70. Sūrat al-Maʿārij

Forty-four verses. It takes its name from a construct in the third verse: ذِى ٱلْمَعَارِجِ.

The sūra opens with a question — but the one asking is not someone who wants an answer. He is mocking. And the whole sūra is the unfolding of the answer given to that mockery.

The structure of the sūra rests on a question and answer, but the answer does not come from where it is expected.

The question is: "When?" That is: where is this punishment you threaten us with?

The expected answer would be a date. The sūra gives no date. Instead it does three things:

First (1-7): it changes the measure of time. It does not say when the punishment will come; it questions the understanding of time on which the question rests. "They see it as far off; We see it as near."

Second (8-35): it describes that day and the one who has prepared for it. The scene is set: a melted sky, mountains like carded wool, friends who see one another but cannot ask, a criminal who wants to ransom himself with everything. Then a diagnosis: man was created halūʿ. And then an exception: a eight-item list of those who fall outside that diagnosis.

Third (36-44): it turns back to those who asked. People craning their necks to look, gathering in scattered groups from right and left. And a hard answer.

What holds the sūra together is the root in its name: ع-ر-ج — to ascend, to climb step by step. The sūra tells of an ascent and of a waiting. And the name of the distance between the two is patience — the single command given in the fifth verse of the sūra.

In this sūra one root occurs three times, and each time it names an entirely different person. Recording this at the outset makes the sūra easier to read:

Three askers in one sūra: the one who mocks, the one who cannot ask, and the one who has a claim.

In Arabic the root س-أ-ل carries both "to ask" and "to request"; suʾāl is a question, sāʾil is both the one who asks and the one who begs. The two senses stand in one root because both perform the same movement: turning towards another and expecting something from him.

And the sūra shows three states of that movement: one who asks expecting nothing in return, one who cannot ask because he will get nothing in return, and one to whom the return is due.

I record this as my own reading. The presence of the three occurrences and the two senses of the root are data that can be verified.

There is something close to unanimity that it is Meccan, and the content supports this: the punishment made an object of mockery, the command to the Prophet to be patient, the scene of the resurrection, and a direct depiction of opposition of the sort in "they crane their necks towards you" (36).

One qualification is needed: the expression in the twenty-fourth verse, "in their wealth there is a known right", seems to point to the Medinan period when it is read as alms (zakāt). This is the same matter discussed for the word māʿūn in the section on al-Māʿūn, and the caution recorded there holds here too: the institutionalisation of alms at fixed rates belongs to the Medinan period; but the idea that the poor have a right in one's wealth is present in Meccan sūras as well. I shall return to this matter when I reach the twenty-fourth verse.

Since the basmala was treated in the section on al-Fātiḥa, it is not taken up again here; the verse numbers are counted without it.

Saʾala sāʾilun bi-ʿadhābin wāqiʿ · Li'l-kāfirīna laysa lahū dāfiʿ · Mina'llāhi dhi'l-maʿārij "An asker asked about a punishment that will fall — for the disbelievers, and none can ward it off. It comes from God, the Lord of the ways of ascent."

The sentence is itself a structure of repetition: the verb and its subject come from the same root (saʾala sāʾilun). In Arabic this is called ishtiqāq, and it conveys emphasis.

And note: the subject is indefinite — sāʾilun, "an asker". He is not named, and we are not told who he is.

This is a stance the sūra establishes from the outset: the one who asks is not made a person. As recorded in the sections on al-Qāriʿa and al-Māʿūn, indefiniteness conveys either magnification or generalisation. Here generalisation seems the better fit: the question is not one man's question but the question of an attitude.

The most disputed point in the sentence is that the verb saʾala comes with bāʾ. In Arabic saʾala normally comes with the particle ʿan (saʾala ʿanhu — he asked about it) or takes two objects directly. Its coming with bāʾ requires explanation.

There are three readings:

The third reading is a matter of variant readings. That it was read without the hamza is recorded in the sources. Since I cannot say with certainty which reading belongs to which imām, I give no names.

Between the first two readings there is a practical difference, and that difference sets the tone of the verse:

• On the first reading the question is mockery: "so where is this punishment?"
• On the second the question is a challenge: "bring it on and let us see."

Both are attitudes the Qurʾān records. And both come out in the same place: the question is not asked in order to get an answer.

Several views are transmitted on this in the classical sources, and all of them are of the nature of an inference, since the verse gives no name.

The strongest indication within the Qurʾān is this, and most of the reports transmitted rest on it:

"And when they said: 'O God! If this is the truth from You, then rain down stones upon us from the sky, or bring us a painful punishment.'" (al-Anfāl 8/32)

This verse records exactly the attitude al-Maʿārij 70/1 describes: demanding the punishment itself. And it supports the "demand" reading of the bāʾ.

But I do not claim that the verse of al-Anfāl is the occasion of revelation of this sūra. What I record is that the two verses describe the same attitude. The personal names given in the reports I do not transmit, for the same reason set down in the sections on al-Māʿūn and al-Humaza: the names do not agree with one another, and this suggests that they are answers given after the event to the question "who was meant?"

And the measure of the tradition of legal theory applies here too: al-ʿibratu bi-ʿumūmi'l-lafẓ lā bi-khuṣūṣi's-sabab — the ruling follows the generality of the wording.

Root: و-ق-ع. To fall, to occur, to come to pass. The concrete sense of the root is falling.

And this word links up with the fifteenth verse of the preceding sūra:

Al-Ḥāqqa announced in the perfect tense that the event had occurred; al-Maʿārij uses the same root as an active participle.

And the difference is meaningful. In al-Ḥāqqa the scene had been set: the event had happened. In al-Maʿārij there is something that has not yet happened but is happening. The active participle conveys continuity and nearness.

So in the very first verse of the sūra, the answer to the question stands inside the word: the man asks "when?"; the verse names the punishment "that which is occurring".

I record this as my own reading. The root and the patterns of the two words are data that can be verified.

And this too should be recorded: ٱلْوَاقِعَة is the name of the 56th sūra of the Qurʾān and one of the names of the resurrection. In the table of names for the resurrection in the section on al-Qāriʿa, the aspect it was noted to bring forward was recorded thus: the inevitability of its occurring.

This verse is the first answer to the question — and the answer is not what the question asked.

The man asked "when?". The verse answers "to whom" and "it cannot be warded off".

That is, the sūra passes over the time part of the question and gives two other pieces of information: the addressee and the inevitability.

This is not an evasion but a reframing. Inside the question there is a hidden assumption: "if it is not coming, it will never come." The verse takes aim at that assumption.

لِّلْكَٰفِرِينَ — the lām conveys entitlement (istiḥqāq): "for the disbelievers", that is, reserved for them. The definite article is there too: not a particular group, but everyone who bears that attribute.

دَافِع — Root: د-ف-ع. Dafaʿa — to push, to drive away, to ward off. Mudāfaʿa and dafʿ are from the same root. دَافِع is the active participle: the one who would ward it off.

And the structure laysa lahū dāfiʿ does something like the "closing both doors" method recorded in the section on al-Ṭāriq — but in a single word: no one can ward off the punishment. Neither he himself nor anyone else.

The third verse gives the source of the answer — and the name of the sūra stands here.

The particle مِّنَ conveys a point of origin: the punishment comes from there.

Root: ع-ر-ج. The primary sense of the root is to rise, to go up; to climb by a sloping path.

Its derivatives show the field of the root:

• عَرَجَ — he went up. "Then it ascends to Him in a day" (al-Sajda 32/5); "a ladder into the sky" (al-Anʿām 6/35 — sullaman fi's-samāʾ).
• مِعْرَاج — a ladder, a means of going up. Its plural is مَعَارِج.
• مَعَارِج — occurs once more in the Qurʾān, and there in its concrete sense: "…and for their houses roofs of silver and stairways by which to go up" (al-Zukhruf 43/33).
• أَعْرَج — lame. An interesting branch of the root: a lame person, having one leg shorter, moves up and down as he walks; his step is not level but sloped.

Note the last item. At the core of the root there is unevenness, slope. A ladder is sloped; a ramp is sloped; the gait of a lame man is sloped. In this Arabic root, to ascend is not to go straight: to go up by changing direction, step by step.

I transmit this explanation as a relation drawn by the lexicographers; I do not present it as a settled etymological ruling.

And this explains the word's function in this sūra. Al-Zukhruf 43/33 gives the concrete state of the word: the stairway by which one goes up to a house. So maʿārij says that there is a road between sky and earth — and that road is not a distance crossed in one step but a road with steps.

This construct occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

And the form of the construct is worth noting: titles built with ذُو (owner, possessor) are few in the Qurʾān, and each is chosen for a particular context:

The principle recorded in the section on al-Takwīr works here too: the title is chosen to suit the subject. There the subject was a chain of authority, and "Lord of the Throne" was chosen. Here the subject is distance and time; "Lord of the ways of ascent" is chosen.

And the next verse will explain this: we shall be told how long the ways take.

One further reading. Some exegetes explain maʿārij as "degrees, ranks": the degrees of elevation God grants. This reading too is possible in the language, and it rests on the sense of "height" in the word. Both appear in the classical sources; I do not impose a preference, since the next verse already opens out the first reading (road/ladder).

The three verses are one sentence, and its parts come in order:

1. The event: an asker asked — about a punishment that will fall. 2. The addressee and its character: for the disbelievers; there is none to ward it off. 3. The source: from God, the Lord of the ways of ascent.

And note: the sentence is built backwards. First the question, then the character of the punishment, and last of all its source.

So the sūra takes the question and gives the answer step by step — exactly in the manner its name announces.

I record this as an observation about the word order; the relation I draw between the name and the structure is a reading.

Taʿruju'l-malāʾikatu wa'r-rūḥu ilayhi fī yawmin kāna miqdāruhū khamsīna alfa sana "The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day whose measure is fifty thousand years."

The verb is from the same root as maʿārij in the preceding verse. So the sūra first names the road (3), then shows those who travel it (4).

The verb is imperfect: it conveys continuity and renewal. Not a single event but a continuing movement.

This pair occurs in several places in the Qurʾān, and its best-known occurrence is in Sūrat al-Qadr:

The same two subjects, two opposite verbs, two different measures.

This verse was treated in the section on al-Qadr; I do not repeat it here. But the picture the two sūras build together should be recorded: the Qurʾān says that the same beings both descend and ascend. That is, the movement between sky and earth is two-way; and the measure of both directions has been given.

And both measures are measures of time, but they work in opposite directions: in al-Qadr a single night is counted as longer than a thousand months (a short span, a great value); in al-Maʿārij a single day is counted as fifty thousand years (a long span, a great distance).

I record this as a reading drawn from the comparison of the two sūras. The wordings of the two verses are data that can be verified.

Who is ٱلرُّوح? It is disputed, and this disagreement was recorded in the section on al-Qadr as well. The classical views: Gabriel; a great being distinct from the angels; or a class of angels. I express no preference; the Qurʾān gives no definition.

The grammatical datum that must be recorded is this: wa'r-rūḥ comes by conjunction, that is, it is mentioned separately from the angels. In Arabic, singling out one member of a class for separate mention (ʿaṭf al-khāṣṣ ʿalā'l-ʿāmm) is done in order to bring that member forward. So the Spirit, even if not outside the angels, occupies a position that calls for separate mention.

The pronoun refers to God. And the particle ilā conveys a destination.

One qualification is needed, and it is commonly set down in the classical sources: this expression does not convey place. The ascent describes the movement of the angels; the place arrived at is not a place where God is but the centre of command and decree. The distinction between tafwīḍ and taʾwīl recorded in the section on al-Fajr 89/22 ("your Lord comes") holds here too, and I do not repeat that discussion. The shared principle is al-Shūrā 42/11: "There is nothing like Him."

This is the most discussed expression in the sūra.

مِقْدَار — Root: ق-د-ر. This root was treated in detail in the section on al-Fajr 89/16 (three families of meaning: power/capacity, measure/determination, straitening) and was also taken up in the section on Sūrat al-Qadr. I do not repeat it.

Miqdār is on the mifʿāl pattern and conveys an instrument of measurement or the quantity measured. So the verse does not say "that day is fifty thousand years"; it says "the measure of that day is fifty thousand years". It passes through the act of measuring.

Let us first set out the other measures within the Qurʾān, because the matter is discussed not on this verse alone but in a threefold comparison:

The principal explanations of the classical exegetes concerning this trio:

One qualification about the last item: reports to this effect do exist in the sources and are widely transmitted. I do not give the wording of the report or its source here, because I cannot rule with certainty on its soundness or its variants. I confine myself to recording that the idea is found in the sources.

The fourth explanation is, in terms of language, the reading that requires the fewest assumptions, and it is supported by the Qurʾān's own usage. As recorded in the section on al-Ḥāqqa, when the Qurʾān says "even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times" (al-Tawba 9/80) it is not giving an exact count. In Arabic certain large numbers convey multitude.

But I do not impose a preference. None of the explanations runs against the wording of the text, and I can see no decisive evidence requiring a choice among them.

Per the method (Method) I state this plainly: I do not proceed from this verse to the theory of relativity, to the relativity of time, or to any claim of modern physics.

Such connections are frequently drawn in the popular literature. The reason for not drawing them is this:

One. The verse states not a proposition of physics but a measure. The expression "a day being equivalent to fifty thousand years" is an ordinary formula used in Arabic and in many other languages to convey the weight of an experience of time. To read that formula as a physical equation is to take the text outside its own language.

Two. The principle set down in Method is this: "No modern piece of knowledge is forced onto a verse." And in the section on al-Ṭāriq, claims about embryology and astronomy were rejected on the same ground; in the section on al-Fajr the same qualification was set down for claims about archaeology.

Three. When such a link is made, the truth of the text becomes tied to the fate of the link. As recorded in the section on al-Fajr: "to tie the truth of a text to an excavation report is to tie the text to the fate of that report." The same holds for a theory of physics.

What the verse says is plain and is already enough: man's measure of time and the measure of time of this event are not the same. That is the subject of the next three verses.

And now the real question: why is this verse here?

In the first verse someone asked "when?". The fourth verse gives a time — but not a time of the kind he asked for.

The man wanted a date. The verse gave a unit of measurement.

And this overturns the assumption on which the question rested: the man was calculating with his own measure of time ("we have waited this long, and it has not come"). The verse says that the unit in which the calculation is made is wrong.

I record this as my own reading. Its ground is that the question in the first verse is a question about time and that the fourth verse gives a measure of time.

Fa'ṣbir ṣabran jamīlā "So be patient with a beautiful patience."

