagreement.

Nor does the verse mean that everyone engaged in an argument must face that same event.

The context concerns a particular event following warnings about the Resurrection.

8. خَصْمَان: two parties to a case in David’s story

Ṣād 38:21

Qur’anic text

وَهَلْ أَتَاكَ نَبَأُ الْخَصْمِ إِذْ تَسَوَّرُوا الْمِحْرَابَ

wa-hal atāka nabaʾu al-khaṣmi idh tasawwarū al-miḥrāba

English translation

Has the account of the disputants reached you, when they climbed over the wall of the sanctuary?

Examining the usage

الْخَصْمِ refers to the party or parties in the dispute.

The important point is that singular khaṣm can also denote a group.

The same verse uses the plural verb تَسَوَّرُوا.

The singular form الخصم therefore does not establish that only one person entered the sanctuary.

Ṣād 38:22

Qur’anic text

إِذْ دَخَلُوا عَلَىٰ دَاوُودَ فَفَزِعَ مِنْهُمْ قَالُوا لَا تَخَفْ خَصْمَانِ بَغَىٰ بَعْضُنَا عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَنَا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تُشْطِطْ وَاهْدِنَا إِلَىٰ سَوَاءِ الصِّرَاطِ

idh dakhalū ʿalā Dāwūda fa-faziʿa minhum qālū lā takhaf khaṣmāni baghā baʿḍunā ʿalā baʿḍin fa-uḥkum baynanā bi-al-ḥaqqi wa-lā tushṭiṭ wa-ihdinā ilā sawāʾi al-ṣirāṭi

English translation

When they entered upon David, he was alarmed by them. They said, “Do not fear. We are two disputing parties; some of us have wronged others. Judge between us in truth, do not exceed the bounds, and guide us to the straight and proper way.”

Examining the usage

خَصْمَانِ is dual.

The two sides introduce themselves as parties to a disagreement.

This wording does not necessarily establish that exactly two individuals were present.

As in Al-Ḥajj 22:19, khaṣmān can denote two sides of a dispute even when each side includes more than one person.

The dispute has reached the stage of a request for judgment.

They say:

فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَنَا بِالْحَقِّ: “Judge between us in truth.”

The dispute thus accompanies a demand for justice.

This example shows that a dispute does not inherently mean rejecting fair judgment or maintaining endless hostility.

Ṣād 38:23: one party’s claim

Qur’anic text

إِنَّ هَٰذَا أَخِي لَهُ تِسْعٌ وَتِسْعُونَ نَعْجَةً وَلِيَ نَعْجَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ فَقَالَ أَكْفِلْنِيهَا وَعَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ

inna hādhā akhī lahu tisʿun wa-tisʿūna naʿjatan wa-liya naʿjatun wāḥidatun fa-qāla akfilnīhā wa-ʿazzanī fī al-khiṭābi

English translation

“This is my brother. He has ninety-nine ewes and I have one ewe. He said, ‘Entrust her to me,’ and overpowered me in speech.”

How this relates to the root

KH Ṣ M does not occur in this verse, but the verse clarifies the subject of the preceding dispute.

One side alleges that the other, despite owning ninety-nine ewes, demanded his ewe too and prevailed over him in speech.

عَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ matters here.

The ability to prevail in speech and the rightness of a claim are separate matters.

Someone may speak forcefully while lacking a just claim.

The story therefore illustrates the difference between argumentative ability and an actual right.

