al-Shūrā 42:40-43 — Repayment, pardon and right: the balance four verses set up

These four verses must be read together, because taken singly each leads to a different conclusion. First I take each of them singly, and then I shall show as a whole the balance they set up.

Wa jazāʾu sayyiʾatin sayyiʾatun mithluhā; fa-man ʿafā wa aṣlaḥa fa-ajruhu ʿala'llāh; innahu lā yuḥibbu'ẓ-ẓālimīn

"The return for an evil is an evil like it. But whoever pardons and sets right, his reward is with God. He does not love wrongdoers."

And this is the most striking side of the verse.

The sentence names the return one has a right to sayyiʾa as well. The lawful return, that is, is named not "a good" but with the same word.

This is a known usage in rhetoric: mushākala — naming the return with the name of what is being returned. And there are examples of it in the Qurʾān (wa jazāʾu sayyiʾatin sayyiʾatun mithluhā; fa-mani'tadā ʿalaykum fa'tadū ʿalayhi bi-mithli ma'tadā ʿalaykum — al-Baqara 2/194).

But the choice of the word is not merely a matter of style, and I record this as my own reading:

Calling the return "an evil" shows that exercising a right and virtue are not the same thing. A person takes his right and is not blamed for it — the forty-first verse will say so outright. But what he takes is not named a fine thing.

And this prepares the sentence that comes immediately after: fa-man ʿafā wa aṣlaḥa fa-ajruhu ʿala'llāh.

My ground is the difference of naming between the two sentences:

Mithl — like, equal. Root م-ث-ل; treated in Muḥammad.

And this word is the sentence's most important limiter: the return must be equal. More than that is wrongdoing.

And the verse says so plainly at the end: innahu lā yuḥibbu'ẓ-ẓālimīn. A limit, that is, has been set beside what is permitted.

The pattern recorded in al-Baqara at 2/223 is at work here too: "The form repeated in the sūra: a note of responsibility beside a permission."

And the word mithl occurs for the second time in the sūra — in the eleventh verse in the expression laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ. The same root in two different works: one denies likeness, the other makes equivalence a condition. This is a verifiable fact; I make no claim of a deliberate choice.

And there is a detail here that must be recorded: pardon on its own is not held sufficient. A second verb is added beside it.

Iṣlāḥ — root ص-ل-ح. It was treated in al-Ḥujurāt at 49/9-10: to bring what is broken back into usable condition. Ṣāliḥ — serviceable, unspoiled.

The coming together of the two verbs determines what kind of pardon this is, and I record it as my own reading:

Pardon on its own may be a withdrawal — a person does not take his right, cuts the relation, moves away. Technically that is pardon, but it does not repair what is broken.

The condition of iṣlāḥ ties the pardon to a repair. What is expected, that is, is not the abandoning of a right but the setting right of the relation.

My ground is the sentence itself: the two verbs are joined with wa, and the reward is given for the two together — fa-ajruhu, a singular pronoun, answers to both.

And this is the sharpest point of the arrangement.

In the first half of the sentence the return is measured: sayyiʾatun mithluhā — as much as its like.

In the second half the reward is unmeasured: fa-ajruhu ʿala'llāh — the amount is not stated.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the comparison of the two halves:

The one who takes his right takes what is due to him himself, and how much he will take is settled. The one who pardons takes what is due to him from another, and how much it is is not settled.

And the preposition ʿalā must be recorded: ajruhu ʿalā'llāh — "upon God". In Arabic ʿalā conveys obligation. The sentence ties the pardoner's due to an undertaking.

In al-Ḥadīd at 57/11 the same structure was treated in the discussion of qarḍ ḥasan (lending God a good loan): what a person gives is named a loan and its return is promised multiplied. Here the same structure is built on a right rather than on property.