The فَ at the head ties the four verses to this command: "so." That is, this command is the consequence of the measure of fifty thousand years.

The chain of reasoning is this: the punishment is coming (1-2), its source is known (3), the measure of time is other than yours (4) — so wait.

In this sūra there are two commands addressed to the one spoken to (the Prophet), and the two stand at the two ends of the sūra:

And both begin with فَ; both come as the conclusion of a piece of reasoning.

The two commands together describe a stance: be patient and let go. That is, neither hurry nor force.

I record this as an observation about the structure; the position of the two commands can be counted in the text.

Root: ص-ب-ر. This root was treated in the section on al-Baqara 2/45. I do not repeat the findings there; in summary:

• The primary sense of the root is to hold, to restrain, to confine. To halt something in a place by force.
• "This differs from 'enduring'. Enduring is passive — you bear what befalls you. Patience is active: to hold the self, not to let it go where it wants to go."
• For this reason patience is asked for not only in affliction but in worship and in refraining from sin as well; in all of them the work done is the same: holding.

What is to be added here is the adjective.

Root: ج-م-ل. Jamāl — beauty. Jamīl — beautiful.

And the use of this adjective in the Qurʾān is worth noting. The word qualifies four different actions in four separate places, and all four belong to the same field:

What the four have in common is this: all four are responses given in the face of a hurt.

Patience is in the face of a hardship; ṣafḥ in the face of a fault; hajr in the face of ill-treatment; sarāḥ at the ending of a relationship.

And in all four the adjective jamīl is added. That is, the Qurʾān asks for a distinct quality in behaviour at the moment of being hurt.

This is a pattern of usage that can be verified; the wordings of the four verses are in the text. The interpretation that the pattern constitutes an order is my own.

The most widespread explanation in the classical sources is this: patience in which there is no complaint; a person's not pouring out his trouble to people.

This explanation is widely transmitted in the tradition. I do not ascribe it to a particular person, but the view itself is commonly accepted in the classical sources.

And within the Qurʾān there is an indication that limits this explanation — one that guards against misunderstanding it.

The expression ṣabr jamīl occurs once more in the Qurʾān, from the mouth of Jacob:

"From now on, what falls to me is a beautiful patience." (Yūsuf 12/18 and 12/83)

And in the same sūra the same man says:

"I complain of my grief and my sorrow to God alone." (Yūsuf 12/86)

Read together, the two verses draw the boundary of "beautiful patience": Jacob says his patience is jamīl, and in the same sūra he voices his grief. So ṣabr jamīl is not the absence of feeling pain, nor never speaking at all.

The difference lies in to whom it is spoken. Jacob presents his pain to God. The forbidden form of complaint is the form directed at people and seeking a fellow sufferer.

Let us record: the word بَثّ in Yūsuf 12/86 was already mentioned in the section on al-Qāriʿa when the root ب-ث-ث was treated — what was recorded there was: "grief that cannot be held inside and spills out… the spreading outward of something that has accumulated within."

So the Qurʾān does not forbid pouring out what has accumulated within; it fixes its direction.

I record this reading as my own. The wordings of the three verses and the analysis of the root in the section on al-Qāriʿa are data that can be verified.

The command is to a singular masculine addressee: iṣbir. The first addressee is the Prophet.

But the measure recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn holds here too: khiṭāb li-kulli man yaṣluḥu lahū — "an address to everyone fit to receive it". The sentence is framed as though spoken to one person and left open to all.

Now I want to draw attention to something, and it is one of the most striking internal links in the sūra.

In the fifth verse the sūra commands patience. And between the nineteenth and twenty-first verses it delivers its diagnosis of man:

"Man was created halūʿ: when evil touches him, جَزُوع (wailing); when good touches him, مَنُوع (withholding)."

جَزُوع (jazūʿ) is in Arabic the exact opposite of صَبُور (ṣabūr). Jazaʿ is the collapse, the wailing, the intolerance that is the contrary of patience. The Qurʾān places the two side by side plainly in one place:

"Whether we wail or are patient, it is all the same for us." (Ibrāhīm 14/21 — a-jaziʿnā am ṣabarnā)

So the sūra gives the remedy in the fifth verse before it names the illness in the nineteenth.

I record this as my own reading. The opposition of the two words is beyond dispute in Arabic, and Ibrāhīm 14/21 confirms it within the Qurʾān; the conclusion I draw from the order of the two verses within the sūra is my own.

Innahum yarawnahū baʿīdā · Wa narāhu qarībā "They see it as far off; We see it as near."

One of the most tightly built oppositions in the Qurʾān, and in fewer than ten words.

The same verb, the same object, two different subjects, two opposite verdicts. The only thing that changes is who is looking.

And here is the real point. The verse does not say "they are mistaken". Nor does it say "it is near".

It says "We see it as near".

That is, the correction is made not at the level of fact but at the level of seeing. Both sides "see"; the measure is who does the seeing.

This has a consequence worth recording: the verse implies that farness and nearness are not absolute properties. Whether a thing is far or near depends on the position of the one looking.

And the right position is specified: We.

I record this as my own reading. Its ground is that the same verb is used in both verses — the verse could have used another verb (to know, to suppose), and did not.

Root: ب-ع-د. To be far. And in Arabic this word carries one further sense besides distance: improbability, remoteness from reason.

English has the same metaphor: "a remote possibility", "that looks like a long shot".

The Qurʾān uses this second sense plainly:

• "'When we are dead and have become dust? That is a far-fetched return.'" (Qāf 50/3) — rajʿun baʿīd, "a return that will not happen".
• "How can they attain it from a place so far off?" (Sabaʾ 34/52)
• "They see it as far off." (this verse)

So the baʿīd of the verse is not merely "far off in time"; it may also mean "impossible, out of the question".

And this joins with the question in the first verse: when the man asked "when?", he really meant "never". The sixth verse names that supposition.

Both readings occur in the classical sources, and they do not exclude one another: seeing it as far in time, seeing it as far in probability. In my judgement the two work together; this is not binding.

Root: ق-ر-ب. To be near. Qurba, taqarrub and aqribāʾ are from the same root.

The Qurʾān announces the nearness of the Hour in many places:

• "The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split." (al-Qamar 54/1)
• "The reckoning of mankind has drawn near, while they turn away in heedlessness." (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/1)
• "And perhaps it is near." (al-Aḥzāb 33/63; al-Shūrā 42/17)

Al-Shūrā 42/17 is particularly worth noting, because there the formula mā yudrīka is used: "What will make you know? Perhaps the Hour is near." By the rule recorded in the sections on al-Humaza and al-Qāriʿa, the muḍāriʿ form announces that no information will follow it — and indeed no date is given there either.

So even when the Qurʾān says the Hour is near, it gives no date. Two pieces of information are kept apart: nearness is announced, the time is not.

And here an explanation is needed, because the expression is open to misunderstanding.

The sūra spoke of a measure of fifty thousand years (4), and then says "near" (7). Do the two contradict each other?

No — and the reason they do not lies in the fourth verse itself. The fourth verse had already said that the measure is different. The seventh verse gives the consequence of that difference: what is far by your measure is near by the other measure.

So the fourth and seventh verses are parts of a single argument:

1. The measure is different (4). 2. Therefore the perception of distance is different too (6-7).

I record this as a reading of the structure; the order of the four verses is in the text.

And there is this as well. A thing's being "near" depends as much on certainty as on distance. Something certain to come is near however far away it is — because the interval does not remove it, it only defers it.

The Qurʾān frames this idea plainly elsewhere: "On the day they see it, it will be as though they had tarried [in the world] but an evening or a morning." (al-Nāziʿāt 79/46)

That is, elapsed time shrinks once it has elapsed. The waiting is long, the past is short.

I record this as a reading.

Yawma takūnu's-samāʾu ka'l-muhl · Wa takūnu'l-jibālu ka'l-ʿihn "On the day the sky becomes like molten metal, and the mountains become like wool."

Here the sūra opens the scene, and it opens it with two similes. This structure was present in Sūrat al-Qāriʿa too, and was treated in detail there.

This verse was already mentioned in the section on al-Qāriʿa, where the following was recorded: "Al-Maʿārij 70/9 and al-Qāriʿa 101/5 are almost identical: 'and the mountains become like wool.' Al-Qāriʿa adds a single word: ٱلْمَنفُوش."

And there ʿihn and manfūsh were analysed in detail:

• عِهْن — wool; according to the majority, specifically dyed wool. Some lexicographers say there is no qualification of colour; the disagreement was recorded.
• ٱلْمَنفُوش — carded, teased apart; root ن-ف-ش. When raw wool is carded the fibres separate, the volume grows, the weight stays the same, the density falls.
• The conclusion recorded in the section on al-Qāriʿa: "Al-Maʿārij 70/9 was content with the first stage. Al-Qāriʿa adds the second… the sūra reduces the weight of the mountain to nothing in two steps."

I do not repeat these. What is to be added here is al-Maʿārij's own pairing — because al-Qāriʿa's pairing was a different one.

Al-Qāriʿa's pairing was the living and the lifeless; al-Maʿārij's is the sky and the earth.

And the direction of the two similes is opposite — this is peculiar to al-Maʿārij and worth recording:

• The sky becomes muhl: from solid to liquid. Melting is a dissolution downward; what melts flows, and sinks.
• The mountains become ʿihn: from solid to fluffed. Wool is air; it lifts, it flies.

So both bodies lose their firmness, but in two different directions: one flows, the other flies.

I record this as my own reading. The physical properties of the two substances (molten metal flows, carded wool flies) are beyond dispute; the conclusion I draw from the opposition of the two directions is my own.

Root: م-ه-ل. And the root's primary sense in Arabic seems not to be at work here, so attention is needed.

مَهْل — to act slowly, not to hurry. Muhla (granting a term), imhāl and tamahhul are from the same root. In the Qurʾān: "Grant the disbelievers a respite" (al-Ṭāriq 86/17 — amhilhum).

ٱلْمُهْل, on the other hand, is described in the classical sources thus: molten metal, melted copper or lead; and according to some lexicographers the dregs of olive oil, a thick, dark liquid.

The link between the two senses: molten metal flows heavily. Water flows fast; molten metal flows slowly and heavily. The "acting slowly" in the root mahl and the "heavily flowing liquid" of muhl meet in the same idea.

I transmit this explanation; I issue no ruling on the historical development of the root. The sense at work in the verse is, according to the majority of the lexicographers, molten metal.

Its other occurrences in the Qurʾān make the field of the word clear:

• "…they will be given relief with water like molten metal that scalds their faces." (al-Kahf 18/29)
• "[The zaqqūm] boils in the bellies like molten metal." (al-Dukhān 44/45)

In both, muhl is a substance of punishment: a liquid drunk or poured.

And here the sky is likened to it.

That is, the verse takes the substance of the punishment and gives it to the sky. The thing above you turns into the thing given to drink in the Fire.

I record this as my own reading; the wordings of the three verses can be verified.

The sky melting and changing colour is told once more in the Qurʾān:

"When the sky is split open and becomes a red rose like molten oil…" (al-Raḥmān 55/37)

The word ٱلدِّهَان here likewise conveys a melted, thick substance, and belongs to the same field as muhl. The two verses give the same image with two different substances.

In the section on al-Ḥāqqa a table was given of the states of the sky at the resurrection (kushiṭat, infaṭarat, tushaqqaq, ṭuwā, wāhiya, wardatan ka'd-dihān). Al-Maʿārij adds one more item to this list: ka'l-muhl.

And the measure recorded in the section on al-Ḥāqqa works here too: the sky's chief attribute in the Qurʾān is firmness (shidād, maḥfūẓ, lā fuṭūr). The scenes of the resurrection tell of the loss of that firmness. Al-Ḥāqqa said wāhiya (its fabric slackened); al-Maʿārij says ka'l-muhl (melted).

Two neighbouring sūras describe the same loss in two different states: one a slackening, the other a melting.

I record this as my own reading.

And a grammatical observation: the two verses are on exactly the same pattern.

wa takūnu + definite noun + ka + definite noun

In the section on al-Qāriʿa it was recorded that the two similes there were matched on the pattern "ka + definite noun + definite passive participle". Al-Maʿārij's pattern is plainer: there is no passive participle.

And its verse-endings are accordingly: al-muhl / al-ʿihn — short, single-syllable closes. Al-Qāriʿa's al-mabthūth / al-manfūsh were longer and denser.

So al-Maʿārij passes through the same scene faster. The reason may be plain: the subject of al-Maʿārij is not the landscape but the human relations in the middle of the landscape. Indeed the next verse goes straight there.

I record this as my own reading.

Wa lā yasʾalu ḥamīmun ḥamīmā · Yubaṣṣarūnahum "No friend will ask after a friend. Yet they will be made to see one another."

The eighth and ninth verses were a cosmic landscape: the sky, the mountains. The tenth verse descends all at once to a space between two people.

And this transition shows what the sūra means to do. The scene of the resurrection is scenery here; the real subject is what is left between people in that scenery.

Root: ح-م-م. This word was treated in detail in the section on al-Ḥāqqa 69/35: the two branches of meaning in the root (boiling water / close friend), the "heat" link drawn by the lexicographers, and the fact that ḥamīm means "one whose concern is warm". I do not repeat it.

And there a comparison with this verse was made:

The two sūras give two stages. In al-Ḥāqqa one man had no friend at all. In al-Maʿārij there are friends — and they are of no use.

The second is the heavier. For friendlessness is a lack; having a friend who is of no use is a collapse. In the first, something was missing; in the second, something present does not work.

I record this as my own reading. The wordings of the two verses are data that can be verified.

The verse does not use a pronoun. It could have said "a friend will not ask after him"; it does not. The word is repeated twice: ḥamīmun ḥamīmā.

As recorded in the sections on al-Qāriʿa and al-Ḥāqqa, in Arabic the repetition of a noun where a pronoun would serve is an act of emphasis.

Here the function of the emphasis may be this — I record it as my own reading: the word is given to both sides. That is, both ends of the relation are ḥamīm; one does not ask, and neither does the other. Reciprocity is shown by the repetition of the word.

And when the "warm" sense of ḥamīm is borne in mind, a scene is set in which nothing passes between two warmths.

And the choice of the verb is critical.

The verse does not say "will not help", does not say "will not save", does not say "will not recognise". It says "will not ask".

Asking is the smallest contact between people. Not an act of help but an enquiry after someone's state. It costs nothing.