Ṣād 38:24: judgment, wrongdoing, and a test

Qur’anic text

قَالَ لَقَدْ ظَلَمَكَ بِسُؤَالِ نَعْجَتِكَ إِلَىٰ نِعَاجِهِ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْخُلَطَاءِ لَيَبْغِي بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَقَلِيلٌ مَا هُمْ وَظَنَّ دَاوُودُ أَنَّمَا فَتَنَّاهُ فَاسْتَغْفَرَ رَبَّهُ وَخَرَّ رَاكِعًا وَأَنَابَ

qāla la-qad ẓalamaka bi-suʾāli naʿjatika ilā niʿājihi wa-inna kathīran mina al-khulaṭāʾi la-yabghī baʿḍuhum ʿalā baʿḍin illā alladhīna āmanū wa-ʿamilū al-ṣāliḥāti wa-qalīlun mā hum wa-ẓanna Dāwūdu annamā fatannāhu fa-istaghfara rabbahu wa-kharra rākiʿan wa-anāba

English translation

He said, “He has indeed wronged you by asking to add your ewe to his ewes. Many partners wrong one another, except those who believe and do righteous deeds, and they are few.” David realized that We had tested him; he sought his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down bowing, and turned back to Him.

Examining the contextual use

David comments on the claim presented.

The narrative then mentions his test and his request for forgiveness.

The story does not give every detail of how that test took place.

Accounts about another person’s wife, or actions whose names and details are absent from the Qur’an, should therefore not be introduced without evidence as the story’s certain meaning.

The existence of two disputing parties also does not establish that David necessarily committed the same kind of wrongdoing alleged in the matter of the ewes.

The precise nature of his test requires an independent examination of the verses.

The conclusion relevant to a KH Ṣ M study is clearer and narrower: the parties disagree about rights and wrongdoing and come to David for judgment.

Dispute, rights, and the method of judging

The story shows the need to distinguish three things:

The existence of a disagreement, presenting a claim, and issuing a judgment.

Two sides may disagree before either claim has been established by sufficient evidence.

One side may also prevail in speaking without that victory proving the claim right.

Later, Ṣād 38:26 commands David to judge between people in truth and avoid following desires.

The connection between dispute and justice is therefore prominent in this context.

KH Ṣ M itself, however, does not mean judging; judgment is expressed through Ḥ K M.

Lexical conclusion: Khaṣm denotes a party to a disagreement, while khaṣmān denotes two disputing sides. Those sides may comprise several individuals. The rightness of a claim and the quality of judgment require independent evidence.

9. Two parties disputing about their Lord: group contention

Al-Ḥajj 22:19

Qur’anic text

هَٰذَانِ خَصْمَانِ اخْتَصَمُوا فِي رَبِّهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا قُطِّعَتْ لَهُمْ ثِيَابٌ مِنْ نَارٍ يُصَبُّ مِنْ فَوْقِ رُءُوسِهِمُ الْحَمِيمُ

hādhāni khaṣmāni ikhtaṣamū fī rabbihim fa-alladhīna kafarū quṭṭiʿat lahum thiyābun min nārin yuṣabbu min fawqi ruʾūsihimu al-ḥamīmu

English translation

These are two disputing parties who disputed about their Lord. For those who disbelieved, garments of fire have been cut out, and scalding liquid is poured over their heads.

Examining the usage

The root appears twice:

خَصْمَانِ and اخْتَصَمُوا.

Khaṣmān identifies the two sides of the disagreement.

Ikhtaṣamū expresses the act of disputing.

The verb is plural although khaṣmān is dual.

This difference matters grammatically.

The two sides may be groups, with the plural verb referring to the individuals who make up those groups.

Translating simply as “two people” without considering the context consequently restricts the verse’s meaning.

Are the two sides two particular individuals?

Historical and exegetical accounts propose different referents, including believers and unbelievers, or groups of scriptural communities and Muslims.

The wording itself does not name two specific individuals or historical groups.

The continuation describes those who disbelieved, while the following verses describe believers who perform righteous deeds.

The context therefore supports a distinction between the sides in terms of belief.

A particular historical account should not be presented without evidence as the only possible application.

Does the dispute mean that both groups are wrong?

No.

The verse mentions two disputing sides, then distinguishes unbelievers from believers in the continuation.

Disputation therefore does not mean that the sides have the same ethical or religious standing.

One side may defend truth while the other denies it.

