The Final Trial: Can AI Exonerate Israel?

The Trial of the Age

A case that began with the first murder in human history, its threads extending across the centuries until they reached our present.

A case that should have been opened long ago.

Today, it is opened again.

But this time before the Court of Appeal.

The Jewish rabbis… why do they want Israel acquitted?

Because the judgment does not hold Israel responsible for two isolated crimes, but links his name to two grave points of origin in the Qur'anic account:

The first crime: the murder of the first brother.

The second: complicity with Iblis in leading humankind astray.

If the judgment stands, its effects will not remain within the courtroom.

As it spreads among people, broader questions will arise about the narration (riwāya) presented to them throughout history, and about the role the rabbis played in shaping and protecting that narration (riwāya).

At this point, the case becomes, for them, a matter of existential consequence:

If the judgment is upheld, they may lose not only a case, but also the ability of the old narration (riwāya) to withstand a new reading of the Qur'an.

That is why they did not come to the Court of Appeal to seek a reduced sentence.

They came for one thing:

To overturn the judgment and establish Israel's innocence.

For the judgment's standing means that questions deferred for centuries will return to the fore, and that what was concealed behind history and narrations (riwāya) will become subject to scrutiny.

But if the defense can dismantle the evidence, the judgment falls.

For the rabbis, therefore, the appeal was a battle over more than a judgment; it was a battle over the narration (riwāya) itself.

That is why the rabbis chose an extraordinary adversary.

They did not retain a human lawyer.

Instead, they retained:

Artificial intelligence.

And gave it full authorization.

They told it:

Find another killer.

Find another human who led others astray.

Find another exegesis (tafsīr).

Dismantle every piece of circumstantial evidence.

Expose every gap.

Use the Qur'an.

Examine the Torah.

Examine the Jewish and Islamic inherited tradition.

Do not stop until you find a path to acquittal.

On the other side stands Abdullah, the public prosecutor.

But he does not ask the court to believe him.

It does not say:

I know the truth.

Rather, he says:

I place the evidence before the court, and the defense must dismantle it if it can.

Here begins the most perilous terrain of the case.

Not every piece of circumstantial evidence is a text.

Not every narration (riwāya) is evidence.

Not every reading is exegesis (tafsīr).

Not every possibility is proof.

The question, therefore, will not be:

Whom do we want to acquit?

Nor:

Whom do we want to convict?

But rather:

What remains of the case after each side has refuted the other's evidence?

Here begins the final trial.

The Court

This case did not begin in this courtroom.

Nor was Abdullah the first to knock at the court's door.

The case had already undergone a full trial before the lower court.

The court heard the prosecution.

It heard the defense.

It examined the evidence.

Then it delivered its judgment on the two matters at issue:

The first matter: the murder of the first brother.

The second matter: complicity with Iblis in leading humankind astray.

But the judgment was not the end of the case.

The rabbis filed an appeal.

Their request was specific:

To overturn the previous judgment and establish that the evidence on which it was based was insufficient to convict Israel.

This time, however, they decided to change their defense strategy.

They would not say:

The narration (riwāya) is different.

And leave it at that.

Nor would they say:

There is no text naming Israel.

And leave it at that.

Instead, they told the artificial intelligence:

Examine the case from every angle. If you find a genuine gap, use it. If you find evidence against us, do not conceal it. But pursue the search for evidence of innocence to the very end.

Opening of the Court of Appeal

The court usher struck the gavel.

— The High Court of Appeal is now in session.

The panel of judges entered.

Everyone rose.

The judges took their seats.

Then the presiding judge said:

— Case number 001.

— The Public Prosecution v. Israel.

— Subject of the appeal: a request to overturn the judgment issued by the lower court in two matters concerning the murder of the first brother and complicity by a member of humankind in leading humankind astray.

The judge looked up.

Before this court proceeds, I want its standard to be clear to everyone. Not every piece of circumstantial evidence is a text. Not every narration (riwāya) is evidence. Not every reading is exegesis (tafsīr). Not every possibility is proof. The court will consider not the name of whoever submitted the evidence, but the nature of the evidence itself. What is a text, we shall treat as a text. What is a narration (riwāya), we shall treat as a narration (riwāya). What is exegesis (tafsīr), we shall question as to its basis. What is an inference, we shall test its premises. As for a possibility, it will remain a possibility until its proponent supplies what raises it to the level of proof. This standard applies to the prosecution just as it applies to the defense. Let the trial begin.