That is, the verse picks the weakest link of relationship and says that even that has been broken. It is the very method recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn: "lowering the threshold step by step." Al-Māʿūn in its last verse asked for a bucket; al-Maʿārij here asks for a question.

I record this as my own reading. The finding in the section on al-Māʿūn is taken from there.

Two readings of the verb. It is transmitted in the classical sources that the verb is read both in the active (yasʾalu — "will not ask") and in the passive (yusʾalu — "will not be asked"). Since I cannot say with certainty which reading belongs to which imām, I give no names.

The two readings differ in sense but come out in the same place:

• Active: a friend does not ask after a friend — no one wonders about anyone.
• Passive: a friend is not asked [about] his friend — no one is held responsible for anyone, no one carries another's burden.

The second reading accords with the Qurʾānic principle that "no bearer of burdens bears the burden of another" (al-Anʿām 6/164 and elsewhere).

And here the hidden spine of the sūra is at work.

In the first verse there was a sāʾil: he was asking and did not want an answer. In the tenth verse there is a ḥamīm: he cannot ask, and he would want to.

Between the two scenes there is a reversal: in the world he asked questions but did not care about the answer; on that day the answer is everything, but he cannot ask.

I record this as my own reading. The two occurrences of the root can be counted in the text.

Root: ب-ص-ر. To see. And the verb here is two-layered: it is both in the tafʿīl form (to cause to see) and passive (yubaṣṣarūna — they are made to see).

That is: "they are shown", "they are subjected to being shown."

And this makes the tenth verse harder still.

Had the sentence run thus, it would have been intelligible: "a friend does not ask after a friend, because he cannot see him." They have been lost in the crowd; they cannot recognise one another.

The verse says exactly the opposite: they do see. Indeed they are shown — that is, the seeing is brought about not by chance but by an act.

So the scene is this: they recognise one another, they look at one another, and they do not ask.

This is a picture the Qurʾān sets up several times in its scenes of the resurrection, and it takes its clearest form in Sūrat ʿAbasa. I shall come to it shortly.

The arrangement of the pronouns. Yubaṣṣarūna-hum — "they are shown to them". Two plural pronouns. The verse moves from the singular (one friend) to the plural (all of them): the tenth verse described one relationship, the eleventh describes all relationships.

One link. The root ب-ص-ر also occurred in the thirty-eighth verse of the preceding sūra: "by what you see and what you do not see" (al-Ḥāqqa 69/38-39). There seeing was the line dividing an oath. Here seeing is a faculty that is of no use.

Two neighbouring sūras use the same root for two different tasks. I record this as an observation.

Yawaddu'l-mujrimu law yaftadī min ʿadhābi yawmiʾidhin bi-banīh · Wa ṣāḥibatihī wa akhīh · Wa faṣīlatihi'llatī tuʾwīh · Wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿan thumma yunjīh "The criminal will wish that he might ransom himself from the punishment of that day with his sons, his wife, his brother, the kin who sheltered him, and all who are on the earth — so that then it might save him."

And the force of this scene emerges when it is compared with a list set up in another sūra of the Qurʾān.

In Sūrat ʿAbasa the same day and the same people are described, but with an entirely different verb:

"On that day a man will flee from his brother, his mother, his father, his wife and his children. On that day each one of them will have concern enough for himself." (ʿAbasa 80/34-37)

In the section on ʿAbasa this list was treated in detail and three logics were set out: difficulty of severance, exhaustiveness, and chronology. The table framed there was this: brother (lateral bond) → parents (upward) → wife (horizontal, chosen) → children (downward); and it was recorded that the order runs "from the easiest to break to the hardest".

In the section on ʿAbasa this list of al-Maʿārij was not mentioned at all. I make the comparison here.

And the two lists run in exactly opposite directions.

ʿAbasa moves inward: it begins with the brother and arrives at the children. The conclusion recorded in the section on ʿAbasa was this: "The measure of the terror is the last item of the list" — that is, the moment the bond hardest to break is broken.

Al-Maʿārij moves outward: it begins with the children and arrives at the whole earth. And here too the measure of the terror stands at the head of the list: the offer opens with the children.

The two sūras traverse the same web of bonds from two different directions.

But the real point is not the direction.

In ʿAbasa these people are fled from. In al-Maʿārij the same people are offered as ransom.

And between these two verbs there is a great difference:

• To flee is to leave someone behind. It does him no harm; it simply takes no interest in him. As recorded in the section on ʿAbasa, this is also the explanation the verse itself gives: "each one of them will have concern enough for himself." That is, the flight arises not from selfishness but from lack of capacity.
• To ransom is to hand someone over. To present him as a price. And what is presented as a price passes to the other party.

So al-Maʿārij is one step beyond ʿAbasa. In ʿAbasa the bonds were dissolving; in al-Maʿārij the bonds are used.

I record this as my own reading. The senses of the two verbs and the contents of the two lists are data that can be verified; the interpretation of the opposition is my own.

The second logic recorded in the section on ʿAbasa was exhaustiveness: "Every axis of kinship a person can belong to has been counted. No one is left outside. So this is not a sample list but a census."

Al-Maʿārij makes the same census and then goes beyond it.

ʿAbasa ended with four axes: lateral, upward, horizontal-chosen, downward. Al-Maʿārij counts three axes (downward: sons; horizontal-chosen: wife; lateral: brother), then widens to the kin, then to the whole earth.

So al-Maʿārij's list does not end with kinship; it takes in the whole of humanity.

And there is a reason for this: a ransom is a price that must be sufficient. A list of those fled from may have a limit (as many as your relatives); the limit of a ransom list is set by the size of the debt. The man raises his offer, raises it again, and begins to offer things that are not his to give.

I record this as my own reading.

Root: و-د-د. Wudd — love, affection. Wadūd is one of the names of God; mawadda is the bond of love.

And the choice of the verb is bitter.

Yawaddu means "he wishes" — but at the centre of the root there is love. In Arabic wadda is to want something with affection; not an ordinary demand.

So the verse, using a verb from the root of love, describes the wish to hand over those one loves.

I record this as an observation about the word. The sense of the root is set down in the dictionaries; I do not claim that the verse intends this contrast — wadda is an ordinary verb for "to want" in Arabic and is often used in this sense in the Qurʾān ("The disbelievers wish that…", al-Nisāʾ 4/102; al-Baqara 2/109).

ٱلْمُجْرِم — Root: ج-ر-م. Jarm — to cut, to sever; jarīma (crime) comes from here. The lexicographers' explanation: a crime is the act that severs a person from the community. Mujrim is the active participle: one who commits a crime.

And note: the verse does not say "disbeliever", does not say "wrongdoer". مُجْرِم — criminal. That is, a legal category is chosen; the scene is a courtroom scene.

Root: ف-د-ي. Fidya — the price given to redeem a captive or an obligation. ٱفْتَدَىٰ (iftiʿāl) — to give a price in order to redeem oneself.

And the word was the name of a concrete institution in that society.

A man taken captive in war was redeemed by a price paid by his tribe. Fidya was not a metaphor; it was a working practice. The Qurʾān records it: "Then release them, either as a favour or for a ransom" (Muḥammad 47/4).

So the verse reminds the one addressed of a transaction he knows: the redeeming of a captive.

And it reverses the logic of the transaction. Normally the ransom is paid by someone else — the captive's family, his tribe. Here the captive himself tries to pay, and what he wants to pay is his family.

That is, those who would pay the ransom become the ransom itself.

I record this as my own reading. The workings of the institution of ransom are a historical datum; the interpretation of its reversal is my own.

The Qurʾān rejects this offer elsewhere too:

• "If they had all that is on the earth and as much again with it, they would offer it as ransom to escape the evil punishment of the Day of Resurrection." (al-Zumar 39/47)
• "From none of those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers will an earth-full of gold be accepted as ransom." (Āl ʿImrān 3/91)
• "On that day no ransom will be taken from you or from those who disbelieved." (al-Ḥadīd 57/15)

Al-Zumar 39/47 is particularly close, because there too the expression "all that is on the earth" occurs — the same as al-Maʿārij 70/14.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

Root: ف-ص-ل. Faṣala — to separate, to cut apart, to open a space between. Faṣl (separation), tafṣīl (setting out in detail), fāṣila (that which separates — the name given to verse-endings as well), fiṣāl (weaning) are from the same root.

فَصِيلَة, as the lexicographers describe it, is a person's nearest group of kin; the branch that splits off from the tribe.

So the word itself conveys a separation. Faṣīla is the small group broken off from the great trunk — and it is a person's nearest.

And this yields a nicety of wording: the group formed by being broken off is now offered up to be broken off from the man. I record this as a nicety; I do not claim the verse intends it, for faṣīla is an ordinary Arabic word in this sense.

The word's relative in the Qurʾān: "Warn your nearest kin" (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/214 — ʿashīrataka'l-aqrabīn) — a different word is used there. Al-Maʿārij's faṣīla conveys a narrower circle.

Root: أ-و-ي. Awā — to take shelter, to lodge. آوَىٰ (ifʿāl) — to shelter, to give a place of refuge. Maʾwā — a place of refuge, a shelter.

And this root occurs in a verse treated in this commentary:

"Did He not find you an orphan and shelter you?" (al-Ḍuḥā 93/6 — a-lam yajidka yatīman fa-āwā)

This verse was treated in the section on al-Ḍuḥā; I do not repeat it.

But the two verses must be set side by side:

So the same verb names, in one sūra, a favour that is counted, and in the other a bond one wishes to sacrifice.

And the presence of the relative clause is critical. The verse does not merely say "his kin"; it says "the kin who sheltered him". That is, the clause recalls what that group is for: it sheltered you.

And the man offers it up.

I record this as my own reading. The shared root and the presence of the relative clause are data that can be verified.

The last item of the list, and the conclusion.

وَمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا — "and all who are on the earth." The offer passes out of kinship into humanity.

And this shows the madness of the offer: the man is offering things he does not own. The people of the earth are not his; he cannot give them.

So the offer is no longer a bargain but a thrashing about.

ثُمَّ يُنجِيهِ — "so that then it might save him."

ثُمَّ here puts a distance between. That is: were he to give all this, only after that might he be saved. Deliverance does not come directly after the list; it is far off.

يُنجِى — Root: ن-ج-و. Najā — to be saved; أَنْجَىٰ — to save. Najāt and nājiya are from the same root.

And who is the subject of the verb? Two readings: the ransom (may what is given save him), or the act of ransoming. Both come out in the same place.

The sentence is left incomplete. The verse does not say "he will be saved"; it says "so that it might save him" — a wish. And whether the wish is fulfilled is not said.

But the next verse gives the answer, and gives it in a single word: كَلَّا.

Let us read the four verses together:

The criminal will wish that he might ransom himself from the punishment with his sons, his wife, his brother, the kin who sheltered him and all who are on the earth — so that then he might be saved.

The sentence lengthens, and as it lengthens the offer grows. This is the sūra's technique of word order: the four verses are a single sentence, and each verse adds one item to the list.

And the verse-ending of the four verses is the same as well: banīh, akhīh, tuʾwīh, yunjīh — all ending in -īh.

The verse-ending of ʿAbasa's list of flight was the same: akhīh, abīh, banīh, yughnīh (80/34-37). This sound was recorded in the section on ʿAbasa.

Two sūras tell of the same subject with the same sound. I record this as an observation; the verse-endings of the two lists can be counted in the text. I do not claim that the shared sound is deliberate — in Arabic, words ending in the first-person and third-person pronouns naturally give this sound.

Kallā innahā laẓā · Nazzāʿatan li'sh-shawā "No! It is a flame; it strips away the skin."

The function of this particle was treated in the sections on al-Takāthur 102/3, al-Humaza 104/4 and al-Fajr 89/17: radd (rejection) and zajr (rebuke). I do not repeat it.

The distinction recorded in the section on al-Fajr is useful here: there two instances of kallā were compared — one cut off an inference, the other a way of life.

The kallā here cuts off an offer.

For four verses the man bargained: let me give this, let me give that, let me give everything. And kallā closes the bargaining.

And note how it closes it: the answer is not "no, it will not be accepted." The answer is a name. "It is a flame."

That is, there is no other party to the bargain. The man was making an offer to an interlocutor; the verse shows him who the interlocutor is not: facing him is not a bargaining table but a fire.

I record this as my own reading. Its ground is that the sentence following kallā is not a refusal but a naming.

Root: ل-ظ-ي. Laẓā — flame, the tongue of fire. تَلَظَّىٰ — to blaze, to burn in flames.

And the verbal form was treated in this commentary:

"I have warned you of a blazing fire." (al-Layl 92/14 — nāran talaẓẓā)

This verse was taken up in the section on al-Layl; I do not repeat it.

Let us set the two verses side by side:

What in al-Layl is an attribute becomes in al-Maʿārij a name.

And the grammar confirms this: laẓā here takes no tanwīn and is diptote, that is, it is treated as a proper name. In the section on al-Qāriʿa the names of Hell were listed, and laẓā was among them.

So the word follows a course within the Qurʾān: first the work the fire does (al-Layl), then the name of the fire (al-Maʿārij).

I record this as my own reading. The wordings of the two verses and their grammatical status are data that can be verified.

إِنَّهَا — to what does the pronoun refer? It is feminine. The most widespread reading: al-nār (the fire) is meant implicitly; or it is a pronoun standing in for the ʿadhāb of verse 11. It makes no difference to the sense.

The two densest words in the sūra.

Root: ن-ز-ع. Nazaʿa — to pull, to pull out, to tear away. The concrete sense of the root is to pull with force: to tear something from where it is.

Its occurrences in the Qurʾān show the field of the root:

• "The wind was tearing people away as though they were uprooted palm trunks." (al-Qamar 54/20 — tanziʿu'n-nās)
• "We tore out whatever rancour was in their breasts." (al-Ḥijr 15/47; al-Aʿrāf 7/43)
• "You take away sovereignty from whom You will." (Āl ʿImrān 3/26)
• "He was stripping off their garments." (al-Aʿrāf 7/27 — of Satan)
• تَنَازُع — to quarrel, to fall into dispute. Two parties pulling one thing from two ends. "Do not quarrel among yourselves" (al-Anfāl 8/46).

Al-Qamar 54/20 is particularly worth noting — and the reason lies in the preceding sūra.

In the section on al-Ḥāqqa the following was recorded: the image of "hollow palm trunks" in al-Ḥāqqa 69/7 appears in al-Qamar 54/20 as "uprooted palm trunks", and the verb used there is تَنزِعُ.