This illustrates the importance of distinguishing a party to a dispute from a party in the wrong.

Lexical conclusion: هذان خصمان اختصموا denotes two sides of a dispute and can include two groups. The act of disputing neither establishes rightness nor issues an equal verdict on the sides.

10. Disputes at the Resurrection: disagreements that have not ended

Al-Zumar 39:31

Qur’anic text

ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عِنْدَ رَبِّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ

thumma innakum yawma al-qiyāmati ʿinda rabbikum takhtaṣimūna

English translation

Then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will dispute with one another before your Lord.

Examining the usage

تَخْتَصِمُونَ is a second-person plural present-tense Form VIII verb.

The verse states that disputation will take place on the Day of Resurrection.

This sentence does not specify the precise subject of every intended dispute.

It therefore does not establish that all people will dispute about a single issue using identical claims.

The disagreements may concern actions, assigning responsibility, religious claims, or other people’s rights.

Identifying particular applications requires independent evidence.

The important point is that the Qur’an speaks of disputes at the Resurrection; this does not mean that all disagreements remain unresolved forever.

Judgment and the clarification of truth must be studied through other verses.

Al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:96

Qur’anic text

قَالُوا وَهُمْ فِيهَا يَخْتَصِمُونَ

qālū wa-hum fīhā yakhtaṣimūna

English translation

They said, while disputing with one another within it.

Examining the usage

يَخْتَصِمُونَ describes people disputing in the Fire.

Their subsequent speech concerns their error and those whom they followed.

Disputation here therefore relates to reconsidering former allegiances and relationships.

The verb itself does not mean remorse, error, or confession.

Those meanings come from the following sentences.

Ṣād 38:64

Qur’anic text

إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ لَحَقٌّ تَخَاصُمُ أَهْلِ النَّارِ

inna dhālika la-ḥaqqun takhāṣumu ahli al-nāri

English translation

This is indeed true: the mutual disputing of the inhabitants of the Fire.

Examining the usage

تَخَاصُمُ is a Form VI verbal noun.

The form expresses mutual disputation between parties.

In the preceding verses, the inhabitants of the Fire speak to one another, with groups blaming others or objecting concerning their arrival.

Takhāṣum thus concerns their mutual contention.

The verbal noun does not establish that everyone in the Fire bears equal responsibility or guilt.

Each person’s or group’s responsibility must be understood through their actions.

Qāf 50:28

Qur’anic text

قَالَ لَا تَخْتَصِمُوا لَدَيَّ وَقَدْ قَدَّمْتُ إِلَيْكُمْ بِالْوَعِيدِ

qāla lā takhtaṣimū ladayya wa-qad qaddamtu ilaykum bi-al-waʿīdi

English translation

He said, “Do not dispute before Me; I had already conveyed the warning to you.”

Examining the usage

تَخْتَصِمُوا is a second-person plural present-tense verb in a prohibition.

The dispute takes place before God in the context of reckoning and people’s final outcome.

This prohibition should not be detached from its setting at the Resurrection to conclude that no one in worldly life may raise a disagreement, challenge injustice, or defend themselves.

Al-Nisāʾ 4:105 speaks of judging between people in truth.

David’s story likewise presents two parties requesting judgment.

Prohibiting further dispute in a particular reckoning is consequently different from the right to seek justice and have a case examined in worldly life.

وَقَدْ قَدَّمْتُ إِلَيْكُمْ بِالْوَعِيدِ also highlights the importance of the previous warning in this context.

Lexical conclusion: Disputes at the Resurrection may concern people’s worldly claims, allegiances, and responsibilities. KH Ṣ M itself, however, does not mean reckoning, punishment, or confession; those meanings come from context.

11. الْمَلَإِ الْأَعْلَىٰ إِذْ يَخْتَصِمُونَ: disagreement in the exalted assembly

Ṣād 38:69

Qur’anic text

مَا كَانَ لِيَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ بِالْمَلَإِ الْأَعْلَىٰ إِذْ يَخْتَصِمُونَ

mā kāna liya min ʿilmin bi-al-malaʾi al-aʿlā idh yakhtaṣimūna

English translation

I had no knowledge of the exalted assembly when they disputed.