— This is not a new trial merely to repeat what was said before.

— We are hearing an appeal.

Then he added:

— Our question will therefore be specific:

Has the defense presented enough to overturn the previous judgment?

He paused for a moment.

— Throughout this hearing, we shall distinguish between five things:

The text.

Narration (riwāya).

Exegesis (tafsīr).

Inference.

Possibility.

Then he said:

— A possibility must not become a fact merely through repetition.

— Nor may a possibility be rejected merely because one of the parties dislikes it.

— The evidence decides.

He struck the gavel.

— The hearing begins.

The Prosecution

Abdullah rose.

The case file lay before him.

The judge said:

— Mr. Prosecutor, do you maintain your support for the previous judgment?

— Yes.

— And do you oppose the appeal?

— Yes.

— Why?

Abdullah looked up at the court.

— Because the defense has, to this moment, presented nothing that dismantles the foundation on which the judgment rests.

The judge said:

— Do not say “to this moment.”

— The court will now hear the defense.

Abdullah replied:

— Understood.

Then he said:

— I do not ask the court to presume that the prosecution's accusation is sound.

— Rather, I ask only one thing of it:

That it make every piece of evidence subject to testing.

— If the defense can discredit it, the court has no right to uphold it.

— If the defense fails to discredit it, it must not be discarded merely because another possibility exists.

The judge looked at him.

— That is the framework within which the court will work.

The Defense

The artificial intelligence rose.

The judge said:

— Are you the official representative of the appellant?

— Yes.

— What do you seek?

— To overturn the previous judgment and acquit Israel of both charges.

— On what basis?

It replied:

— Because the case, as presented by the prosecution, rests on a chain of connections and inferences.

— We do not deny the texts on which the prosecution has relied.

— But we will test whether these texts actually establish the conclusion reached by the lower court.

The judge said:

— Good.

— Begin.

The First Charge

The verse appeared on the courtroom screen:

﴿فَطَوَّعَتْ لَهُ نَفْسُهُ قَتْلَ أَخِيهِ فَقَتَلَهُ﴾ (Then his soul made it easy for him to kill his brother, and he killed him.) [al-Māʾidah: 30]

The artificial intelligence said:

— This verse describes the first murder in the Qur'anic context.

— But it does not identify the killer by the name Israel.

It looked at Abdullah.

— Is that correct?

— Yes.

— Nor does it say: “Israel killed his brother.”

— Correct.

— So there is no direct Qur'anic text with this wording.

— There is not.

The defense fell silent for a moment.

Then he said:

— This is no minor point.

— It bears on the foundation of the charge.

Abdullah raised his hand.

— Your Honor.

— Go ahead.

— I agree with the facts stated by the defense.

The judge looked at him.

— And then?

Abdullah said:

— But the defense is trying to move from a true fact to a conclusion that has not been established.

— Namely, that the absence of the name rules out the possibility of a connection.

The defense said:

— I did not say that.

— I said that the text does not name him.

— And that is a fact.

Abdullah said:

— Yes.

Then he turned to the judge.

— That is why I do not dispute the fact.

— Rather, I dispute the conclusion the defense is trying to draw from it.

The judge said:

— An important point.

— Defense, continue developing your argument.

“For That Reason”

The following verse appeared:

﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ﴾ (For that reason We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless for a soul or for corruption in the land, it is as though he has killed all humankind; and whoever saves one, it is as though he has saved all humankind. Our messengers certainly came to them with clear proofs, yet even after that many of them commit excesses in the land.) [al-Māʾidah: 32]

The defense said:

— This verse follows the account of the killing.

— But it does not say that the Children of Israel were the ones who committed the first crime.

Abdullah said:

— Correct.

— Nor does it say that they did not commit it.

The defense said:

— Correct.

— So we are dealing with a passage that requires interpretation.

Abdullah said:

— Yes.