So the root ن-ز-ع names, in al-Qamar, the wind that tore the people of ʿĀd from their places; in al-Maʿārij it names the work of the fire.

Two neighbouring sūras — al-Ḥāqqa and al-Maʿārij — stand at the two ends of the same root: one describes the result of that wind (trunks lying flat), the other gives the same verb to the fire.

I record this as my own reading. The wordings of the three verses and the shared root are data that can be verified.

The pattern: فَعَّالَة. This is the intensive pattern in Arabic: one who does the act much, who does it as though it were his trade. Kadhdhāb (a great liar), ghaffār (much forgiving), ḥammāla (treated in al-Masad 111/4).

So nazzāʿa is not "that which tears away" but "that which keeps tearing away". The act is repeated.

Grammar. The word has been read in the accusative (nazzāʿatan) and the grammarians generally take it as a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl). A nominative reading (nazzāʿatun) is also transmitted; in that case it is an adjective of laẓā or a second predicate. The existence of the difference is set down in the sources; since I cannot say with certainty which reading belongs to which imām, I give no names. It makes no great difference to the sense.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān, and there is disagreement over its meaning.

Root: ش-و-ي. Shawā — to roast, to cook over fire (shiwāʾ, a roast). And from here another branch of meaning arises.

The meanings the lexicographers give:

The second meaning deserves attention, because it rests on an established usage in Arabic.

In Arabic the مَقَاتِل (maqātil) are the fatal points of the body: the heart, the neck, the temple. The places outside these are called شَوَى. And there is an idiom in the language: أَشْوَاهُ — "he struck him but could not strike a fatal spot."

So shawā is the name of the places that do not kill when struck.

And this gives the layer that must be read into the verse.

The fire tears away not the fatal points of the body but its non-fatal parts. That is, the act does not bring life to an end.

And this links up with the twenty-seventh verse of the preceding sūra. The man in al-Ḥāqqa had said: "Would that it had been the finisher!" (69/27) — al-qāḍiya, "that which finishes".

Al-Maʿārij explains at the level of the word why that wish is not granted: the places torn away are places that do not finish.

I record this as my own reading, and I set down one qualification: there is disagreement over the meaning of shawā, and the reading "non-fatal limbs" is not the only reading. Nor do I claim that the verse intends the link between the two sūras. What I record is that the Arabic idiom ashwāhu is set down in the dictionaries and that the senses of the two verses complete one another.

There are verses within the Qurʾān that support this idea:

• "Whenever their skins are burnt through, We shall exchange them for other skins, so that they may taste the punishment." (al-Nisāʾ 4/56)
• "Death is not decreed for them, that they might die, nor is any of their punishment lightened." (Fāṭir 35/36)
• "Then he will neither die there nor live." (al-Aʿlā 87/13)

Al-Aʿlā 87/13 was treated in this commentary. All three verses say the same thing: the act is an act that does not reach its conclusion.

Nazzāʿa is on the intensive pattern: a repeated act. Shawā is the non-fatal places: an act that does not conclude.

Together the two describe an unending cycle: it is torn away, it does not end; it is torn away again.

And a measure recorded in the section on al-Humaza works here in reverse. There, of the verb ʿaddada (he kept counting), this was written: "The repetition lies not in the nature of the act but in the act's not working. If a process yields a result, there is no need to repeat it."

The same measure holds here — but this time the cause of the repetition is not the person but the kind of act.

I record this as my own reading.

Tadʿū man adbara wa tawallā · Wa jamaʿa fa-awʿā "It calls the one who turned his back and turned away; who gathered and hoarded."

And this is one of the most startling verbs in the sūra.

The fire is depicted not as an object but as a calling subject. Tadʿū — "it calls, it summons."

The reversal is here. In the world there was a messenger who called, and the man called turned his back. On that day the fire calls, and the one called is the same man.

And the verb is from the same root: د-ع-و. The Qurʾān names the Prophet's work with this root: "one who calls to God" (Fuṣṣilat 41/33 — daʿā ila'llāh); "God's caller" (al-Aḥqāf 46/31 — dāʿiya'llāh).

So two calls, one root. The man did not answer the first call; he does not have to answer the second — because the second call takes him away.

I record this as my own reading. The two uses of the root are plain in the Qurʾān.

A note on the reading. Some exegetes take the verb tadʿū as figurative: not "it calls" but "it draws to itself", "it merits". Others hold to its plain sense. I do not enter this discussion; on either reading the verse's work within the sūra is the same: to say whom the fire takes.

The verse sets up two groups with four verbs, and the groups are separated by conjunctions:

And the link between the two groups is وَ as well.

So the verse counts two offences: an attitude and a behaviour. And this is the same as the structure of the thirty-third and thirty-fourth verses of the preceding sūra:

Two neighbouring sūras set the same measure in two verses each. In al-Ḥāqqa, not believing and not urging others to give; in al-Maʿārij, turning away and gathering and hiding.

And the difference is this: al-Ḥāqqa counts with negative verbs, al-Maʿārij with positive ones. Al-Ḥāqqa says "he did not do"; al-Maʿārij says "he did". The same man, from two different angles.

I record this as my own reading. The structures of the two verses are in the text.

أَدْبَرَ — Root: د-ب-ر. Dubur — the back, the rear. أَدْبَرَ (ifʿāl) — he turned his back, he turned around. From the same root, tadbīr (thinking through the end of a matter), dābir (what remains behind), adbār (backs).

تَوَلَّىٰ — Root: و-ل-ي. Walī — one who is near, a friend, a protector; walāya. تَوَلَّىٰ (tafaʿʿul) carries two senses: he turned away and he took charge, he undertook. An interesting contronymy: the same verb can convey both turning towards and turning away. Context decides.

Why are the two verbs side by side? They are close in meaning but not identical:

• أَدْبَرَ — a movement of the body: turning one's back. Physical.
• تَوَلَّىٰ — a change of orientation: breaking off interest, turning in another direction. A matter of will.

So one conveys the movement, the other the decision.

This pair is established in the Qurʾān, and it has occurred several times in this commentary:

• "Then he turned his back and grew proud." (al-Muddaththir 74/23 — adbara wa'stakbara)
• "But he denied and turned away." (al-Qiyāma 75/32; al-ʿAlaq 96/13 — kadhdhaba wa tawallā)
• "None will enter it but the most wretched, who denies and turns away." (al-Layl 92/16)

Al-Layl 92/16 is particularly close, because there too the one who will enter the fire is described and the same verb is used.

The two densest words in the sūra, and they have been mentioned earlier in this commentary.

In the section on al-Humaza 104/2 this verse was already used, and there the following was recorded:

"He gathered and hid it in a vessel." (al-Maʿārij 70/18) — "A sentence of two words, and of the same structure as al-Humaza 104/2: a verb of gathering followed by a verb of keeping. There too what is told is not what is done with the wealth but what is not done."

And in the section on al-Inshiqāq 84/23, when the root و-ع-ي was treated, this verse was given as the example of أَوْعَىٰ.

I repeat neither. There are three things to add here.

Let me open out the comparison framed in the section on al-Humaza a little, since it was recorded there that the two verses are of the same structure but their differences were not taken up:

The most telling row is the second.

What was recorded in the section on al-Humaza was this: "ʿaddada is not 'he counted' but 'he kept counting'… it is acquired once and counted continually." And: "if you are counting something over and over, you are not using it."

In al-Maʿārij there is no repetition. Awʿā is in the ifʿāl form and conveys a completed act: he put it in a vessel and closed the lid.

So the man in al-Humaza opens his wealth: he counts it, looks at it, counts it again. The man in al-Maʿārij closes his wealth: he puts it in a vessel and leaves it there.

Two different relationships: one is in constant contact with his wealth, the other has taken his wealth out of sight. But both meet in the same place — the wealth is not used.

I record this as my own reading. The functions of the two patterns are recognised in Arabic; the interpretation of the comparison is my own.

And this is the most important feature of the verse.

Al-Humaza says "مَالًا": he gathered wealth. Al-Maʿārij says nothing at all. Both verbs are without object: jamaʿa fa-awʿā — "he gathered, he put it in a vessel."

In Arabic the dropping of the object is called ḥadhf al-mafʿūl, and one of its functions is generalisation: when a verb loses its object it opens onto every object.

This technique has been recorded twice before in this commentary:

• In the section on al-Māʿūn 107/6: "The verb does not say 'to whom they make a display'… In al-Māʿūn the dropping of the object widens the scope: not to a particular audience, but to whoever is looking."
• In the section on al-Shams 91/11: "when the object is dropped the verb becomes general."

The same technique is at work here. The verse does not say "he gathered wealth"; it says "he gathered".

And the consequence is this: it does not matter what was gathered. It may be wealth, it may be knowledge, it may be opportunity, it may be relationships, it may be standing. The verb waits for its object, and the reader supplies his own.

I record this as my own reading. The function of the technique is recognised in Arabic and has been recorded twice in this commentary.

And now the link that joins three sections of this commentary.

A table was framed in the section on al-Ḥāqqa, and it is completed here:

Three verses, one root, three vessels.

And the finding recorded in the section on al-Inshiqāq explains all three at once: "the vessel is not empty, it is only not full of the right thing. It is not that a person takes nothing in; he takes something else in."

The root is in itself neither positive nor negative. Waʿy is "to take within". Its value depends on what is taken in.

And the measure recorded for mabthūth in the section on al-Qāriʿa holds here too: "the word is not in itself negative… whether scatteredness is good or bad depends on what is scattered."

And two neighbouring sūras use this root at the two ends: in al-Ḥāqqa the ear takes in the reminder; in al-Maʿārij the hand takes in the wealth. Both are vessels, and both were filled.

I record this as my own reading. The shared root of the three verses is a linguistic datum beyond dispute; the interpretation that the three form a weave, and that they stand at two ends in two neighbouring sūras, is my own.

The object having been left unsaid opens the verse directly onto the present.

"He gathered and put it in a vessel" — a sentence without an object. And in the life of today, the things gathered and put in vessels have gone well beyond wealth: content saved but never watched, books bought but never read, opportunity accumulated but never used, a network of relations built but never worked.

What they have in common is this: all of them are inside a vessel, and none of them is in circulation.

The verse's measure is not having; it is the lid being shut. And, as recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn, the question is: "what do you hold that would cost you nothing to give to someone, and are you giving it?"

Inna'l-insāna khuliqa halūʿā · Idhā massahu'sh-sharru jazūʿā · Wa idhā massahu'l-khayru manūʿā "Man was created halūʿ: wailing when evil touches him, withholding when good touches him."

Here the sūra stops and delivers a diagnosis.

For eighteen verses there was something being told: a question, an answer, a scene, an offer, a fire. Now the text draws back and describes man.

And this is the very movement Sūrat al-Fajr makes. What was recorded in the section on al-Fajr was: "The historical section ends here, and the text puts a single subject in the place of the peoples: al-insān."

Al-Maʿārij makes the same movement: the scene of the resurrection ends and a single subject is left.

ٱلْإِنسَٰن — the definite article. This was treated in the section on al-Fajr and I do not repeat it. In summary: the article conveys comprehensiveness (istighrāq), taking in the whole of the kind. And: "when the name of a species is used in the singular, the verdict does not descend on individuals one by one but is written into the definition of the species… this is not a majority statistic; it is the description of the default state, which holds unless the contrary is shown."

And the qualification "unless the contrary is shown" becomes critical here — because in the twenty-second verse an exception will come.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān. And this is both the cause of the disagreement over its meaning and the resolution of it.

Root: ه-ل-ع. The meanings the lexicographers give: fierce greed; intolerance; rapacity; inner restlessness; impatience.

In the classical dictionaries halaʿ is described as "the fiercest greed" and "the fiercest jazaʿ" (wailing). That is, the word is a combination of two states: one who is never sated in acquiring, and who cannot bear it in losing.

Pattern: فَعُول. This is the intensive pattern in Arabic: one who does the act much, who is in that state habitually. Ṣabūr (much enduring), shakūr (much thankful), ghafūr, ʿaẓūm.

And now note what the verse does.

The Qurʾān uses a word and then immediately defines it — and this is not something one meets often in the Qurʾān.

The twentieth and twenty-first verses are the definition of halūʿ:

هَلُوع = idhā massahu'sh-sharru جَزُوع + wa idhā massahu'l-khayru مَنُوع

And the two words used in the definition are on the same pattern: فَعُول.

Three words, one pattern. And the verse-ending is the same too: halūʿā / jazūʿā / manūʿā.

So in defining a word the sūra makes the definition with two words from the same pattern. The definition carries the form of what is defined.

I record this as an observation about form; the metre and verse-endings of the three words are data that can be verified.

A finding recorded in the classical sources: there is no need to dispute the meaning of halūʿ, because the verse has explained it itself. This view is widely transmitted in the sources. I record it; I do not ascribe it to a particular person.

And this verse is one of the Qurʾān's "man is thus" sentences. Read together, these sentences yield a striking pattern:

Most of the diagnoses in the list are on the pattern فَعُول.

And this is no coincidence: faʿūl is the intensive pattern, that is, it conveys a settled state. The Qurʾān names man's faults not as "he sometimes does this" but as "one who is thus".

I record this as an observation about patterns; the metres of the words are data that can be verified. The interpretation that the pattern constitutes an order is my own.

In the section on al-ʿĀdiyāt 100/6 kanūd was treated, and there its link with the sense of "soil that yields no crop" was framed. The two diagnoses complete one another: kanūd names the one who does not give, halūʿ names both the one who wants to take and the one who does not give.

And the most serious question here lies in this verb.

The verb is passive: khuliqa — "he was created". That is, this state is not something man acquired later; it is something present in his creation.

Is this an excuse?

The question is serious and has been debated in the classical sources. Two main approaches:

The first approach is closer to the text, and its ground lies within the text: three verses later the exception comes.

If a state cannot be overcome, there can be no one excepted from it. The twenty-second verse marks off a group by saying "illa'l-muṣallīn"; so being halūʿ is not a fate but a starting point.

I state this as a preference; it is not binding. But the presence of the exception is beyond dispute in the text.

And this accords with the framework set up in Sūrat al-Shams. In al-Shams 91/8 it is said of the soul that "its wickedness and its godwariness were inspired into it" — that is, both directions were given. This was treated in the section on al-Shams. Al-Maʿārij says the same thing from another angle: the constitution is given, the choice is not.

Root: م-س-س. Massa — to touch, to graze. And the choice of the verb is meaningful.

The verse does not say "when it befalls him", does not say "when it strikes him". It says "when it touches him".