Examining the usage

يَخْتَصِمُونَ is associated with the gathering called الْمَلَإِ الْأَعْلَىٰ.

ملأ belongs to the independent root M L ʾ and denotes a recognized assembly or group.

الأعلى describes that assembly.

The meaning therefore concerns a disagreement or dispute associated with this gathering.

يختصمون itself does not identify the participants, their number, or the precise subject of the disagreement.

The following verses discuss human creation, the command to prostrate, and Iblīs’s conduct.

The phrase’s relationship to those later events in the surah is therefore open to examination.

The verb alone, however, does not establish personal hostility, sin, or a conflict among angels comparable to human quarrels.

Does every ikhtiṣām necessarily arise from resentment?

No.

Just as Āl ʿImrān 3:44 presents a disagreement over Mary’s guardianship, this verse allows us to recognize disagreement and verbal confrontation.

The verb does not clarify its precise character.

The parties’ psychological or ethical condition should therefore not be assigned without independent evidence.

Nor should external stories replace the Qur’anic text without critical assessment when explaining this verse.

Lexical conclusion: In Ṣād 38:69, ikhtiṣām concerns a disagreement in the context of the exalted assembly. Its nature and details require an independent examination of the surrounding verses.

12. خِصَام and خَصِمُون: disputation and intense contention in Al-Zukhruf

Al-Zukhruf 43:18

Qur’anic text

أَوَمَنْ يُنَشَّأُ فِي الْحِلْيَةِ وَهُوَ فِي الْخِصَامِ غَيْرُ مُبِينٍ

a-wa-man yunashshaʾu fī al-ḥilyati wa-huwa fī al-khiṣāmi ghayru mubīnin

English translation

Or one who is brought up amid ornaments and is not clear in expression during a dispute?

Examining the usage

الْخِصَامِ concerns disagreement and disputation.

غَيْرُ مُبِينٍ raises the question of clear expression or the ability to express oneself during a dispute.

Lexically, khiṣām concerns the disagreement and verbal confrontation, while mubīn concerns clarification and expression.

The words are therefore not synonyms.

The context of daughters and attributing offspring to God

The preceding verses discuss people who attribute daughters to God while disliking news of a daughter’s birth themselves.

The main issue is therefore these people’s inconsistency and double standard in attributing offspring to God.

Early explanations predominantly understand the verse as referring to girls and women.

Another reading connects it with idols adorned with ornaments.

This difference shows that the referent of مَنْ يُنَشَّأُ فِي الْحِلْيَةِ cannot be established merely from the meaning of KH Ṣ M.

Al-Ṭabarī: two interpretations of the referent in Al-Zukhruf 43:18

A historical view of women’s speaking ability should also not become a categorical rule that all women are inherently incapable of reasoning.

In Al-Mujādilah 58:1, the Qur’an itself recounts a woman’s active discussion of her family rights and emphasizes that her words were heard.

The Queen of Sheba’s story also describes a woman’s decision-making and consultation as a ruler.

A general verdict about all women cannot therefore be extracted from فِي الْخِصَامِ غَيْرُ مُبِينٍ without examining the context and the description’s referent.

The lexical conclusion here is clear: khiṣām denotes verbal confrontation, while ghayru mubīn separately describes expression within that situation.

Al-Zukhruf 43:58

Qur’anic text

وَقَالُوا أَآلِهَتُنَا خَيْرٌ أَمْ هُوَ مَا ضَرَبُوهُ لَكَ إِلَّا جَدَلًا بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ خَصِمُونَ

wa-qālū a-ālihatunā khayrun am huwa mā ḍarabūhu laka illā jadalan bal hum qawmun khaṣimūna

English translation

They said, “Are our gods better, or is he?” They put this forward to you only for argument; rather, they are a fiercely contentious people.

