al-Ḥāqqa 69:33-34

Innahu kāna lā yuʾminu bi'llāhi'l-ʿaẓīm · Wa lā yaḥuḍḍu ʿalā ṭaʿāmi'l-miskīn "For he did not believe in God the Mighty, and did not urge the feeding of the needy."

Three verses were commands: seize, cast, thread. Now a ground comes with إِنَّ.

In the section on al-Inshiqāq the function of this particle was recorded: "a particle of emphasis; its function here is to set up a chain of grounds; its English equivalent is 'for'."

And the direction of the chain is the same: from the consequence to the cause. The punishment is described first, and its cause is stated afterwards.

And the cause is two items. Only two.

These two verses are among the most frequently cited places in this commentary, and there is a reason for that.

In the section on al-Māʿūn 107/3 these verses were mentioned and this was recorded: "Two clauses, joined by 'and'. Faith and urging, side by side in the same list. The whole claim of the sūra rests on that conjunction."

They were mentioned in the section on al-Fajr 89/18 as well, and there the link between al-Māʿūn and al-Fajr had already been made.

Three sūras, then, set up the same measure, and this was recorded in two separate places in this commentary. Let us see the three together:

The same sentence in three sūras, in three different positions.

Al-Māʿūn sets it as a diagnosis: this is what one who denies the religion is like. Al-Fajr sets it as an accusation: this is what you are like. Al-Ḥāqqa sets it as a ground: this is why he was threaded into the chain.

The measure is the same, that is, and it works in three stages: diagnosis, warning, verdict.

I record this as the completion of two links this commentary has already made (al-Māʿūn–al-Ḥāqqa and al-Māʿūn–al-Fajr). The wordings of the three verses can be verified; the reading in three stages is mine.

What distinguishes al-Ḥāqqa among the three sūras is the first item.

In al-Māʿūn and al-Fajr the first item is the orphan — that is, a behaviour. In al-Ḥāqqa the first item is faith — that is, a belief.

This difference matters and shows that the two sūras are doing different work.

The whole argument of al-Māʿūn was this (it was treated in detail in that section): to the question "How can you tell that a person really denies the religion?" the answer was given from the field not of belief but of behaviour. Al-Māʿūn looked at behaviour in order to make faith visible.

Al-Ḥāqqa has no such need, because the scene is the hereafter. There faith is visible; no evidence is needed any longer. This is why al-Ḥāqqa can set the two items side by side: faith and urging.

And the consequence of this is: what al-Māʿūn used as evidence is counted in al-Ḥāqqa as a separate item. Not to urge the feeding of the needy, that is, is as much a responsibility in itself as it is a symptom of unbelief.

I record this as my own reading. Its ground is that the two sūras stand in different scenes.

The grammar is critical. The verse does not say "lam yuʾmin" (he did not believe), nor "lā yuʾminu" (he does not believe). It says كَانَ لَا يُؤْمِنُ.

The structure kāna + imperfect conveys in Arabic a condition that continued in the past: "he did not use to believe", "he went on not believing."

What is charged, that is, is not a moment but a span. And the span is over; kāna is in the perfect.

This makes a contrast with the sentence of the right-hand man in the nineteenth verse: he too used the perfect (ẓanantu — "I thought"). Both men use the past tense; the one tells of a conviction now closed, the other of a denial now closed.

And here the cleanest frame of the sūra is set.

The verse does not say "he did not believe in God"; it says "in God the Mighty". An attribute has been added.

Root: ع-ظ-م. ʿAẓm — a bone. And the lexicographers' explanation: bone is the hardest and most enduring part of the body; ʿaẓīm means one whose greatness comes from his solidity. I transmit this explanation; I issue no firm judgement on the historical development of the root.

Now look at the last verse of the sūra:

فَسَبِّحْ بِٱسْمِ رَبِّكَ ٱلْعَظِيمِ — "So glorify the name of your Lord, the Mighty." (69/52)

The same word. The attribute the man did not believe in in the thirty-third verse is the attribute the one addressed is made to glorify in the fifty-second.

The sūra closes itself between these two verses: one man did not believe, and you are to glorify.

I record this as a verifiable verbal link within the sūra; the two occurrences are in the text. The interpretation that the link constitutes a frame is mine.

Root: ح-ض-ض. This root was treated in detail in the section on al-Māʿūn 107/3 and taken up again in the section on al-Fajr 89/18 (there taḥāḍḍūna — the reciprocal form). I do not repeat it. In summary:

• Its sense: to urge insistently, to incite, to try to set in motion. There is a pressing, a prodding, in it.
• What was recorded in al-Māʿūn: "The verse does not say 'you do not give'; it says 'you do not even want it to be given.' The threshold has been drawn as low as it can go. Because urging costs nothing."
• And: "The alms one person gives feed one person; a widely held conviction that they ought to be given changes the system."

The construction طَعَامِ ٱلْمِسْكِينِ was likewise treated in detail in the section on al-Māʿūn: two readings were given (a verbal-noun construct / a possessive construct) and the possessive reading was supported by al-Maʿārij 70/24-25. I shall return to that analysis in the section on al-Maʿārij.

What is to be added here is the fate of this construction within the sūra.