Touch is the lightest form of contact. Not a blow but a graze.

So the verse shows the disproportion of the reaction: the lightest contact produces the fiercest response. A light evil touches him and the man collapses; a light good touches him and the man closes up.

I record this as my own reading. The sense of the verb is set down in the dictionaries.

And the verb is the same in both verses: massahu'sh-sharr, massahu'l-khayr. The only thing that changes is what touches; the manner of the touching is the same.

The Qurʾān uses this formula elsewhere too:

• "When a hardship touches man he calls upon Us; then when We grant him a favour from Us he says, 'this was given me only because of my knowledge.'" (al-Zumar 39/49)
• "When We grant man a favour he turns away and draws aside; but when an evil touches him he prays at length." (Fuṣṣilat 41/51)
• "If We let him taste a mercy from Us, he says, 'this is my due.'" (Fuṣṣilat 41/50)

Fuṣṣilat 41/50-51 is particularly close and counts the same two situations as al-Maʿārij.

Root: ج-ز-ع. Jazaʿ — the opposite of patience: intolerance, collapse, lamentation.

On the concrete sense of the root the lexicographers record this: jazaʿa is to cut something through the middle, to break it in two; jizʿ is a part of something, a cut portion. And from here arises the sense of "to break, to snap under strain".

I transmit this explanation; I do not present it as a settled etymological ruling. But the sense at work in the verse is beyond dispute, and the Qurʾān itself uses it as the contrary of patience:

"Whether we wail or are patient, it is all the same for us." (Ibrāhīm 14/21)

And the link with the fifth verse. In the fifth verse the sūra had said "be patient with a beautiful patience". Now it describes man as jazūʿ — the exact contrary of patience.

This link was recorded above; I do not repeat it. The only thing to record is that the sūra gave the remedy before the illness.

Root: م-ن-ع. Manaʿa — to prevent, to hold back, to refuse, to withhold.

And this root occurs in the last verse of Sūrat al-Māʿūn:

"And they withhold the māʿūn." (al-Māʿūn 107/7 — wa yamnaʿūna'l-māʿūn)

This verb was treated in the section on al-Māʿūn, and there the following was recorded: "There is a difference between not giving and withholding: manʿ is not giving something that has been asked for. That is, there is a request. If no one asked, there is no 'manʿ'."

Let us set the two verses side by side:

Al-Māʿūn names the act; al-Maʿārij names the constitution the act comes out of.

So the two sūras are two links of one chain: al-Maʿārij shows the character, al-Māʿūn the behaviour.

I record this as my own reading. The shared root and the patterns of the two words are data that can be verified.

And now the most fruitful external link of this sūra.

Sūrat al-Fajr, in verses 15-16, takes up exactly the same two situations — abundance and straitness — and records man's error there. This was treated in detail in the section on al-Fajr, and the following table was framed:

And the conclusion recorded in the section on al-Fajr: "Man uses the right word and draws the wrong inference." And: "Man's error is not unbelief… The error concerns what the thing given means."

Now let us put al-Maʿārij into the same table:

The two sūras take the same two situations and record two different errors: al-Fajr the wrong inference, al-Maʿārij the wrong reaction.

And this means the two sūras complete one another:

• Al-Fajr: when abundance comes he says "I deserved it"; when straitness comes he says "I have been humiliated". The error is in the mind.
• Al-Maʿārij: when good touches him he holds on; when evil touches him he collapses. The error is in the behaviour.

And the two errors require one another. This was recorded plainly in the section on al-Fajr: "One who counts abundance an 'honouring' is bound to count straitness a 'humiliation'." What al-Maʿārij adds to this is: one who counts abundance his own due does not share it (because what is deserved is not shared), and one who counts straitness a humiliation cannot bear it (because humiliation is unbearable).

So the two behaviours al-Maʿārij describes are the natural consequence of the two inferences al-Fajr describes.

I record this as my own reading. The verses of the two sūras and the findings in the section on al-Fajr are data that can be verified; the interpretation that the two errors require one another is my own.

I want to draw attention to one more thing.

The two reactions in the definition of halūʿ are the exact opposite of what they should be:

And note: halūʿ goes the wrong way in both situations.

In hardship, where he should hold, he lets go (he is not patient); in abundance, where he should let go, he holds (he does not give).

So the definition of halūʿ is this: in both situations, using his hand the wrong way round.

And this fits exactly when joined with the sense of the root of patience. What was recorded in the section on al-Baqara 2/45 was: ṣabr, by its root, is to hold. Patience is holding, spending is letting go. Halūʿ lets go where he should hold, and holds where he should let go.

I record this as my own reading. The senses of the roots are data that can be verified; the table of inversion is my own.

Illa'l-muṣallīn · Alladhīna hum ʿalā ṣalātihim dāʾimūn "Except those who pray — those who are constant in their prayer."

إِلَّا is the particle of exception. And the type of the exception here settles the question of the diagnosis.

The grammarians distinguish connected (muttaṣil) and disconnected (munqaṭiʿ) exception:

• Connected: what is excepted is in fact within that kind. "The people came, except Zayd" — Zayd too is a person.
• Disconnected: what is excepted is not of that kind.

The exception here is connected, and its being accepted as such yields an important consequence: those who pray were also created halūʿ.

That is, the sūra does not mark off a different kind of human being. It says that some among people of the same constitution have come out of that constitution.

And this turns the thirteen-verse list into a way out: the list counts the ways of coming out of being halūʿ.

I record this as a reading; that the exception is connected is widely accepted in grammar.

The word was treated in detail in the section on al-Māʿūn 107/4. I do not repeat it; in summary:

• Muṣallī is "one who performs the ṣalāt"; an active participle of the tafʿīl form. Root ص-ل-و.
• There are various views on the primary sense of the root; the widespread one is supplication. Another explanation ties it to the word ṣalawān (the two bones at the base of the back) and says it comes from the movement of bending in the bow.
• And the linguistic point transmitted there: "in horse races the horse that comes second is called muṣallī — because its head comes close to the ṣalawān of the horse in front of it… muṣallī, in the most concrete state of the word, means 'the one coming right behind, following, going in another's track'."

One qualification. In the preceding sūra (al-Ḥāqqa 69/31) the verb صَلُّوهُ occurred, and that is from the root ص-ل-ي: to cast into the fire. The two roots are distinct, and this distinction was recorded plainly in the section on al-Aʿlā 87/12-15. I draw no meaning from this similarity of sound.

And now the link this sūra makes with al-Māʿūn.

In the section on al-Māʿūn the following was recorded, and stressed plainly because it is the most misunderstood point of that sūra: the wayl in al-Māʿūn 107/4 is directed not at those who pray but at a state of prayer qualified by the attribute in the fifth verse.

And there the two sūras were compared:

The conclusion recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn was this: "The two verses use the same pattern, and the only difference is the particle… This opposition within the Qurʾān itself is the strongest indication that ʿan cannot mean 'within' here."

I do not repeat this. But I can complete the table — because the Qurʾān uses this pattern with a third particle as well.

In Sūrat al-Muʾminūn the same structure occurs with a third particle:

"Those who are humble in their prayer." (al-Muʾminūn 23/2 — alladhīna hum fī ṣalātihim khāshiʿūn)

Now let us set the three verses together:

Three particles, three positions.

In the table framed in the section on al-Māʿūn there were two particles, and this was recorded there: "Had the verse said 'fī ṣalātihim sāhūn' — 'heedless within their prayer' — the sense would have been entirely different."

And al-Muʾminūn 23/2 frames exactly that sentence — but with khāshiʿūn, not sāhūn. That is, the Qurʾān uses the particle fī too, and when it does, it speaks of the state inside the prayer.

The picture that emerges when the three verses are read together is this: prayer can be assessed from three distinct places — the distance from it (ʿan), its interior (fī), and attachment to it (ʿalā). The Qurʾān names all three with distinct particles.

I record this as my own reading. The wordings of the three verses are data that can be verified; the two-particle table from the section on al-Māʿūn is taken from there and the third link is added here.

Root: د-و-م. Dāma — it lasted, it continued, it became permanent. Dawām, mudāwama and dāʾiman are from the same root.

The concrete usage of the word is interesting and gives rise to two readings. In Arabic ٱلْمَاءُ ٱلدَّائِم means standing water, water that does not flow. So the root carries the sense of "remaining motionless" as much as of "continuing".

And this yields two readings of the verse:

Both have been defended in the classical sources. And the two do not conflict; one concerns time, the other state.

In my judgement both fit the text and there is no evidence requiring a choice between them. I do not impose a preference.

But the second reading gains something when compared with the last item of the list — because the list will close with prayer, and there a different word will be used.

دَآئِمُون is an active participle, not a verb. And the sentence is a nominal sentence.

This distinction was recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn: "In Arabic this conveys fixity and continuity. That is, not 'they are sometimes heedless' but 'being heedless is their state.' Not a passing condition but a settled attribute."

The same measure works here in the positive direction: dāʾimūn is not a passing state but a settled attribute.

And this will set up a contrast with the last item of the list. I shall return to it when its turn comes.

As recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn, the hum here is not grammatically necessary: it could have been alladhīna ʿalā ṣalātihim dāʾimūn. Its addition is for specification and emphasis: "these, precisely these."

And this pronoun will be repeated six times in the list. Between verses 22 and 34 of the sūra the pattern ٱلَّذِينَ هُمْ occurs in six places (23, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34); in two places the pronoun is dropped (24 and 26).

This distribution is worth noting, and I shall return to it when its turn comes: the two items where the pronoun drops are items of two different kinds within the list.

Wa'lladhīna fī amwālihim ḥaqqun maʿlūm · Li's-sāʾili wa'l-maḥrūm "And those in whose wealth there is a known right — for the one who asks and for the one who is deprived."

In the section on al-Māʿūn 107/3, when the two readings of the construct "the food of the poor" were discussed, the ownership reading was grounded on this verse. What was recorded there:

• al-Dhāriyāt 51/19: "In their wealth there was a right for the one who asks and the one who is deprived."
• al-Maʿārij 70/24-25: "In their wealth there is a known right for the one who asks and the one who is deprived."
• And the conclusion recorded: "The word used in both verses is right — not favour, not benefaction, not gift. And its being called 'known' (maʿlūm) shows that this is not an arbitrary amount but a defined share."
• And three consequences were listed: "The superiority of the giver disappears… The shame of the receiver disappears… Not giving becomes not 'failing to be generous' but 'withholding a right'."

I do not repeat these. Three things are to be added here: the qualification maʿlūm, the difference between the two recipients, and the dropping of the pronoun.

Root: ع-ل-م. To know. Maʿlūm is the passive participle: known.

And here is the difference from al-Dhāriyāt 51/19. Al-Dhāriyāt says only ḥaqq; al-Maʿārij says ḥaqqun maʿlūm. Al-Maʿārij adds a qualification: the right is a known right.

What does "known" mean? There are two readings:

And here we meet the very difficulty recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn.

In the section on al-Māʿūn this qualification was set down for the reading of māʿūn as alms: "the institutionalisation of alms at fixed rates belongs to the Medinan period. If the sūra is counted Meccan, this reading is strained."

The same difficulty is present here. And the second reading removes it: if a person has determined his own share, no institutional rate is needed.

I find the second reading stronger, and my ground lies in the sūra's own logic:

The list counts the ways of coming out of man's halūʿ state. And the second half of halūʿ is مَنُوع: withholding. So this item of the list ought to be the antidote to withholding.

An obligatory tax does not cure withholding — a person pays the tax and goes on withholding. But if there is a share in his wealth that he himself has set aside and that he knows, that is a change of disposition.

This preference is not binding. And its practical difference is limited, since both readings arrive at the same idea: within one's wealth there is a determined portion belonging to someone else.

Note the particle. The verse does not say "they give of their wealth", nor does it say "they set aside a portion of their wealth". It says "in their wealth there is…".

The particle فِى conveys containment. That is, the right is not an obligation coming from outside the wealth; it is something present within the wealth.

And this supports at the level of grammar the ownership reading framed in the section on al-Māʿūn: the right is not added to the wealth afterwards; it is already there.

And the sentence is a nominal sentence, with no verb. That is, no act is announced but a state. What is said is not what the person does but what kind of wealth his wealth is.

I record this as an observation about the word order.

And this is the subtlest point of the verse.

ٱلسَّآئِل — Root: س-أ-ل. The one who asks, the one who begs. The same word as the sāʾil of the sūra's first verse.

ٱلْمَحْرُوم — Root: ح-ر-م. Ḥarama — to forbid, to prohibit, to deprive. Ḥarām, ḥurma, al-Ḥaram (the inviolable precinct) and iḥrām are from the same root. مَحْرُوم is the passive participle: deprived, cut off from his share.

In the classical sources there are two main views on who the maḥrūm is:

Al-Qalam 68/27 is a particularly strong indication, because there the word is used in exactly this sense and from the mouths of the people themselves: the owners of the garden, having lost their produce, say "we are maḥrūm".

The two views do not exclude one another and both are transmitted in the classical sources. What they share is this: the maḥrūm is the invisible needy person.

And this is the real question.

The verse could have used a single word: li'l-fuqarāʾ (for the poor), li'l-masākīn (for the destitute). It does not. It uses two words, and the difference between them is visibility:

And the second row settles the whole matter.

If what is given were a favour, the trigger of the favour would be the request: someone asks, you give. No obligation would arise concerning one who does not ask — because a favour is awakened by asking.

But if what is given is a right, no request is needed. A debt is a debt even if the creditor does not remind you of it. And the verse shows this by putting someone who does not ask into the list.

So the presence of the word maḥrūm is the proof of the word ḥaqq.

In the section on al-Māʿūn the ownership reading was grounded on the words ḥaqq and maʿlūm. What I add here is this: the third ground of the reading is the second recipient.

I record this as my own reading. The senses of the two words and their standing side by side in the verse are data that can be verified.

And setting the poverty-words of the two sūras side by side completes the picture:

What was recorded for miskīn in the section on al-Māʿūn was: "Poverty is not merely 'having little money'; it is the absence of options."

Maḥrūm adds a layer to this: poverty is the cutting off of a share. And the passive pattern of the word says so — maḥrūm is not one who has deprived himself; he is one who has been deprived.

I record this as an observation about the word; the pattern's being passive is a grammatical datum.

And let us return to the grammatical detail recorded above.

