Muḥammad 47:33

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū aṭīʿu'llāha wa aṭīʿu'r-Rasūla wa lā tubṭilū aʿmālakum

"O you who believe! Obey God, obey the Messenger, and do not render your deeds void."

This verse is the turning point of the sūra. I recorded this at the beginning of this commentary in the section "What is the sūra doing?" and I complete it here.

For thirty-two verses the sūra spoke of deeds coming to nothing. And each time the pronoun was third person.

Here the pronoun turns to the second person: أَعْمَٰلَكُمْ — your deeds.

And the subject of the verb changes too:

That is, the sūra puts into the hands of the one it addresses the very thing it has recounted for thirty-two verses.

And this is the most striking structural move of the sūra. The addressee, a spectator for thirty-two verses, becomes in an instant the subject of the verb.

The root ب-ط-ل was treated in the third verse of the sūra (ittabaʿu'l-bāṭil). What was recorded there is decisive here:

"The primary sense the lexicographers record: a thing's coming to nothing, being void, being unable to stand. […] Bāṭil is not merely what is false; it is what cannot bear weight."

And now the two occurrences of the root in the sūra come face to face:

The same root: in one, the name of the thing followed; in the other, the name of an act that can be performed.

And this says something worth noting — it is my own reading: at the beginning of the sūra falsehood was something outside; an object set off after. At the end of the sūra falsehood becomes something a person can do to his own deed.

This verb has been treated earlier in this commentary and the analysis in al-Baqara holds directly here.

It was recorded there on 2/264:

لَا تُبْطِلُوا۟ صَدَقَٰتِكُم بِٱلْمَنِّ وَٱلْأَذَىٰ — "do not render void your acts of charity by reproach and injury." إبطال — to render a thing invalid, to leave it without effect. That is, the work done is not erased; it is counted invalid.

The relation between the two verses deserves examination:

And two differences matter.

One. al-Baqara says how the voiding happens; Muḥammad does not.

al-Baqara 2/264 writes explicitly which behaviour voids the deed: reproach and injury. Muḥammad 47/33 sets no such qualification; it sets only the prohibition.

This widens the scope of the verse. al-Baqara forbids a particular form of voiding; Muḥammad forbids the act of voiding itself.

Two. al-Baqara says acts of charity, Muḥammad deeds.

And an observation — it is my own reading: that the verse does not say what does the voiding leaves the addressee to look at his own condition. The sūra gives no qualification; had it been given, every behaviour outside the qualification would have been counted safe.

And there is a disagreement too, which needs to be recorded:

What is meant by "the voiding of deeds" has been debated in the classical commentaries. Among the views transmitted are these: ostentation (riyāʾ), self-admiration (ʿujb), reproach and injury (by analogy with al-Baqara), major sins, and — in the context of this sūra — holding back from the fighting and not complying with the command.

These views are transmitted in the classical commentaries. I make no preference and I issue no legal ruling.

The verb is repeated twice: aṭīʿū… wa aṭīʿū.

And this is a point that has been dwelt on. The sentence could have been built thus: aṭīʿu'llāha wa'r-Rasūl — with a single verb.

The following are transmitted in the classical commentaries as explanations of the repetition:

These views are transmitted in the classical commentaries and there is a broad debate in legal theory among them. I make no preference and I do not enter that debate.

I record one piece of textual data: the Qurʾān uses this construction in two different ways. At al-Nisāʾ 4/59, aṭīʿu'llāha wa aṭīʿu'r-Rasūla wa ūli'l-amri minkum — the verb is not repeated for the third. Here both verbs are repeated and there is no third party.

I record that this difference stands in the text; I draw no ruling from it.

I complete here the table I recorded at the seventh verse:

The first call opened a possibility; the second sets a limit.

And the twenty-six verses between them recounted why the limit is needed: those who listen and take nothing, those who look as one in a swoon at death, those who give a word of partial obedience, those who turn back upon their backs, those who carry hidden rancour in their hearts.

Having shown all these scenes, the sūra turns to the one it addresses.