Examining the usage

خَصِمُونَ is the plural of the adjective خَصِم.

It can describe people disposed to dispute, or intense or skilled in disputation.

The same verse also contains جَدَلًا.

Two related roots therefore appear together:

J D L and KH Ṣ M.

They should not be treated as complete synonyms.

Jidāl concerns the exchange of speech and argument; khaṣim here characterizes a group obstinate in opposition and dispute.

The verse therefore criticizes how the question is raised and the speakers’ contentious character, rather than merely mentioning a question.

It does not follow that everyone who asks questions or defends a belief exemplifies قوم خصمون.

Lexical conclusion: In Al-Zukhruf, khiṣām denotes the field of verbal confrontation and khaṣimūn describes people given to dispute. The criticism comes from their method and context, rather than from the existence of any discussion or disagreement.

13. Distinguishing KH Ṣ M from related vocabulary

KH Ṣ M compared with J D L

Study of J D L

Jidāl focuses more on an exchange of speech, reasoning, and verbal opposition.

Khuṣūmah emphasizes parties confronting one another over a claim or right.

Two people may debate without being involved in a legal case or personal enmity.

Two parties may also have a dispute that is examined without lengthy debate.

In Al-Zukhruf 43:58, the roots occur together and their distinction is visible.

KH Ṣ M compared with Ḥ J J

Study of Ḥ J J

Ḥujjah and iḥtijāj concern providing reasons and establishing a claim.

Khuṣūmah denotes confrontation between the parties.

Both sides may offer arguments in a dispute, but the case’s existence does not prove that either side possesses supporting evidence.

Prevailing in speech likewise does not necessarily mean possessing a sound argument.

In David’s story, one party’s claim mentions the other’s ability to overpower him in speech.

Argumentative ability and actual rightness must therefore be examined separately.

KH Ṣ M compared with N Z ʿ

Study of N Z ʿ (Not yet published)

Nizāʿ concerns contention, disagreement, and positions pulling apart.

Khuṣūmah may be a kind of nizāʿ, especially when the parties pursue claims against one another.

Nizāʿ, however, has a wider range and may also denote practical or social conflict.

Most Qur’anic uses of KH Ṣ M, by comparison, concern claims, speech, and verbal confrontation.

KH Ṣ M compared with SH J R

Study of SH J R

One branch of SH J R in Arabic concerns intermingling and conflict.

Al-Nisāʾ 4:65 uses فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ for disagreements between people.

This use is close to disputation but has its own root.

Intertwining branches and entangled disagreements are comparable images, but that resemblance does not establish identical meanings for the two roots.

KH Ṣ M compared with ʿ D W

Study of ʿ D W

ʿAdāwah concerns enmity and aggression.

A dispute may lead to hostility, but each litigant is not necessarily the other’s personal enemy.

Two people may, for example, disagree over ownership and seek fair judgment.

That disagreement alone does not establish moral enmity between them.

KH Ṣ M compared with Ḥ K M

Study of Ḥ K M

Ḥ K M belongs to the field of judgment, restraining disorder, and determining rights.

A khaṣm is a party to the disagreement.

In Ṣād 38:22, the two parties ask David to judge between them in truth.

The disputant and judge thus have distinct roles within the same verse.

That distinction should remain clear in translation and reflection.

KH Ṣ M compared with L D D

Study of L D D (Not yet published)

L D D concerns intense contentiousness and obstinacy in disagreement.

Al-Baqarah 2:204 contains أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ.

The expression shows that khiṣām concerns disputants or disputation, whereas aladd intensifies the contentious quality.

Not every dispute is therefore as fierce or objectionable as ألد الخصام.

KH Ṣ M compared with KH Ṣ Ṣ

Study of KH Ṣ Ṣ

KH Ṣ Ṣ is an independent root concerning assignment, particularity, and, in some derivatives, need.