In the list the pattern ٱلَّذِينَ هُمْ occurs six times. In two places the hum is dropped:

• Verse 24: وَٱلَّذِينَ فِىٓ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ حَقٌّ مَّعْلُومٌ
• Verse 26: وَٱلَّذِينَ يُصَدِّقُونَ بِيَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ

The reason is grammatical and beyond dispute: hum is a pronoun of emphasis and stands between the subject of a sentence and its predicate. In the twenty-fourth verse the subject of the sentence is ḥaqqun (not the persons), and in the twenty-sixth the predicate is a verb (yuṣaddiqūna). In neither case is there room for hum.

This is a grammatical necessity; I draw no inference of meaning from it. But the consequence is worth recording: the two items differ in structure from the other items of the list — one rests on a state (the character of the wealth), the other on an act (affirming). The remaining six items are adjectival clauses.

Wa'lladhīna yuṣaddiqūna bi-yawmi'd-dīn · Wa'lladhīna hum min ʿadhābi rabbihim mushfiqūn · Inna ʿadhāba rabbihim ghayru maʾmūn "And those who affirm the day of reckoning. And those who go in dread of their Lord's punishment — for of their Lord's punishment none can be secure."

And this is the cleanest opposition between the two sūras.

Sūrat al-Māʿūn opened with this sentence:

"Have you seen the one who denies the religion?" (al-Māʿūn 107/1 — alladhī يُكَذِّبُ بِٱلدِّينِ)

Al-Maʿārij here says:

"And those who affirm the day of reckoning." (70/26 — alladhīna يُصَدِّقُونَ بِيَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ)

Let us set the two sentences side by side:

The same form, the same particle, the same object, the opposite verb.

In the section on al-Māʿūn the following was recorded of these two sūras: "Those praised in al-Maʿārij are exactly the contrary of those blamed in al-Māʿūn… the two sūras can be read as negatives of one another."

This verse is the clearest evidence for that finding, and it had not yet been framed in the section on al-Māʿūn. There the comparison was made by way of the verses on prayer; here it is made by way of the opening sentence.

Root: ص-د-ق. Ṣidq — truthfulness, a statement's matching reality. صَدَّقَ (tafʿīl) — "he called it true, he affirmed it."

The distinction recorded for kadhdhaba in the section on al-Māʿūn works here exactly in reverse:

Kadhaba (Form I) means "he lied" — the one performing the act is the liar. Kadhdhaba means "he called another's true word a lie".

In the same way: ṣadaqa is "he spoke truly" (the one performing the act is truthful); ṣaddaqa is "he called another's word true".

So taṣdīq is not your own truthfulness; it is the response you give to a report.

And the measure recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn holds here too: "Denial is an active stance, a taking of a position." So is affirmation. Neither is a silent acceptance or refusal; both are a taking of a position.

And from the same root comes ṣadaqa (the wealth given). The link the lexicographers draw: alms is what shows the truthfulness of a person's faith — the act that confirms the word.

I transmit this explanation; I do not present it as a settled etymological ruling. But it should be recorded that it accords with the ordering of the list: the twenty-fourth verse gives a right in wealth, the twenty-sixth affirmation. The root relation binds the two items to one another.

The word ٱلدِّين was treated in detail in the section on al-Māʿūn 107/1: the root د-ي-ن, at whose centre stands requital (dayn a debt, dāna lahū he submitted, dānahu he called to account, dīn a way/law). And there three views were discussed and the reading "the day of reckoning / the day of requital" was preferred. I do not repeat it.

And note: in al-Māʿūn there was a reading that had to be preferred; in al-Maʿārij no preference is needed — because the verse adds the word يَوْم: yawmu'd-dīn, "the day of requital."

So al-Maʿārij closes for itself the place al-Māʿūn left open.

I record this as an observation; the wordings of the two verses are in the text.

Root: ش-ف-ق. And this root yields one of the finest words for feeling in the Qurʾān.

The two branches of the root:

• إِشْفَاق — the state in which fear is mixed with tenderness: anxiety that something bad may happen to something.
• شَفَق — twilight, the redness left on the horizon after sunset.

The second branch was treated in this commentary. In the section on al-Inshiqāq 84/16 al-shafaq was taken up and the disagreement over redness/whiteness was recorded; I do not repeat it.

And the link between the two branches explains the sense of the word.

The explanation the lexicographers give is this: shafaq is neither full day nor full night — it is a mixture of two states. And so is ishfāq: neither pure fear nor pure love; a mixture of the two.

That is, beneath the root lies the idea of mixture, an intermediate state, impurity.

I transmit this explanation; I do not present it as a settled etymological ruling. But it clarifies the sense at work in the verse.

The difference between ishfāq and khawf (fear):

The closest English word is "dread" in the older sense, or "apprehension"; "fear" comes out too hard.

And this changes what the verse says. The verse does not say "they fear the punishment". It says "they go in dread of the punishment" — that is, a fear with a concern, a bond, inside it.

Indeed what is feared is named accordingly: ʿadhābi rabbihim — "their Lord's punishment." As recorded in the section on al-Fajr, the word Rabb carries the weight of nurture and care. The authority feared is not a foreign authority.

The Qurʾān's use of ishfāq confirms this:

• "They tremble in awe of Him." (al-Anbiyāʾ 21/28 — of the angels)
• "Those who go in dread of their Lord's punishment…" (al-Maʿārij 70/27, and its parallel al-Muʾminūn 23/57)
• "You will see the wrongdoers in dread because of what they have earned." (al-Shūrā 42/22)
• "We offered the trust to the heavens, the earth and the mountains, and they shrank from bearing it." (al-Aḥzāb 33/72)

Al-Anbiyāʾ 21/28 is particularly worth noting, because there ishfāq is ascribed to the angels. The angels do not rebel; their fear is not the fear of a crime. So ishfāq is not a fear that results from a fault — it is a state that comes with one's position.

I record this as an observation; the wording of the verse is in the text.

And the twenty-eighth verse is the ground of the twenty-seventh.

This is the only sentence of grounds in the list. In a list of thirteen verses no item is explained — that this item is explained is worth noting.

مَأْمُون — Root: أ-م-ن. And this is one of the finest word-choices of the list.

The root was treated in detail in the section on al-Baqara 2/3: at its centre stand trust and security; amān, amāna, amīn, al-Muʾmin (the giver of security). And what was recorded there: "faith is not a one-way acceptance but a bond of mutual trust."

مَأْمُون is the passive participle: that of which one can be secure, that which is trusted. Ghayru maʾmūn — "that of which one cannot be secure."

And now read the verse together with the root.

The people counted in the list are muʾmin — that is, they are named with a word from the root أ-م-ن: those who make a bond of trust.

And what is said about them is this: there is one thing they cannot be secure of — with a word from the same root.

So faith is a bond of trust made towards something of which one cannot be secure.

I record this as my own reading. The shared root is a linguistic datum beyond dispute; the conclusion I draw from it is my own.

And this establishes a theological balance. The Qurʾān rejects both the believer's being secure from punishment and his despairing of mercy:

• "Did they then feel secure from God's plan? None feels secure from God's plan but a people who are lost." (al-Aʿrāf 7/99)
• "Do not despair of God's mercy." (al-Zumar 39/53)

Both doors are left open. And the ishfāq of the twenty-seventh verse is exactly the state between the two doors: neither security nor despair — dread.

And the sense of "mixture" in the root of the word carries this: ishfāq is the place where two states mix; like shafaq, neither day nor night.

I record this as my own reading. The two branches of the root and the wordings of the two verses are data that can be verified.

Wa'lladhīna hum li-furūjihim ḥāfiẓūn · Illā ʿalā azwājihim aw mā malakat aymānuhum fa-innahum ghayru malūmīn · Fa-mani'btaghā warāʾa dhālika fa-ulāʾika humu'l-ʿādūn "And those who guard their chastity — save with their wives and those their right hands possess; for these they are not blamed. Whoever seeks beyond that, they are the ones who transgress."

These three verses are almost word for word the same as al-Muʾminūn 23/5-7.

This is a rare thing in the Qurʾān: the same three verses repeated in two sūras. And the repeated block stands in the middle of this list.

The two lists must be seen together, because the parallel is not confined to three verses.

Three things stand out.

One. Both lists open with prayer and close with prayer. In al-Muʾminūn the opening is "they are humble in their prayer" and the close "they guard their prayers"; in al-Maʿārij the opening is "they are constant in their prayer" and the close "they guard their prayer".

And the last item of both is the same verb: يُحَافِظُونَ. And both use the same particle: ʿalā.

Two. Al-Muʾminūn says صَلَوَاتِهِمْ (plural), al-Maʿārij صَلَاتِهِمْ (singular). A small but real difference. The plural looks at the individual prayers; the singular takes the prayer as an institution.

Three. Al-Maʿārij's list has two extra items: affirming the day of reckoning (26) and upholding testimonies (33). And there is one item present in al-Muʾminūn and absent from al-Maʿārij: turning away from idle talk.

There may be a reason for these differences, and I record it as my own reading: al-Maʿārij's list is framed as the antidote to a diagnosis. The sūra defined man as halūʿ: one who does not think of the reckoning, who holds on and who cannot bear. The two items added to the list look directly at that diagnosis — affirmation closes the matter of the reckoning, testimony the matter of another's right.

Al-Muʾminūn's list, by contrast, is not the antidote to a diagnosis; it is a description of deliverance (qad aflaḥa). Its content may therefore have been arranged differently.

This is a reading; the verses of the two sūras are data that can be verified.

فُرُوج — Root: ف-ر-ج. Faraja — to open, to part; furja, the gap or opening between two things. Faraj, the relief of a hardship, an easing. فَرْج — an opening on the body; the word is a veiled expression.

The word is itself a veil: no direct naming is done; "opening" is said instead. The Qurʾān's language on this subject is generally of this kind.

حَٰفِظُون — Root: ح-ف-ظ. To guard, to preserve, to watch over. Ḥāfiẓ, ḥifẓ and muḥāfaẓa are from the same root.

And this root occurs twice in the list:

The same root, at the two ends of the list. And this is the list's second frame — alongside prayer.

And the patterns differ. Ḥāfiẓūn is a simple active participle; yuḥāfiẓūna is of the mufāʿala form, and that form conveys reciprocity or sustained effort. The function of the mufāʿala form was treated in the section on al-Māʿūn.

So guarding chastity is a state, guarding prayer an effort.

I record this as an observation about patterns; the metres of the two words are data that can be verified.

This expression is a matter of jurisprudence, and per the method (Method) no legal ruling is issued here. In the classical legal literature there is a broad discussion of the scope of the expression "mā malakat aymānuhum", its historical application and its present-day equivalent; that discussion is not the subject of this section and is referred to the works of those qualified in it.

The linguistic data that must be recorded are these:

• أَزْوَٰج — Root: ز-و-ج. Zawj is each member of a pair. In Arabic zawj is used of both man and woman; the word means "spouse" and by itself conveys no gender.
• أَيْمَٰن — Root: ي-م-ن. Right hands. Mā malakat aymānuhum — "what their right hands possess"; it is an established construct for ownership in Arabic.
• غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ — Root: ل-و-م. Lawm — to blame. Malūm — one who is blamed. The expression is not a ruling but the lifting of a blame: "for these they are not blamed."

ٱبْتَغَىٰ — Root: ب-غ-ي. Ibtighāʾ (the iftiʿāl form) — to seek, to want, to pursue. From the same root comes بَغْي — to transgress, to act wrongfully. The link between the two senses: wanting excessively leads to crossing a limit.

وَرَآء — Root: و-ر-ي. Behind, beyond. This word was treated in the section on al-Inshiqāq 84/10 (warāʾa ẓahrihī) and there its link with al-Burūj 85/20 was framed.

Here its sense is "beyond": outside the limit set.

ٱلْعَادُون — Root: ع-د-و. ʿAdā — to overstep a limit, to encroach, to be hostile. ʿAduww (enemy), ʿudwān (aggression) and iʿtidāʾ are from the same root. عَادُون is the plural of the active participle: those who transgress.

And this word links up with the diagnosis of the sūra.

The sūra defined man as halūʿ, and halūʿ is by definition without measure: greed that is never sated, endurance that does not hold. And here, in the middle of the list, the name of measurelessness appears: al-ʿādūn.

So the list, while counting the contrary of being halūʿ, also names once the crossing of a limit.

I record this as my own reading. The senses of the two words are data that can be verified.

And the word's closest occurrence in the Qurʾān is on the same subject:

"You leave the wives your Lord created for you. Indeed you are a people who transgress." (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/166 — bal antum qawmun ʿādūn)

The same word, in the same field. And the root's sense of "crossing a limit" appears also in the verb iʿtidāʾ from the same root: "You know those among you who violated the Sabbath" (al-Baqara 2/65).

Wa'lladhīna hum li-amānātihim wa ʿahdihim rāʿūn · Wa'lladhīna hum bi-shahādātihim qāʾimūn "And those who tend their trusts and their covenant. And those who uphold their testimonies."

Root: أ-م-ن. The same root as maʾmūn in the twenty-eighth verse.

And this shows the inner weave of the list: in the twenty-eighth verse the punishment was said not to be maʾmūn; in the thirty-second the person is said to tend his amānāt. The same root, in two directions: one names what cannot be trusted, the other what is given in trust.

In the section on al-Takwīr 81/21, when amīn was treated, the following was recorded: "a trust is what is in a person's hands but does not belong to him and must be handed over as it is."

And this description links up with the twenty-fourth verse. There was a "known right" in the wealth — that is, a portion in one's hands that does not belong to one. This was treated in the section on al-Māʿūn as the ownership reading.

Two items say the same idea in two fields: in wealth there is another's right (24), what is in your hand in trust is not yours (32).

I record this as my own reading. The description of the root is taken from the section on al-Takwīr; the link between the two items is my own.

It comes in the plural: amānāt. That is, not a single trust but kinds of trust. In the classical sources the scope is kept broad: obligations towards God, obligations towards people, secrets, property, offices.

The Qurʾān itself supports this breadth: "God commands you to render trusts to those to whom they are due" (al-Nisāʾ 4/58) — plural there too.

Root: ع-ه-د. ʿAhd — to give one's word, to make a compact; and to keep, to watch over, to visit often. Muʿāhada (a treaty), taʿahhud (undertaking) and ʿahd (an era, an age) are from the same root.

An interesting branch of the root: taʿahhada'sh-shayʾa — "he looked to a thing often, he did not neglect it." So beneath the root lies continuous attention.

And this explains why the word for covenant comes from this root: to give one's word is not something done once and left; it is a bond that has to be checked on continually.

I transmit this explanation; I do not present it as a settled etymological ruling.