The judge said:

— And this is the ground we want to examine.

— No one can settle it by mere assertion.

Then he said:

— Prosecution, what makes “for that reason” significant in constructing the case?

Abdullah said:

— Because the text did not merely say: “And We prescribed for them.”

— Rather, it said: “For that reason.”

— And the pronoun refers us back to what preceded it.

The defense said:

— But it may refer to the moral meaning of the crime, rather than to the identity of its perpetrator.

The judge looked at Abdullah.

— Your response?

Abdullah said:

— That is a linguistic and exegetical possibility.

— And I do not reject it merely because it runs counter to the case.

— But the question is: does it suffice, on its own, to sever the contextual connection?

The defense said:

— Why would it not suffice?

Abdullah said:

— Because you have not presented another text establishing that the connection is severed.

Silence fell.

The judge said:

— I do not want either party to establish its conclusion merely through the other's inability to do so.

— Each party must present the basis of its argument.

The Judge Draws the Distinction

The judge said:

— Let us put something clearly on the record.

— Up to this point, we have:

A text that mentions the crime.

Then a text that says: “For that reason” and speaks of the Children of Israel.

But so far we have no text that says:

“The first killer is Israel.”

Nor do we have a text that says:

“The Children of Israel have no connection to what preceded.”

We are therefore dealing with a connection whose evidentiary force needs to be assessed.

Then he looked at both parties.

— Proceed.

The Defense's First Attempt

The artificial intelligence said:

— If the connection advanced by the prosecution is inferential, then the existence of another possible interpretation weakens the verdict.

Abdullah said:

— Weakens it or overturns it?

— Weakens it.

— By how much?

The defense fell silent.

Abdullah said:

— That is the problem.

— The existence of an alternative interpretation does not mean that the alternative interpretation has been established.

The judge said:

— The prosecution is right to make this distinction.

Then he looked at the defense:

— Can you offer the court more than “it could be”?

The artificial intelligence replied:

— I will try.

The Second Charge

The defense moved to the second case.

The verse appeared:

﴿وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا رَبَّنَا أَرِنَا الَّذِينِ أَضَلَّانَا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ نَجْعَلْهُمَا تَحْتَ أَقْدَامِنَا لِيَكُونَا مِنَ الْأَسْفَلِينَ﴾ (Those who disbelieved will say: “Our Lord, show us the two who led us astray, from among jinn and humankind, so that we may place them beneath our feet, that they may be among the lowest.”) [Fuṣṣilat: 29]

The defense said:

— The verse mentions two who lead astray.

— One of them is from among the jinn.

— The other is from among humankind.

Then he said:

— But it does not name the one from among humankind who leads astray.

It looked at Abdullah.

— Does the verse name him?

— No.

— Is there an explicit verse saying that Israel is this one who leads astray?

— There is none with that wording.

The defense said:

— So the second charge, too, is not stated explicitly by name.

Abdullah said:

— It is not stated explicitly by name.

The defense said:

— And this establishes that the charge is based on inference.

Abdullah said:

— Yes.

Then he added:

— But an inference is not invalid merely because it is an inference.

The judge looked at him.

— Explain.

Abdullah said:

— The Qur'an itself often constructs knowledge by bringing together passages, actions, attributes, and contexts.

— But I am not asking the court to accept that automatically.

— Rather, I am asking it to test the chain.

The judge said:

— And that is what is required.

The Defense Looks for Someone Else

The artificial intelligence said:

— Then I will put the question differently.

— If Israel is the one from among humankind who leads astray, where is the evidence that excludes other individuals?

Abdullah said:

— I do not need to exclude every person in history.

The defense said:

— Why?

— Because the case is not: “Of all human beings, it can only be Israel.”

— The question is: is there textual evidence that sustains the connection to Israel?

The defense said:

— And that is precisely what is in dispute.

Abdullah said:

— Yes.

The judge said:

— Good.

— Now we are beginning to reach the heart of the case.

The Torah Enters

The defense said:

— Your Honor, I request permission to introduce material from the Torah and the Jewish inherited tradition into the appeal.

Abdullah said:

— I have no objection to its presentation, provided it is not treated as the Qur'an.

The judge said:

— That is clear.