KH Ṣ M concerns disputation and disagreement.

يَخْتَصُّ, meaning to be particular or specially assigned, therefore does not share a root with يَخْتَصِمُ, meaning to dispute.

Similar beginnings and structures must not cause these verbs to be merged in a root index.

KH Ṣ M compared with KH Ḍ M

KH Ḍ M, with ḍād, concerns a kind of eating and chewing in Arabic.

It differs from KH Ṣ M, which has ṣād.

Phonetic resemblance must therefore not transfer the meaning of eating to disputation.

14. Morphological and grammatical points

The difference between خَصْم and خَصِيم

Arabic khaṣm may name a party to a dispute and refer to one person or a group.

Khaṣīm describes someone who engages in a dispute or defends a position.

The words are very close but do not always perform identical roles.

In Ṣād 38:21 and Ṣād 38:22, khaṣm and khaṣmān concern the parties to a case.

In Al-Nisāʾ 4:105, khaṣīman denotes someone defending the treacherous.

The former highlights the parties’ position in a disagreement; the latter highlights a person’s defensive role in the case.

خَصِم and خَصِيم

The adjective khaṣim may describe someone strongly disposed to disputation or skilled at it.

Khaṣīm likewise denotes someone who disputes.

Some lexical explanations distinguish the ability or skill to dispute from actually doing so.

That boundary is not fixed across every Arabic use.

The pattern faʿīl alone therefore does not establish that a person is always contentious or necessarily wins every dispute.

Form VIII

In the reading of Ḥafṣ, all eight verbal occurrences of this root are Form VIII.

Examples include اِخْتَصَمُوا, يَخْتَصِمُونَ, and تَخْتَصِمُونَ.

In the attested contexts, this construction fits mutual disputation between parties.

The pattern itself does not establish equality between the parties in evidence, power, or rightness.

Form VIII expresses the occurrence of disagreement or confrontation; the value of each party’s position is a separate issue.

Form VI

تَخَاصُم in Ṣād 38:64 is a Form VI verbal noun.

It highlights mutual contention among the inhabitants of the Fire.

It does not establish that everyone present bears equal responsibility or has said exactly the same things.

يَخِصِّمُونَ and assimilation

In Yā Sīn 36:49, يَخِصِّمُونَ in the reading of Ḥafṣ is explained by assimilation of the Form VIII tāʾ into ṣād.

The apparently shortened form must therefore not be counted as an independent root or a separate verb form.

Differences among the readings should also remain part of a specialist examination.

خَصْمَانِ with a plural verb

Al-Ḥajj 22:19 contains هَٰذَانِ خَصْمَانِ اخْتَصَمُوا.

This construction shows that the two sides of a disagreement may comprise several individuals.

David’s story likewise uses الخصم with a plural verb, followed by خصمان.

Both contexts require a distinction between the number of sides and the number of people present.

15. Translation proposals for Forqan

The basic equivalent for خَصْم is “a party to a dispute.”

In Ṣād 38:21, نَبَأُ الْخَصْمِ may be translated “the account of the disputants,” since the following plural verb shows that the word can refer to a group.

In Ṣād 38:22, خَصْمَانِ is close to “two disputing parties.”

Likewise, هَٰذَانِ خَصْمَانِ in Al-Ḥajj 22:19 is better rendered “these are two disputing parties,” rather than being restricted without examination to “these two people.”

For خَصِيم, suitable equivalents include “disputant,” “advocate in a dispute,” or, where appropriate, “contentious opponent.”

In Al-Nisāʾ 4:105, وَلَا تَكُنْ لِلْخَائِنِينَ خَصِيمًا can be rendered “do not become a disputant and advocate on behalf of the treacherous.”

In Al-Naḥl 16:4 and Yā Sīn 36:77, خَصِيمٌ مُبِينٌ can be rendered “an evident disputant” or “an outspoken opponent in argument.” Its blameworthy direction must be explained from context.

