Qāf 50:35

Lahum mā yashāʾūna fīhā wa ladaynā mazīd

"In it they have whatever they wish; and with Us there is more."

And now we come to the most striking repetition of a word in the sūra.

The thirtieth verse ended thus:

wa taqūlu hal min mazīd — Hell says: is there any more?

The thirty-fifth verse ends thus:

wa ladaynā mazīd — with Us there is more.

The same word. Five verses apart. In two opposite scenes.

This is a verifiable textual datum. Now let us look at what it does — and this section is my own reading.

And the difference lies exactly here:

Hell's mazīd is a lack. Never sated, always wanting, never complete. Wanting is felt for what one does not have.

God's mazīd is a surplus. Unasked for, unrequested, unearned. And note: the people of the Garden are not asking for it. The first half of the verse already says: lahum mā yashāʾūna fīhā — whatever they wish is theirs.

Wanting, that is, is already met. Mazīd comes where wanting ends.

And this is the finest side of the verse: mazīd is not something asked for. It is something standing beyond the capacity to ask.

The comparison that follows is this:

• In Hell: there is demand, and no satisfaction.
• In the Garden: there is satisfaction, and more on top of it.

Both scenes are built on the idea of "not enough" — but in two opposite directions. In one the vessel does not fill; in the other what is given does not run out.

I record this reading as my own reading. What stands in the text is that the same word is used in the position of the verse-ending in two opposite scenes; the interpretation is mine.

In the clause lahum has been brought forward: "theirs, in it, is what they wish". In Arabic this fronting establishes restriction (takhṣīṣ): it is theirs alone.

مَا يَشَآءُونَ — "what they wish". The object is indefinite and without limit. The verse does not enumerate what is given.

And this is a different choice from sūras such as al-Wāqiʿa that describe the Garden in detail. Qāf gives no description; it states capacity.

I record this as an observation: the sūra did not describe Hell either (only a single question), and it does not describe the Garden. In both cases what is described is not a place but a measure.

As was recorded above (at verse 23), the adverb ladā occurs four times in the sūra, and this is the last.

The journey of the adverb is completed thus: a watcher beside the person (18) → a record beside the qarīn (23) → a word that does not change in the presence (28-29) → a surplus held in store (35).

That is, the same adverb is used first for surveillance, then for evidence, then for judgement, and at the last for bounty.

I record this as an observation; all four occurrences stand in the text.