It comes in the singular: ʿahd. Trusts plural, covenant singular.

The classical explanation: ʿahd here is a generic noun and takes in all covenants. Another explanation: what is meant is the fundamental covenant man gives his Lord, and that is one.

Both are possible; I do not impose a preference.

Root: ر-ع-ي. And here the concrete sense of the root settles the matter.

رَعَى — to pasture an animal, to herd it. رَاعٍ — a shepherd. رَعِيَّة — the flock that is herded; and from here the sense "a people, subjects" arises.

So rāʿin, in the most concrete state of the word, is a shepherd.

And shepherding is a particular kind of guarding. The shepherd does not shut the flock up somewhere; he walks with it, pastures it, lets it spread out but never takes his eye off it. Not guarding but tending.

So the verse does not say ḥāfiẓūn (guardians) of the trust — three verses earlier that word was used for chastity. It says رَٰعُونَ: those who tend.

The difference between the two words:

And trusts and covenants are moving things: they are used, they circulate, they are tested over time. Locking a trust in a safe may be to guard it, but it is not to do what the trust requires.

I record this as my own reading. The concrete sense of the root is set down in the dictionaries; the difference I draw between the two words is my own.

A linguistic note. The word rāʿinā is the subject of a prohibition in the Qurʾān (al-Baqara 2/104): this word, from the same root, was ordered not to be used because it carried an improper association in another language. That verse was not reached in the section on al-Baqara; here I record only the shared root.

And this is the most striking item of the list — because it is the only public item in it.

The other items of the list concern the person himself or his property: prayer, a right in his wealth, affirmation, dread, chastity, trust. Testimony, by contrast, is where another human being's right is settled.

And there the one who speaks is not himself a party; he is a third person.

شَهَٰدَٰت — Root: ش-ه-د. Shahida — to be present, to witness. Shāhid (a witness), shahīd, mashhad and mushāhada are from the same root.

At the centre of the root is "being present". A witness is the person who was there. This is why testimony differs from knowledge: knowledge can be transmitted, testimony cannot.

It comes in the plural: shahādāt. And this is rare in the Qurʾān; the word is generally used in the singular. The plural counts each single instance of testimony separately: every testimony is a separate obligation.

قَآئِمُون — Root: ق-و-م. To stand, to rise up, to hold a matter upright. This root was treated in the section on al-Baqara 2/3 by way of iqāma, and there the following was recorded: "discharging closes a debt, upholding keeps a thing standing."

And the verb comes here with bāʾ: qāʾimūn bi-shahādātihim — "standing with their testimonies."

In Arabic the construction qāma bi- means to take on a task, to carry it out, to bear its responsibility. So testimony is a load that is carried.

The Qurʾān's verses on testimony show how heavy this item is:

• "O you who believe! Be upholders of justice, witnesses for God, even against yourselves, or your parents and kin." (al-Nisāʾ 4/135)
• "Do not conceal testimony. Whoever conceals it, his heart is sinful." (al-Baqara 2/283)
• "Uphold testimony for God." (al-Ṭalāq 65/2)

Al-Nisāʾ 4/135 is particularly worth noting, because it describes the hardest form of testimony: even against oneself.

And this links up with the ransom scene of the sūra.

In the eleventh through the fourteenth verses the criminal was offering his kin as ransom: his sons, his wife, his brother, his kin. That is, he was sacrificing the bond of kinship for his own advantage.

In al-Nisāʾ 4/135 the exact opposite is asked: setting the bond of kinship aside for the sake of the truth.

The two scenes take up the same bonds and tell of giving them up on two different grounds: one to save oneself, the other to speak the truth.

I record this as my own reading. The wordings of the two verses are data that can be verified; the comparison is my own.

The position of the item is meaningful too: after the trusts, before the prayer.

That is, the list runs thus: what concerns oneself (prayer, wealth, affirmation, dread, chastity) → what concerns another (trust, covenant, testimony) → and prayer again.

The middle of the list looks inward, its end outward; and prayer stands at the two ends.

I record this as a reading of the structure; the order of the items is in the text.

Wa'lladhīna hum ʿalā ṣalātihim yuḥāfiẓūn · Ulāʾika fī jannātin mukramūn "And those who guard their prayer. It is they who will be honoured in gardens."

And now we can see the frame of the list.

A list of thirteen verses opens and closes with the same particle and the same construct. Two things change: the root and the class of the word.

And both changes are meaningful.

One — the change of root: from constancy to guarding.

Dāʾimūn announces that the prayer continues: it is not abandoned. Yuḥāfiẓūn announces that the prayer is guarded: it is not spoiled.

The two are different things. Something may be continuing and yet be spoiled; the person Sūrat al-Māʿūn describes is exactly this — he has a prayer but he is heedless of his prayer.

So the list puts the two separate tests of prayer at its two ends: not to abandon and not to spoil.

Two — the change of class: from noun to verb.

This distinction was recorded in the section on al-Māʿūn, and there it worked in the opposite direction:

"In the preceding verse there was sāhūn (an active participle, a fixed state); here there is yurāʾūna (a verb, imperfect). In Arabic this difference is meaningful: heedlessness is a settled condition, while showing off is an act performed anew each time."

The same measure works here in the positive direction:

• دَآئِمُونَ — a noun: attachment to prayer is a settled state.
• يُحَافِظُونَ — a verb: guarding the prayer is a work done anew each time.

So the list says: attachment is established once and stands; guarding is repeated at every prayer.

And this accords with the whole logic of the list. The list counts the ways out of a diagnosis (halūʿ). A change of constitution requires both settling and continual effort. The sūra puts both on the list and names both with prayer.

I record this as my own reading. The patterns and roots of the two words are data that can be verified; the distinction from the section on al-Māʿūn is taken from there.

And now the table begun in the section on al-Māʿūn can be completed.

In the section on al-Māʿūn two verses were compared. Above I added al-Muʾminūn 23/2. Now the fourth link comes as well:

Five verses, one pattern (alladhīna hum + particle + ṣalāt + attribute), three different particles.

And note: both sūras close with the same verb — ʿalā ṣalātihim/ṣalawātihim yuḥāfiẓūn. Al-Maʿārij in the singular (ṣalātihim), al-Muʾminūn in the plural (ṣalawātihim).

I record this as a textual datum that can be verified; the wordings of the five verses are in the text. The interpretation that the table constitutes an order is my own.

The conclusion of the list.

أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ — the far demonstrative in the plural: "it is they." As recorded for dhālika in the section on al-Māʿūn, in Arabic the far demonstrative can be used both for belittling and for exalting; here it is the second: their position is distinct enough to be pointed at from a distance.

فِى جَنَّٰتٍ — plural and indefinite: "in gardens", "in certain gardens". The indefiniteness here conveys magnification.

And the particle again is فِى: enclosure. As recorded for fī ʿīshatin rāḍiya in the section on al-Qāriʿa: "The person does not possess the life; he is inside the life. Not possession but enclosure."

مُّكْرَمُون — Root: ك-ر-م. A passive participle: "those honoured, those given hospitality."

And its being passive is critical.

The verse does not say "those who are karīm in the gardens" — that would be an attribute of the persons themselves. It says "those who are honoured": the honouring is something done to them.

And this links directly with the matter treated in Sūrat al-Fajr.

In al-Fajr 89/15 man said: "My Lord has honoured me" — and the conclusion recorded in the section on al-Fajr was: "Man reads wealth as a statement of worth… The error concerns what the thing given means."

Al-Maʿārij shows where the real honouring lies.

And the link recorded in the section on al-Ḥāqqa is added here too: in al-Fajr 89/17 it was said "you do not honour the orphan". So the same root in three places: the honouring expected (al-Fajr 15), the honouring not given (al-Fajr 17), the honouring granted (al-Maʿārij 35).

I record this as my own reading. The shared root of the three verses is a datum that can be verified.

Thirteen verses, six items, two frames of prayer. Its table is this:

And the arrangement of the list carries a logic — I record it as my own reading:

The list goes from outside inward, then from inside outward. It opens with prayer (outer), moves to wealth (outer), descends to belief (inner), descends to the inner state (innermost), rises to the body, rises to trust (another), rises to testimony (everyone), and closes with prayer (outer).

So the list traces a curve of descent and ascent, with ishfāq (the inner state) at its centre.

This is a reading; the order of the items is in the text.

And the list's relation to the diagnosis of halūʿ:

And note: the antidote to jazūʿ is not patience but prayer and dread. That is, the sūra treats intolerance not by saying "be patient" outright but by building the support on which patience rests.

In the fifth verse it had said "be patient with a beautiful patience". The list shows how that command is made possible: a regular bond (prayer) and a right fear (ishfāq).

I record this as my own reading.

Fa-māli'lladhīna kafarū qibalaka muhṭiʿīn · ʿAni'l-yamīni wa ʿani'sh-shimāli ʿizīn "What is the matter with those who disbelieve, that they come craning their necks towards you — from the right and from the left, in scattered groups?"

And this is the beginning of the sūra's third section.

In the first verse there was someone asking a question. Now the sūra turns to him — and to those like him. The thirty-five verses in between were the answer to the question.

And note: the sūra opened with a question, and now answers with a question.

Neither question wants an answer. One is mockery, the other reproach. The sūra takes the form of the addressee's question and gives it back to him.

I record this as my own reading. The positions of the two questions are in the text.

There is something noteworthy in the orthography: مَا and لِ are written separately (mā li-). It is one of the peculiarities of the orthography of the codex; it does not affect the sense.

The pattern فَمَا لِـ conveys in Arabic astonishment, reproach and rebuke: "What is the matter with these people?", "What is wrong with them that they do this?"

The closest English rendering: "What is wrong with them?"

This pattern occurs in several places in the Qurʾān and is always in the same tone: "What is the matter with them, that they turn away from the reminder?" (al-Muddaththir 74/49).

Root: ق-ب-ل. Qabila — to meet, to accept. قِبَل — the front of a thing, its facing side. Qibla (the direction turned to), muqābil (opposite), istiqbāl (reception, and "the future") are from the same root.

قِبَلَكَ — "towards your side", "facing you."

So the people are coming towards the Prophet. They are not fleeing; they are drawing near.

And this is the strangeness of the scene. Those who deny gather around the man they deny.

Root: ه-ط-ع. Haṭaʿa — to stretch out the neck, to fix one's eyes; and to go quickly with the head raised.

The meanings the lexicographers give gather into two branches:

Both describe the same bodily movement: the neck extending forward. The one who looks stretches his neck, and so does the one who runs.

Its other occurrences in the Qurʾān show both branches:

• "They run with their heads raised; their gaze does not return to them." (Ibrāhīm 14/43 — muhṭiʿīna muqniʿī ruʾūsihim)
• "With their eyes cast down, they will come out of the graves hastening to the caller." (al-Qamar 54/8 — muhṭiʿīna ila'd-dāʿ)

Both verses are in a scene of the resurrection. That is, in the Qurʾān the word generally describes the people running on that day.

And al-Maʿārij uses it in this world.

So the verse describes those craning their necks around the Prophet today by the movement of those who will run on that day. The same bodily movement, in two scenes.

And the sūra will repeat this plainly in the forty-third verse: "They come out of the graves in haste."

I record this as my own reading. The wordings of the three verses are data that can be verified.

The character of the gaze. The verse does not say "they listen", does not say "they ask". It describes a bodily movement: the stretching of the neck.

And this movement conveys not attention itself but the appearance of attention. They look but do not take in; they draw near but do not join.

I record this as a reading.

Both directions are mentioned, and this conveys encirclement: from every side.

And these two words were the names of two destinies in the preceding sūra.

In al-Ḥāqqa 69/19 the book was given بِيَمِينِهِ (in his right hand); in 69/25 بِشِمَالِهِ (in his left). This opposition was treated in the section on al-Ḥāqqa.

Al-Maʿārij uses the same two words — but as directions, not destinies.

Two neighbouring sūras use the same pair for two different tasks: in al-Ḥāqqa it divides, in al-Maʿārij it gathers.

I record this as my own reading. The occurrences of the words in the two sūras are data that can be verified. I claim no wordplay; yamīn and shimāl are ordinary words for direction in Arabic.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

عِزِين is the plural of ʿizatun and means separate companies, scattered clusters: groups standing not together but in clumps.

There are two views on its root:

The first origin is the more widespread and adds an interesting layer to the sense of the word.

For the verb ʿazā is "belonging": being attached to a group. And ʿizīn is that belonging multiplied: everyone has a group, but there is no common group.

So the word conveys both joining and dispersal at once: the people have come together — but in clumps.

I record this as an observation about the word. The disagreement over the origin is set down in the sources; the layer of meaning I draw from the first origin is my own and is not offered as a settled etymological ruling.

And this completes the scene: people have gathered around the Prophet, they have stretched out their necks, they look from right and left — but they are not one community. They stand in clusters.

A grammatical note. The word ʿizīn is declined like a sound masculine plural (with -īn), but its singular is ʿiza and it is feminine. Some words in Arabic are declined this way (sinīn — years, singular sana). The final nūn of the word compensates for a dropped letter. This also makes the word fit the verse-ending.

These two verses are among the rare verses that describe the listener, and they give an image worth recording for today.

The scene is this: people come, draw near, look, crane their necks — and stand scattered. There is interest, there is no participation. There is proximity, there is no bond.

And in the thirty-eighth verse this interest will turn into an expectation: "Does each one of them hope to be admitted to a garden?" That is, watching is taken for joining.

I record this as a reading; the content of the two verses and their link with the next verse are in the text.

A-yaṭmaʿu kullu'mriʾin minhum an yudkhala jannata naʿīm · Kallā innā khalaqnāhum mimmā yaʿlamūn "Does each one of them covet being admitted to a garden of bliss? No! We created them from what they know."

Root: ط-م-ع. Ṭamiʿa — to want greedily, to set one's eye on, to carry an expectation that has no ground.

And in Arabic there is a difference between ṭamaʿ and rajāʾ (hope):

Ṭamaʿ is to expect to obtain without any reason for obtaining.

And the word sits exactly right in this verse: the people hope to enter the Garden; but for thirty-five verses the sūra had been counting who will enter the Garden — a list of eight items. These people are not on that list.

So the question is: on what ground?

And the question is not answered; it is cut off by kallā.

The Qurʾān uses ṭamaʿ in a positive context too — so the word is not bad in itself: "We hope our Lord will forgive us our faults" (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/51); "Call upon Him in fear and hope" (al-Aʿrāf 7/56). The value of the word depends on the ground of what is hoped for.