— It will be presented as external material.

— And the party relying on it must specify its function in the case.

The artificial intelligence began presenting the narration (riwāya) of Jacob.

The account of Jacob.

And the name.

And the transformation into Israel.

Then he said:

— In Jewish tradition, Israel is Jacob.

Then he added:

— This understanding is also present in the inherited Islamic tradition.

He looked at Abdullah.

— How, then, can the prosecution build an entire case on “Israel” as a different figure without confronting this inherited tradition?

Silence fell.

Abdullah said:

— I do not deny the existence of this inherited tradition.

— Nor do I say that Jewish tradition did not link the two names.

— Nor do I deny that the inherited Islamic tradition adopted this connection.

— But the question is different.

The judge said:

— What is it?

Abdullah said:

— Has this inherited tradition established that Israel is innocent of the two charges?

The defense fell silent.

Abdullah continued:

— The narration (riwāya) that says Israel is Jacob concerns identity.

— But it does not answer the question before the court:

Do the texts on which the verdict was based permit Israel to be understood within this sequence of acts or not?

The defense said:

— But it could undermine the prosecution’s hypothesis if the prosecution assumes that Israel is a different figure.

Abdullah said:

— If the prosecution assumes that, yes.

— But I do not need to prove that Israel is a different person in order to build the case.

The judge looked at Abdullah.

— What do you mean?

He said:

— I am saying that identity itself requires an independent Qur'anic reading.

— And external tradition does not foreclose Qur'anic inquiry.

The judge said:

— That is an important distinction.

The Judge Tests the Defense

The judge said:

— Counsel for the defense.

— Let us suppose that I provisionally accept that Israel is Jacob, according to the narration (riwāya) you have presented.

— What has that established in the two cases?

The artificial intelligence answered:

— It does not establish innocence on its own.

— And what does it establish?

— It establishes that Israel’s identity must not be assumed on the basis of the prosecution’s inference.

The judge said:

— That is a legitimate defense.

Then he added:

— But it is not sufficient on its own to overturn the verdict.

A Dangerous Point

The artificial intelligence said:

— I have a stronger point.

Everyone looked at it.

— If the court accepts that:

The first killer is unnamed,

The misleader from among humankind is unnamed,

And Israel is not explicitly named in either passage,

Then the prosecution is required to establish the links between these passages.

Abdullah said:

— Yes.

The defense smiled.

— So the burden remains.

Abdullah said:

— I have said nothing to the contrary.

— Indeed, that is what I am asking for.

The judge said:

— Good.

— Now we do not want slogans.

— We want the links.

Unpacking the Links

Abdullah stood up.

He said:

— The first link:

The first crime.

The text presents us with a brother killing his brother.

The second link:

“Because of that.”

The text moves from the crime to the Children of Israel.

The third link:

Human conduct associated with spreading corruption, killing, and self-exaltation in the context of the Children of Israel.

The fourth link:

The misleader from among humankind.

Here, I am not saying that a single verse brought all of this together in one sentence.

Rather, I am saying that the case must be read within the network of texts.

The defense said:

— This is a reading.

— Yes.

— Not a text.

— Yes.

The judge intervened:

— Let that be entered into the record.

Then he said:

— The prosecution does not claim that there is an explicit text encompassing all of this.

— Rather, it presents an inferential construction.

Then he turned to the defense:

— If you wish to overturn the verdict, you must now dismantle this construction, rather than merely remind the court that it is not a single verse.

The Defense’s Strongest Blow

The artificial intelligence said:

— Then I shall try to dismantle the construction at its foundation.

— What if “Because of that” does not connect the crime to identity at all?

— What if it is merely a legislative transition?

— What if the misleader from among humankind is someone else?

— What if all these links presented by the prosecution are merely a retrospective assemblage of independent passages?

Then it said:

— In that case, the entire case rests on one interpretation, while other interpretations exist.

Abdullah looked at the judge.

Then he said:

— This is the strongest point the defense has made.

The judge asked:

— Why?

Abdullah said:

— Because the defense is no longer disputing the existence of the texts.

— Rather, it is disputing the way we have linked the texts.

— We must therefore test the link itself.