For خِصَام, the verbal-noun analysis allows “disputation,” “contention,” or, where suitable, “verbal confrontation”; the plural analysis allows “disputants” or “parties to a dispute.”

In Al-Baqarah 2:204, أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ is close to “the fiercest of disputants.”

In Al-Zukhruf 43:18, فِي الْخِصَامِ can be rendered “during a dispute.”

For خَصِمُونَ, “contentious” or “fiercely disputatious” is suitable.

In Al-Zukhruf 43:58, its connection with جَدَلًا supports “a fiercely contentious people” as a contextual rendering.

For اِخْتَصَمَ, suitable equivalents include “to dispute,” “to contend with one another,” and in some contexts “to argue over an issue.”

In Āl ʿImrān 3:44, يَخْتَصِمُونَ is close to “they disputed with one another.”

In Al-Naml 27:45, فَرِيقَانِ يَخْتَصِمُونَ becomes “two groups disputing with one another.”

In Al-Zumar 39:31, تَخْتَصِمُونَ can be rendered “you will dispute with one another.”

In Qāf 50:28, لَا تَخْتَصِمُوا لَدَيَّ is close to “do not dispute before Me.”

For تَخَاصُم in Ṣād 38:64, “mutual disputing” or “contention among the inhabitants of the Fire” is suitable.

In every case, avoid automatically turning dispute into lying, personal hostility, sin, condemnation, or being right.

Those qualities must be understood from independent expressions and context.

16. Final synthesis

Arabic KH Ṣ M concerns disagreement and confrontation between two sides over a claim, right, or particular issue.

Early physical uses also record words from this family for an object’s edge or side. In the Qur’an, however, every occurrence belongs to the field of disagreement, dispute, and argument.

The root can identify a disputant, express the act of disputing, or describe someone defending a position in a disagreement.

The existence of a dispute alone does not reveal which side is right.

Āl ʿImrān 3:44 concerns disagreement over Mary’s guardianship.

In Al-Naml 27:45, two groups among Thamūd dispute with one another.

In David’s story, two parties appear to seek truthful judgment.

Al-Ḥajj 22:19 presents two sides disputing about their Lord.

Al-Nisāʾ 4:105 condemns defending the treacherous.

Al-Naḥl 16:4 and Yā Sīn 36:77 depict the human being’s evident capacity or conduct in argument.

Al-Baqarah 2:204 and Al-Zukhruf 43:58 associate dispute with fierce contentiousness and an objectionable method.

Verses concerning the Resurrection also include disputes about people’s responsibilities and claims.

These uses show that a dispute may begin in pursuit of an actual right or become a means of denial and defending falsehood.

Disputation and judgment are also different.

David’s disputants seek truthful judgment. The judge’s task therefore differs from taking one party’s position.

Dispute and debate are close without being complete synonyms.

Debate chiefly highlights the exchange of speech and reasoning; dispute more strongly emphasizes people or groups confronting one another over claims and rights.

In verses concerning the Resurrection, gathering, reckoning, judging, and disputing may belong to one great event while remaining lexically distinct.

Final definition: In Qur’anic use, KH Ṣ M denotes two parties confronting one another over a claim, right, or disputed issue, together with the act of disputing and defending a position in that confrontation.

Within this field, khaṣm denotes a disputant; khaṣīm, someone engaging in a dispute or defending a position; khiṣām, disputation and verbal contention as a verbal noun or disputants as a plural; ikhtiṣām, the occurrence of disputation between parties; and takhāṣum, the mutual character of that contention.

Three questions are essential for understanding each use: who disagrees, what claim or demand is at issue, and what evidence and method each side uses to defend its position.

These distinctions prevent the pursuit of rights from being equated with deliberate contention for falsehood, or victory in speaking from being treated as proof of actual rightness.

Dispute names a confrontation over a claim. The truth of the matter, evidence, and fairness in judgment determine right and wrong, rather than a party’s mere presence or victory in the case.