al-Maʿārij 70:32-33

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.