I record this because the verse does not forbid ṭamaʿ; it rejects the groundless kind.

The verse speaks not collectively but one by one: "each one of them."

The preceding verse had shown them in clusters (ʿizīn). Now the clusters too break up: each one separately.

And this prepares the next step: the list was an individual list; the reckoning too is individual.

ٱمْرِئ — Root: م-ر-أ. A person, a man. Al-marʾ was treated in the section on ʿAbasa 80/34, and there its kinship of root with murūʾa (manliness, virtue) was recorded as a nicety; I do not repeat it.

And there is a link between the two verses: in ʿAbasa 80/34 al-marʾ was fleeing; here imruʾ is coveting. The same word, in two different scenes.

The verb's being passive is critical.

The verse does not say "to enter the Garden". It says "to be admitted to the Garden": yudkhala, passive.

That is, entering is not something the person does; it is something done to him. He does not pass through the gate himself; he is taken in.

And this accords with the last sentence of the list: "It is they who will be honoured in gardens" (70/35) — passive there too: mukramūn.

Two passive verbs, about two different groups: one is honoured, the other covets being admitted. The same passivity, one realised and one merely hoped for.

I record this as my own reading. The patterns of the two verbs are data that can be verified.

جَنَّةَ نَعِيمٍ — "a garden of bliss". It comes indefinite (naʿīm, undetermined). Root: ن-ع-م. Niʿma, naʿīm, nāʿim — softness, abundance, ease.

And in the section on al-Takāthur naʿīm was treated ("then on that day you will be asked about the bliss", 102/8) and the views on the scope of the bliss were given there in a table. I do not repeat it.

Kallā occurs twice in the sūra:

Both cut off an expectation. One the expectation of escape, the other the expectation of gain.

And both are groundless expectations: he had nothing to give as ransom, he has no ground for entering the Garden.

I record this as my own reading. The two occurrences can be counted in the text.

The shortest and hardest answer in the sūra.

The expression is compressed and has two readings:

The first reading is the more widespread in the classical sources and has strong support within the Qurʾān:

• "Did We not create you from a despised fluid?" (al-Mursalāt 77/20)
• "Then He made his progeny from an extract of a base fluid." (al-Sajda 32/8)
• "Let man look at what he was created from!" (al-Ṭāriq 86/5)

Al-Ṭāriq 86/5 was treated in this commentary and what that looking does was taken up there; I do not repeat it.

The second reading is defensible too and fits the context: the question carried a claim of right ("why should I not enter?"), and the answer cuts off the ground of that claim.

In my judgement the two do not exclude one another and together give a single idea: there is no superiority in one's origin. I do not impose a preference.

And here is the finest point in the expression.

The verse does not name the substance. It does not say "We created them from a fluid". It says "from what they know".

That is, the knowledge is referred back to the addressee: you already know.

And this does two things:

One — it says without saying. The word is not mentioned, but everyone knows. This is a choice of decorum and is often found in the Qurʾān's language on this subject.

Two — it uses the addressee's own knowledge against him. The same technique was recorded in the section on al-Takwīr 81/22: "the verse uses the strongest evidence in the addressee's hands — his own observation — against him."

There the evidence was "your companion"; here it is "what you know".

I record this as my own reading. The finding in the section on al-Takwīr is taken from there.

And the root خ-ل-ق occurs twice in the sūra, and both are sentences of diagnosis:

Both sentences begin with the same particle (inna) and use the same root.

And together they complete a picture: his disposition is intolerant, his substance worthless.

And note: the first is passive (khuliqa — "he was created"), the second active (khalaqnāhum — "We created them"). That is, when the diagnosis is delivered the agent is concealed; when the claim is rejected the agent is declared.

I record this as my own reading. The patterns of the two verses are data that can be verified.

Fa-lā uqsimu bi-rabbi'l-mashāriqi wa'l-maghāribi innā la-qādirūn · ʿAlā an nubaddila khayran minhum wa mā naḥnu bi-masbūqīn "No! I swear by the Lord of the risings and the settings that We are surely able to replace them with better than them — and We are not to be outrun."

This formula was set out in four views in a table in the section on al-Balad 90/1 and was also taken up in the section on al-Ḥāqqa 69/38. I do not repeat it.

And in the section on al-Ḥāqqa the two sūras were compared:

Two neighbouring sūras defend two different things with the same formula: one the truth of a word, the other the sufficiency of a power.

And the subject of each oath suits its function:

• Al-Ḥāqqa defends the source of a word, and swears by the distinction between what is seen and what is not seen — because the source of a word is not seen.
• Al-Maʿārij defends the scope of a power, and swears by the risings and the settings — because power is measured by scope.

I record this as my own reading. The subjects of the two oaths are in the text.

And here there is a striking linguistic datum.

The Qurʾān uses these two words in three different numbers:

This verse is the place where both come in the plural.

The classical exegetes' explanation of this trio is as follows, and it rests on observation:

• Singular: east and west as directions; two basic bearings.
• Dual: the two extreme points of sunrise and sunset in the summer and winter months. This is an observable fact: the sun rises and sets at different points of the horizon at different times of the year.
• Plural: the point of rising shifts slightly on every day of the year; hence the points of rising are many in number.

For a community living in the desert and reading the horizon like a calendar, this explanation is an ordinary observation. To find one's way and to reckon the seasons one needs to know that the sun's point of rising shifts across the year; and that knowledge was present in that society.

One qualification: I do not offer this as a claim of scientific miracle. By the principle set down in Method, such links are made only if they genuinely exist and can be made without strain. What is described here is not a modern discovery; it is a fact visible to the naked eye and known at that time. The only thing I record is that the Qurʾān used the singular, dual and plural forms separately — and this is a textual datum that can be verified.

And the function of the oath: the title "Lord of the risings and the settings" conveys regular recurrence. The sun rises every day, sets every day, and its point shifts a little every day.

So what is sworn by is an order that is renewed every day and never falters. And the answer to the oath is a power of replacement.

I record this as my own reading. The fit between the oath and its answer is a reading.

Root: ب-د-ل. Badala — to change, to put another in place of. بَدَّلَ (tafʿīl) — to exchange one thing for another. Badal, tabdīl and istibdāl are from the same root.

And this threat occurs in several places in the Qurʾān:

• "If you turn away, He will bring another people in your place; then they will not be like you." (Muḥammad 47/38)
• "O you who believe! Whoever of you turns back from his religion, God will bring a people whom…" (al-Māʾida 5/54)
• "If He wills, He can remove you and bring others in your place." (al-Nisāʾ 4/133; Ibrāhīm 14/19-20; Fāṭir 35/16-17)

The shared idea is this: the call does not depend on its addressee. The addressee may change; the call continues.

And this links up with the fifth verse of the sūra. There it had said "be patient". Patience requires accepting that the outcome is not in one's own hands. The fortieth verse gives the ground of that acceptance: the outcome is not in your hands anyway; and if need be, others will be brought.

I record this as my own reading. The link between the two verses is a reading.

خَيْرًا مِّنْهُمْ — "better than them". And note: the verse does not say "others"; it says "better than them". So the change is not a mere substitution but an improvement.

Root: س-ب-ق. Sabaqa — to pass, to get ahead, to leave behind. Sābiq (the one in front), sibāq (a race) and musābaqa are from the same root.

مَسْبُوق is the passive participle: one who is passed, outrun, left behind in a race.

Mā naḥnu bi-masbūqīn — "we are not to be outrun." And the bāʾ is redundant; it conveys emphasis. The same note was set down for the mā … bi- structure in the section on al-Takwīr 81/22: not "is not" but "is by no means".

There are two readings of the expression's sense:

The Qurʾān's own usage supports the first reading: "Do those who do evil suppose they will outrun Us?" (al-ʿAnkabūt 29/4 — an yasbiqūnā).

Both occur in the sources and come out in the same place. I do not impose a preference.

And the word comes from the field of racing. In a race, to be "passed" is to fall behind. The verse takes this image and rejects it.

And this links up with the first verse of the sūra: the man was taking the delay of the punishment as evidence. The forty-first verse gives the answer: delay is not falling behind.

I record this as my own reading.

Fa-dharhum yakhūḍū wa yalʿabū ḥattā yulāqū yawmahumu'lladhī yūʿadūn "So leave them to plunge and to play until they meet the day they are promised."

In the fifth verse it had said "be patient"; here it says "leave". The sūra's two commands, at its two ends.

And the two commands together describe a stance: hold yourself in (patience), do not interfere with them (leaving).

فَذَرْ — Root: و-ذ-ر. Wadhara — to leave, to abandon. The verb has a curious feature: in Arabic its perfect and its verbal noun are not used; only the imperative and the imperfect forms are in service. The missing places are filled by the verb taraka.

This command occurs in several places in the Qurʾān, and always in the same context:

• "Leave them to eat and to enjoy themselves, and let hope distract them." (al-Ḥijr 15/3)
• "Leave Me and the deniers." (al-Muzzammil 73/11)
• "Leave those who have taken their religion as play and amusement." (al-Anʿām 6/70)

And this command is not a giving up. The Qurʾān at the same time commands the conveying of the message. The sense of the command is this: stop forcing, stop taking the outcome on yourself.

The measure recorded in this commentary in the sections on al-Ghāshiya 88/22 and al-Fajr 89/14 holds here too: "the watch-post belongs not to the messenger but to the Lord"; "your task is to convey."

Root: خ-و-ض. And the concrete sense of the root sets the image.

خَاضَ ٱلْمَاءَ — he entered the water, he walked in the water, he sank into mud. This is the primary sense of the root: to enter a liquid and walk in it.

And from here the metaphor arises: khāḍa fi'l-ḥadīth — he plunged into talk; especially empty, groundless, irresponsible talk.

The logic of the metaphor: one who walks in water does not see where he sets his foot; the bottom is murky, he does not know what he is treading on. So it is with one who plunges into empty talk: he does not see where he is arriving.

I transmit this explanation; the concrete sense of the root is set down in the dictionaries, and the logic of the metaphor is an explanation of the kind the lexicographers give.

And this word occurs in a verse mentioned in the section on al-Māʿūn.

In the section on al-Māʿūn al-Muddaththir 74/42-46 was transmitted: the four-item confession of those in the Fire. The third item was this:

"We used to plunge into vain talk with those who plunged." (al-Muddaththir 74/45 — wa kunnā nakhūḍu maʿa'l-khāʾiḍīn)

So al-Maʿārij 70/42 describes what is confessed in al-Muddaththir 74/45.

And note a detail in the sentence in al-Muddaththir — "with those who plunged". That is, the act is not done alone; it is a collective business.

And so it is in al-Maʿārij: "yakhūḍū" is plural, and two verses earlier it had said ʿizīn (scattered groups). People gathered in clumps, plunging together.

I record this as my own reading. The wordings of the two verses and the transmission in the section on al-Māʿūn are data that can be verified.

The root's other occurrences: "You plunged as they plunged" (al-Tawba 9/69); "When you see those who talk idly about Our signs, turn away from them" (al-Anʿām 6/68).

Root: ل-ع-ب. Laʿiba — to play. Luʿba (a game), malʿab (a playing-ground).

And there is a definition of this word in the Qurʾān: play is work that has no result. The Qurʾān qualifies the life of this world with this word in several places:

• "The life of this world is only play and amusement." (al-Anʿām 6/32; al-ʿAnkabūt 29/64; Muḥammad 47/36; al-Ḥadīd 57/20)

Why are the two verbs side by side?

So one describes their tongues, the other their hands. Together the two take in a whole life: what is said and what is done.

I record this as my own reading.

And one more thing: both verbs are in the jussive as the response to a command (yakhūḍū, yalʿabū). That is, grammatically the structure "leave them so that they may plunge" is built. This is not permission; it is the statement of a consequence.

The verse does not say "allow them to plunge"; it says "if you leave them, they plunge".

Root: ل-ق-ي. To meet, to encounter. مُلَاقَاة (mufāʿala) — a mutual meeting.

This pattern was treated in the section on al-Ḥāqqa 69/20 (mulāqin ḥisābiyah) and was also taken up in the section on al-Inshiqāq 84/6. I do not repeat it; in summary: the mufāʿala form conveys reciprocity, that is, a person comes face to face with his reckoning.

حَتَّىٰ is a particle of limit: "until". That is, the plunging and the playing come to an end at a point.

And this sets the tone of the whole verse. The command is "leave", but the leaving is not without term; it has a limit.

So the verse says: this state is temporary; its end point is fixed.

And the possessive construction here is noteworthy.

The verse does not say "that day". It says "their day": yawma-hum.

That is, the day is attributed to them. As though the day were their property.

There are two readings, and both are possible:

The second is a reading and goes further; I do not present it as certain. But the presence of the possessive construction is in the text.

يُوعَدُونَ — Root: و-ع-د. Waʿd — to promise. Passive: "which they are promised".

And the verb is imperfect: the promise continues, it is renewed.

Yawma yakhrujūna mina'l-ajdāthi sirāʿan ka-annahum ilā nuṣubin yūfiḍūn · Khāshiʿatan abṣāruhum tarhaquhum dhillah; dhālika'l-yawmu'lladhī kānū yūʿadūn "The day they come out of the graves in haste, as though they were racing towards a standing stone. Their eyes cast down, humiliation covering them. That is the day they were promised."

Root: ج-د-ث. Jadath — a grave, a tomb. Its plural is أَجْدَاث.

Arabic has several words for a grave: qabr, jadath, ramz, ḍarīḥ. Jadath brings forward the pit aspect of a grave.

The word occurs in three places in the Qurʾān, and all three are in the same scene:

• "With their eyes cast down, they will come out of the graves as though they were scattered locusts." (al-Qamar 54/7)
• "And suddenly they are hastening from their graves to their Lord." (Yāsīn 36/51)
• al-Maʿārij 70/43.

And this verse is strikingly close to al-Qamar 54/7.

Both verses carry the same three elements: cast-down eyes, coming out of the graves, and a simile. The only thing that changes is the simile.

And now we can complete a comparison framed earlier in this commentary.

In the section on al-Qāriʿa, al-Qamar 54/7 was compared with al-Qāriʿa 101/4, and the following was recorded:

"A swarm of locusts goes in a common direction. It has a direction, it has an order; what is fearsome about it is its numbers and its destructiveness. A swarm of moths has no direction. Each goes somewhere else. Al-Qāriʿa chose the second. The sūra's emphasis is not on the crowd but on the loss of direction."

Al-Maʿārij adds a third simile — and that simile says something different from both: