وَأَنَّهُ كَانَ رِجَالٌ مِّنَ الْإِنسِ يَعُوذُونَ بِرِجَالٍ مِّنَ الْجِنِّ فَزَادُوهُمْ رَهَقًا
"And that: some men among human beings used to seek refuge with some men among the jinn; and this only increased them in oppression."
This is the most concrete verse in the first half of the sūra. What is related is not a belief but a practice. And the party relating it is the other side of that practice — those sought refuge with are relating the seeking of refuge.
The root ع-و-ذ was analysed in full in al-Falaq. The finding there: the original sense of the root is to take hold of something, to cling to it, to get behind it for protection; in seeking refuge there are two movements at once — moving away from a danger and moving towards something. The derivatives (istiʿādha, maʿādh, ʿiyādh, taʿawwudh, muʿawwidha) were listed there. I do not repeat the analysis.
And that section already referred to this verse. In the introduction to Sūrat al-Falaq, in relating why the word of refuge is taught, this note was entered: "The Qurʾān records a practice in which people sought refuge with the jinn, and states its outcome… That is, the act of 'seeking refuge' is not a neutral act; directed to the wrong address, it produces harm." This verse is the source of that note.
What is to be added here is the form of the verb. In the verse yaʿūdhūna occurs — the simple triliteral form, not istifʿāl. So it is not "they were asking for refuge" but directly "they were taking refuge". In Sūrat al-Falaq and Sūrat al-Nās the command is in the form aʿūdhu (first person singular, simple form). The same verb, the same form — the only thing that changes is the address.
This shows where the whole weight of the verse lies: what is criticised is not the seeking of refuge but with whom refuge is sought. The act is right, the direction wrong.
This choice must be dwelt on. The verse does not say "human beings used to seek refuge with jinn"; it says "rijāl among human beings used to seek refuge with rijāl among the jinn". The word is repeated on both sides.
First: the relation is two-sided and reciprocal. One kind is not seeking refuge with another kind. Particular persons are seeking refuge with particular persons. What is related, that is, is not a relation between kinds but established individual connections.
Second: a human word is used of the jinn. Rijāl is a word used in Arabic of human beings. Its use of the jinn drew the attention of the classical lexicographers and has generally been explained as "they too have their leading men, their strong ones, among themselves". This use of the word accords with verse 11 of the sūra: among the jinn too there are distinctions, degrees, groups.
Its coming indefinite. Both parties are indefinite: "some men". Not all human beings, not all jinn. The verse makes no generalisation; it speaks of a portion.
| Reading | The agent of zādūhum | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The jinn | The jinn increased the rahaq of the human beings who sought refuge. The party sought refuge with oppressed the seeker further. |
| 2 | The human beings | The human beings increased the rahaq of the jinn they sought refuge with — the demand shown them made the jinn insolent. |
Both readings have been defended in the classical commentaries. The first reading is the more widespread and sits better with the context: the jinn are telling their own story and what they relate is an error made by human beings; the consequence of an error is expected to fall on the one who made it. I record this as a preference; it is not binding. And the second reading says something meaningful too: a being sought refuge with is harmed by being sought refuge with — because it is settled into a position it does not deserve.
The verb زَادَ: to increase. And note: it does not say "they did not protect", it says "they increased". The verb is not negative but positive; but what it increases is bad.
This is a pattern of irony the Qurʾān uses often: in place of the expected outcome the exact opposite of the expected is put, and it is expressed as an increase in the same direction. The purpose of seeking refuge is to lighten a burden; the result has been the increase of the burden.
Root ر-ه-ق. Its concrete sense: to overtake someone and cover him, to bear down, to overlay. For a thing to follow after something, catch it up and ride upon it.
- murhaq — one on whom a load has been laid, one hard pressed, crushed under debt.
- irhāq — to lay on someone a burden he cannot carry.
- rahiqa — it caught up and covered.
- "On that day there are faces covered over with dust" (ʿAbasa 80/41 — tarhaquhā qatara). Dust settling over the face.
- "Neither a darkening nor a humiliation covers their faces" (Yūnus 10/26).
- "Do not lay on me a hardship in my affair" (al-Kahf 18/73 — Moses' words).
- "We feared he would impose on them insolence and unbelief" (al-Kahf 18/80 — yurhiqahumā).
The common image is this: rahaq is something that comes from outside, settles over one, and cannot be got out from under. The English "oppression" is an approximation; "to bear down on", "to smother", "to be weighed under" point to the same field.
The word occurs twice in the sūra: here (6) and in verse 13. The relation between the two occurrences is one of the tightest internal links of the sūra, and I shall take it up at verse 13.
In the classical commentaries this verse is connected with a custom known in pre-Islamic Arabia: travellers, in a valley where they halted, would speak a word of refuge to the jinn counted the "master" of that valley, to be protected from him. The formula transmitted is in the form of asking protection from the lord of that place.
I transmit this as a report. The existence of the practice is widely mentioned in the classical sources, and the verse's past tense (kāna… yaʿūdhūna) shows that a known custom is being pointed to. But I am not in a position to say anything certain about the wording of the formula, its currency or its regional distribution.
The verse itself is not concerned with the details of the practice in any case. The one thing it is concerned with is the outcome: this business did not lighten the burden, it increased it.
In this text I do not enter, by way of this verse, a field of practices — amulets, sorcery, methods of protection, and the descriptions and classifications belonging to them. In this verse the Qurʾān describes no method, forbids no method, gives no alternative procedure. The only thing it says is the outcome of a turning.
Whether seeking refuge produces protection depends not on the intent of the one seeking but on the capacity of the one sought.
And behind this principle stands the analysis of al-Ṣamad in Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ. This finding was made there: al-Ṣamad is the being in whom there is no hollow, and towards whom therefore all hollows turn; and "to treat as ṣamad what is not ṣamad" collapses, because it exceeds the capacity. Al-Jinn 72/6 is a concrete instance of that collapse. The party sought refuge with is a being in need of protection — indeed in verse 12 of the same sūra the jinn will say of themselves, "we cannot escape."
If the being sought refuge with is itself in need of refuge, it will be no refuge. The sūra will say this once more in verse 22, from the mouth of the Prophet, by way of the highest example: "No one can save me from God."
The structure the verse describes is a structure recognisable independently of the jinn: a search for protection producing a dependence heavier than the thing protected against.
The mechanism is this: a person attaches himself to a power in order to be protected from a danger. The power he attaches himself to does not remove the danger; but he now needs it, and that need becomes itself a burden. The original danger stands where it was, and a dependence has been added on top of it. This is exactly the image of the word rahaq: a load riding on top.
The measure of the verse can be used to test this structure: if a way of protection has begun to take up more room than the thing you wanted protection from, it is producing not protection but rahaq.