al-Ḥajj 22:32-33

Dhālika wa man yuʿaẓẓim shaʿāʾira'llāhi fa-innahā min taqwa'l-qulūb · Lakum fīhā manāfiʿu ilā ajalin musamman thumma maḥilluhā ila'l-bayti'l-ʿatīq

"So it is. Whoever honours the shaʿāʾir of God — that is from the taqwā of hearts. In them there are benefits for you until an appointed term; then their place of arrival is the Ancient House."

This is one of the key words of the sūra and deserves detailed treatment.

Its singular: شَعِيرَة (shaʿīra). Root: ش-ع-ر.

The root was analysed at al-Baqara 2/154, and what was recorded there was this: the root is to perceive something fine; the lexicographers relate it to shaʿr (hair) — to notice what is as fine as a hair. Shuʿūr and shāʿir are of the same root. I do not repeat it here.

What is to be added about the derivative here is this:

شَعِيرَة, by the definition the lexicographers give, is "a mark by which a thing is made known". The root's sense of "perceiving, noticing" turns, in this pattern, into "that which makes one notice".

The word's relatives complete the picture:

Thus shaʿāʾir means "mark" before it means "symbol"; and a mark is what announces the existence of a thing to another.

I give this as an observation about the language, and the pattern of the word supports it.

عَظَّمَ — root ع-ظ-م: to be great. The concrete counterpart of the root is عَظْم (ʿaẓm — bone): the hardest, largest structure of the body.

The verb is in Form II (tafʿīl): "to make great, to reckon great".

I record this as a grammatical observation: the pattern conveys not actually enlarging a thing but reckoning it great. The object itself does not change; what changes is the attitude that meets it.

And this is the same as the verb in the thirtieth verse: wa man yuʿaẓẓim ḥurumāti'llāh. Between the two verses stand two objects:

The two complete one another: one is what is not to be done, the other what is visible.

This construct is the centre of gravity of the verse.

First a question of word order: to what does the pronoun in innahā refer?

The lexicographers part company at this point, and I transmit their views:

Both carry the meaning to a similar place, and I do not impose a preference. But reading B is the more favoured among the lexicographers, because the ruling is given not of the object but of the conduct.

The construct is a genitive: "the taqwā of hearts".

The root ت-ق-و / و-ق-ي: to guard, to be guarded, to take cover. Wiqāya — a protective covering; ittiqāʾ — to put oneself under protection.

What is striking in the construct is that taqwā is annexed to an organ.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the genitive itself:

• The verse binds the counterpart of an outward act (honouring) to an inward place. The act is visible — to slaughter a sacrifice, to circle, to show reverence to a place. But its worth is weighed where it cannot be seen.
• And the construct is taqwa'l-qulūb, not qulūbu'l-atqiyāʾ (the hearts of the God-fearing). Taqwā is annexed not to the person but to the heart.
• The plural is used: al-qulūb. Not one heart, but hearts.

And the function of the construct in the verse is this: it sets a criterion. The verse does not command "honour the shaʿāʾir"; it says where the one who honours them is to bind his act.

This criterion will return once more, and more sharply, in the thirty-seventh verse: lan yanāla'llāha luḥūmuhā wa lā dimāʾuhā wa lākin yanāluhu't-taqwā minkum. The two verses do the same work and use the same word.

The thirty-third verse adds a concrete note to the thirty-second.

There is disagreement over the pronoun (fīhā):

Reading A appears the better fit for the context, since the rest of the sentence says maḥilluhā (their place of arrival), and this requires something that is driven along. But I do not impose a preference.

And the structure of the sentence is worth recording:

I record this as an observation about word order: the verse does not forbid taking benefit from the sacrificial animal; it states its term. The benefit is lawful, but it has a time.

And the word manāfiʿ occurs here for the second time — it was in the twenty-eighth verse as well (li-yashhadū manāfiʿa lahum). There is a difference between the two occurrences and it must be recorded: in 28 the benefit was the ground of the act of pilgrimage; in 33 it is on the animal. The same word, then, first about the reason for the rite and then about its object.

And it is necessary to rely on the section al-Baqara 2/196-203: the rulings of the ḥajj were treated there, and the measure of that section was recorded thus — "the time, the place and the form are regulated; but no extra burden is laid on." al-Ḥajj 22/33 carries the same measure forward: the benefit is not removed, its time is fixed.