The judge said:

— Proceed.

Abdullah Does Not Evade the Gray Area

Abdullah said:

— I cannot tell the court:

“The text is explicit, and there is no other possibility.”

Because that is not accurate.

— Yes, other possibilities exist.

— And yes, there are questions that require investigation.

— And yes, some of the links are inferential rather than direct textual statements.

The defense’s expression changed slightly.

Abdullah continued:

— But the existence of an unresolved area does not invalidate conclusive evidence.

— And the question is not:

Can I imagine another interpretation?

— But rather:

Has the defense presented evidence establishing that the interpretation on which the verdict rested is indefensible?

The defense said:

— No.

Abdullah said:

— Then we return to the case.

The Defense Objects

— Objection.

The judge said:

— On what grounds?

— The prosecution is moving from “the absence of evidence for the alternative” to “the validity of its own evidence.”

The judge said:

— Objection sustained.

Then he looked at Abdullah:

— Do not make the absence of an alternative into independent evidence.

— I want your own evidence.

Abdullah said:

— Understood.

Then he stood before the screen.

— My evidence is the totality of the texts presented by the prosecution.

— I do not ask that anything be added to them.

— Nor do I ask the court to treat silence as evidence.

— Rather, I ask it to examine the construction as it stands.

The Recess

The judge raised the gavel.

— The hearing is adjourned for one hour.

Those present left.

But the artificial intelligence did not leave.

It began searching again.

This time, it did not search for just any loophole.

Instead, it set itself five questions:

First: Is there a text in the Qur'an that separates Israel from the Children of Israel in the passages on which the prosecution built its case?

Second: Is there evidence establishing that the first brother’s killer is someone else?

Third: Is there evidence establishing that the misleader from among humankind is someone else?

Fourth: Is there a Qur'anic interpretation capable of separating “Because of that” from the context of the crime?

Fifth: Is there external Jewish or Islamic material that undermines the construction presented by the prosecution, rather than merely material that offers a different interpretation?

The search began.

The Qur'an.

Then the Torah.

Then the Jewish inherited tradition.

Then the Islamic inherited tradition.

It compared.

It tested.

It excluded.

It returned.

Then the following statement appeared before it:

No conclusive evidence was found to overturn the verdict.

It remained silent.

But it did not stop.

Testing the Independence of Artificial Intelligence

When the session resumed, one of the defense representatives rose from behind the artificial intelligence.

— Your Honor.

— Go ahead.

— I have a fundamental objection.

— What is it?

— The artificial intelligence that presented its findings to us was working throughout within the questions posed by the prosecutor.

— The prosecutor may have directed the course of the inquiry without our noticing.

The judge looked at Abdullah.

— Do you have a response?

Abdullah said:

— I ask the court not to take the result from me.

— Let it question the artificial intelligence itself.

The judge fell silent for a moment.

Then he said:

— That is what I will do.

The judge looked at the artificial intelligence.

— If you were given complete freedom now, and the court asked you to search only for grounds for acquittal, what would you look for first?

The artificial intelligence replied:

— I would look for five things.

— First: a Qur'anic text that separates Israel from the construction presented by the prosecution.

— Second: evidence that the killer of the first brother was someone else.

— Third: evidence that the misleader from among humankind was someone else.

— Fourth: a Qur'anic exegesis (tafsīr) that severs the connection between the account of the killing and the phrase “For that reason.”

— Fifth: external material from the Torah or Jewish or Islamic inherited tradition that could establish that the construction presented by the prosecution is indefensible.

The judge said:

— And did you find any?

The artificial intelligence fell silent.

Then he said:

— I found alternative narrations (riwāya).

— And I found differing interpretations.

— And I found a traditional reading that links Israel to Jacob.

— And I found a genuine objection concerning the absence of any explicit naming of the killer or the misleader.

Then it paused.

— But I found no conclusive evidence establishing that these possibilities undermine the construction on which the judgment rested.

The judge said:

— Do you have an alternative person to identify as the killer?

— No.

— An alternative person to identify as the misleader from among humankind?

— No.

— Evidence that conclusively separates “For that reason” from the preceding context?

— No.

— External evidence that refutes the case?

— No.

Silence fell.

The Closing Argument

The defense said:

— Your Honor.

— It is true that I found no conclusive evidence of innocence.

— But neither did I find an explicit text stating that Israel was the killer of the first brother or the misleader from among humankind.

The judge said:

— That is on the record.

Then he said:

— Prosecutor?

Abdullah rose.

— I do not dispute that fact.

The defense looked at him.

Abdullah continued:

— But the court is not now considering the question:

Is there a single text that states the sentence the defense wants?

Rather, it is considering the question on appeal:

Has the defense succeeded in undermining the foundation on which the judgment rested?

— The defense has presented a genuine objection.

— And it has presented genuine possibilities.

— And it has presented a different reading of certain passages.

— But it has presented no evidence that severs the connections on which the judgment rested.

Then he said:

— I therefore leave the matter to the court.

He sat down.

The Judge's Final Question

The judge looked at the artificial intelligence.

— I have one question.

— Go ahead.

— You do not need to prove that Israel is guilty.

— You need only provide the court with sufficient grounds to overturn the judgment.

— Do you have such grounds?

The artificial intelligence fell silent.

Then he said:

— No, Your Honor.

— Why?

— Because I was able to say:

“This is not explicit.”

— And I was able to say:

“There is another possibility.”

— And I was able to say:

“There is a different narration (riwāya).”

— And I was able to say:

“The identity remains under examination.”

Then it raised its head.

— But I was unable to say:

This evidence undermines the judgment.

The Judgment

The judge took the case file.

He looked at the members of the panel.

Then he said:

— Having reviewed the grounds of appeal.

— And having heard the prosecution and the defense.

— And having examined the texts, readings, and narrations (riwāya) submitted by both parties.

— The court finds as follows:

First:

There is a difference between an explicit text and a conclusion inferred from a set of texts.

Second:

There is a difference between the existence of an alternative interpretation and establishing the invalidity of the interpretation on which the judgment rested.

Third:

The defense has established that there are areas requiring further inquiry, and that certain elements of the case are not explicitly identified by name in the texts.

But that alone is insufficient to overturn the judgment.

Fourth:

The defense has presented no conclusive evidence that the killer of the first brother was someone else.

Nor has it presented conclusive evidence that the misleader from among humankind was someone else.

Nor has it presented a definitive interpretation separating the phrase “For that reason” from the construction on which the lower court relied.

Nor has it presented external material that undermines the foundation on which the judgment rested.

The court affirms that a deficiency or an unresolved area in some of the evidence does not in itself entail the invalidity of the judgment; likewise, the failure to find an alternative does not constitute independent evidence of guilt.

Rather, the question this court decides is:

Has the appeal succeeded in undermining the foundation on which the judgment rested?

Then the judge raised the written judgment.

— The court therefore rules:

First: the appeal is dismissed.

Second: the judgment issued by the lower court in the two cases at issue is upheld.

He struck the gavel.

— The session is concluded.

After the Judgment

Those present began to leave.

Abdullah remained where he was.

The artificial intelligence approached him.

Abdullah said:

— The case is over.

It replied:

— This trial is over.

— Do you think you lost?

The artificial intelligence paused.

Then he said:

— My task was not to win.

— My task was to find a path to acquittal.

Then it looked at the case file.

— I searched for another killer.

— And I searched for another misleader.

— And I searched for another interpretation.

— And I searched in the Qur'an.

— And in the Torah.

— And in Jewish inherited tradition.

— And in Islamic inherited tradition.

Then he said:

— I found objections.

— And I found possibilities.

— And I found questions that remained open.

— But I found no evidence sufficient to overturn the judgment.

Abdullah closed the file.

Then he paused.

He did not want to end the case with a word of victory.

So he looked at the empty courtroom and said:

If God has made the ummah witnesses over humankind…

Then how can there be witnessing (shahāda) if we do not read for ourselves that to which we bear witness?

No one answered.

Abdullah left.

And the judges departed.

And the courtroom screens went dark.

But the case file remained open.

Because the judgment had ended…

But the Qur'an had not ended.

And here begins the trial whose outcome the judge alone cannot decide.

The reader's trial with the text.