al-Zukhruf 43:32

A-hum yaqsimūna raḥmata rabbik · Naḥnu qasamnā baynahum maʿīshatahum fi'l-ḥayāti'd-dunyā · Wa rafaʿnā baʿḍahum fawqa baʿḍin darajātin li-yattakhidha baʿḍuhum baʿḍan sukhriyyā · Wa raḥmatu rabbika khayrun mimmā yajmaʿūn

"Is it they who divide out your Lord's mercy? It is We who divided out among them their livelihood in the life of this world, and raised some of them above others in degrees — that some of them might put others to work. And your Lord's mercy is better than what they gather."

This is the densest verse in the sūra, and it consists of four separate sentences. I treat them one by one.

The question is one of denial, and its arrangement must be recorded: the subject (hum) comes before the verb.

In an ordinary Arabic verbal sentence the order is verb then agent. Fronting the agent conveys restriction (qaṣr).

The question, then, is not "do they divide out?" but, exactly: "is it they who divide out?"

I record this as a point of word order, and the next sentence confirms it: naḥnu qasamnā — there too the subject is fronted. The two sentences stand facing each other:

The same pattern, one after the other, with opposite subjects. This is a verifiable datum of arrangement.

This verse was cited in al-Ṭūr: "Is it they who divide out your Lord's mercy?" (al-Zukhruf 43/32). I complete that link here.

And here something happens that needs to be treated in detail.

The question was "is it they who distribute prophethood?" The answer speaks not of prophethood but of livelihood.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two sentences have different subjects: the verse makes its evidence out of something the other side already sees in its own life. Nobody arranges the distribution of provision for himself. Who is born where, and with what means, is not a choice.

The answer, then, is this: "your hand does not even touch the distribution nearest to you; how is it that you are deciding about the greater one?"

This is the same as the principle of "the distance of the proof" recorded in al-Aḥqāf.

مَعِيشَة — root ع-ي-ش: to live, to make a living. Maʿīsha — the means of living, what makes living possible. The word differs from ḥayāt: ḥayāt is being alive, maʿīsha is the means of getting a living.

The choice of word is worth recording: the verse does not say "your provision" or "your property"; it says "your livelihood" — that is, the means by which life is kept going.

And this sentence must be read carefully, because it is easily misunderstood.

The verse does not deny the fact of difference among human beings. On the contrary, it records it: there are degrees, and it is He who raises.

But the continuation of the sentence says what this difference is for — and what it says is diametrically opposed to the measure the other side uses.

The root د-ر-ج: to advance step by step. Daraja — a step. Tadrīj — by stages. The word comes in the plural and indefinite, darajāt: neither number nor kind is stated.

And note: the sentence comes immediately after the qualification fi'l-ḥayāti'd-dunyā. What is ranked, that is, is livelihood in the life of this world. In al-Aḥqāf 46/19 another darajāt occurred, and that was a different thing: wa li-kullin darajātun mimmā ʿamilū — degrees according to what was done. It was treated in al-Aḥqāf.

I set the two darajāt out in a table, because confusing them destroys the main question of the sūra:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the two verses' own statements: there are two distinct rankings in the Qurʾān, and neither stands in for the other. The sūra's whole objection is to the first being used in place of the second.

The exegetes differ over this expression, and the disagreement must be set out in a table.

The word is from the root س-خ-ر, and the two branches of the root were treated in al-Ḥāqqa and al-Ḥujurāt: making subservient / pressing into service, and mocking. The shared core was given there as: "to put someone into a position outside his own will."

A variant reading is also bound up with this disagreement and must be transmitted:

Some of the lexicographers connect the reading with ḍamma to the sense "pressing into service" and the reading with kasra to the sense "mockery"; others record that either reading can carry either sense. I give this distinction as it has been transmitted; I do not present it as a fixed rule.

I do not impose a preference. But I record this, and I mark it as my own reading:

On the first reading the verse states a function — difference produces mutual need; no one can do everything himself. On this reading the degrees are not an order of superiority but the ground of a division of labour.

On the second reading the verse states a result — the one who is raised makes light of the one below.

And the two readings do not exclude one another: the same fact (difference) can give rise both to a division of labour and to mockery. In the seventh verse of the sūra yastahziʾūn occurs, and in the fifty-fourth fa'stakhaffa — the sūra, that is, already works the second possibility with other words.

And finally, I record once more the link with the thirteenth verse: there, sakhkhara lanā hādhā — God had made the mount subservient to the human being, and the human being glorified Him in the face of it. Here the human being becomes the subject of the same root towards another human being. The same root on two levels: vertical (God–human–animal) and horizontal (human–human).

And the verse binds the whole picture it has built with a single sentence.

A comparative pattern (khayrun min) is used, and two sides are set out:

The root ج-م-ع: to collect, to bring together. And that the verb comes in the imperfect conveys continuity: "what they keep gathering".

The choice of word is worth recording and connects with al-Humaza. There jamaʿa mālan wa ʿaddadah (he gathered wealth and counted it over) was treated, and the finding recorded was this: that value is read off the position of the one who carries it.

I record this as my own reading: the sentence compares mercy with wealth — that is, it puts them on the same scale. And this is speaking in the objection's own language: the objection had set up the measure of "a great man"; the answer likewise sets up a comparison, but changes what is placed on the scale.