al-Nāziʿāt 79:37-41 — Two groups

Fa-ammā man ṭaghā · Wa āthara'l-ḥayāta'l-dunyā · Fa-inna'l-jaḥīma hiya'l-maʾwā · Wa ammā man khāfa maqāma rabbihi wa naha'l-nafsa ʿani'l-hawā · Fa-inna'l-jannata hiya'l-maʾwā

"As for him who ran beyond bounds and preferred the life of this world — the Blaze, that is the refuge. And as for him who feared the station of his Lord and restrained the self from craving — the Garden, that is the refuge."

This pattern was treated in the section on al-Qāriʿa and the finding there is not repeated.

In brief: أَمَّا is a particle of tafṣīl (setting out in detail); its answer must contain a فَ; and the feature of the pattern is this: the division is definite and leaves no gap between — there are two categories, there is no third.

The comparison with al-Qāriʿa is especially fruitful here, because there the symmetry of the pattern was broken and this was treated in detail.

What was recorded in al-Qāriʿa was this:

And there this was written: "The conditional clauses are exactly symmetrical… But the answering clauses are not symmetrical."

In al-Nāziʿāt the case is exactly the reverse:

The answers are exactly symmetrical. Only one word changes: jaḥīm / janna.

And the conditions are symmetrical too: on both sides there are two verbs.

I record this as my own reading, but the comparison can be made directly from the text:

The two sūras use the same pattern but take the measure from a different place. In al-Qāriʿa an operation is performed on the person; in al-Nāziʿāt the person's own deeds are counted.

And now let us look at the four verbs. This is the densest place in the sūra.

In each pair there is one inner and one outer movement — and the two run in opposite directions:

That is, the two groups are each other's mirror: the one overflows outward and makes a choice within; the other fears within and intervenes within.

I record this as my own reading. The meanings of the four verbs are, however, dictionary data.

And the backbone of the sūra is completed here.

The sūra turns a historical figure into a measure.

In the seventeenth verse running beyond bounds was the state of one person. In the thirty-seventh verse it becomes a category: man (whoever) — indefinite, open to everyone.

And this is one of the clearest instances in the text of the principle recorded in the method (Method): "what the verse describes are attributes; whoever bears that attribute is included in it."

The sūra does not recount Pharaoh and then say "such are the wicked". It recounts Pharaoh and gives the measure. And the measure holds for everyone whose name is not mentioned.

I record this as my own reading, but the repetition of the word and the indefiniteness of man are in the text.

One further observation: Sūrat al-Nabaʾ had used the same word too — li'l-ṭāghīna maʾābā (78/22), "for those who run beyond bounds, a place of return". But there the word came directly as an attribute; there was no narrative.

The two neighbouring sūras set up the same attribute by two roads: al-Nabaʾ names it directly, al-Nāziʿāt first shows its example and then names it.

Root: أ-ث-ر. And the concrete sense of the root is a track.

• أَثَر — a track, a footprint, a remnant. In the Qurʾān: "upon their tracks…" (al-Ṣāffāt 37/70; al-Zukhruf 43/22-23).
• ءَاثَرَ — he preferred, he put first, he chose.
• إِيثَار — to prefer another to oneself.
• مَآثِر — the traces left behind, the works.

This root was treated in the section on al-ʿĀdiyāt — there فَأَثَرْنَ بِهِۦ نَقْعًا (100/4) was taken up and the root's sense of "raising dust" was recorded within that sūra's agricultural weave.

The connection between "track" and "preference". The explanation the lexicographers give: to prefer a thing is to follow its track; or the thing preferred is put in front, and its track becomes visible.

And a derivative of the word is mentioned in the Qurʾān with praise:

"They prefer them to themselves, even though they are themselves in need." (al-Ḥashr 59/9 — wa yuʾthirūna ʿalā anfusihim)

Here there is something worth recording.

The same verb is a virtue at al-Ḥashr 59/9 and a fault at al-Nāziʿāt 79/38.

The difference is in the object: in al-Ḥashr another is preferred to oneself; in al-Nāziʿāt this world is preferred to the hereafter.

That is, the verb is not in itself good or bad. Preferring is a structural business of the human being; the question is what is preferred to what.

I record this as an observation about the language. And I add this, as my own reading: this is a repetition of a pattern recorded several times in this commentary — the same thing was said in the discussion of al-Ṣamad in al-Ikhlāṣ, of hāwiya in al-Qāriʿa, and of ittikhādh in al-Nabaʾ: the human being chooses in any case; the question is what he chooses.

The Qurʾān describes this preference elsewhere with the same verb:

"But you prefer the life of this world; whereas the hereafter is better and more lasting." (al-Aʿlā 87/16-17)

This verse is almost identical with al-Nāziʿāt 79/38 and adds a ground as well: better and more lasting.

ٱلدُّنْيَا — Root: د-ن-و. This root was treated at al-Baqara 2/61 and the finding there will be relied on.

What was recorded there was this: the root carries together the senses of being near and being low; dunyā comes from the same root and "the name of this life is 'the nearer one'"; and "the language itself delivers a verdict: what is near and what is low are named with the same word."

And this was written there: "What can be grasped by hand, reached at once, tasted now, is for that very reason the lower in worth. The name the Qurʾān chooses for 'this world' already carries this assessment within it."

What is to be added here is this: the word is an elative.

دُنْيَا is the feminine of أَدْنَىٰ — that is, an elative (a comparative/superlative): "the nearer", "the nearest".

And this requires a comparison. To say "nearer" requires the existence of something "further".

The Qurʾān names that further one: ٱلْـَٔاخِرَة — "the later, the one at the end".

That is, both lives have been named with relative words:

Neither of them carries a name of its own; they are named relative to one another.

I record this as an observation about the language.

And I add a conclusion, as my own reading: this naming makes it impossible, at the level of the language itself, to think of the two lives independently of one another. To say "this world" is already to presuppose a "hereafter" — because the expression "the nearer" is meaningless on its own.

And the fault in the thirty-eighth verse is exactly this: the person prefers "the nearer one" — that is, he makes a comparison and counts nearness as superiority.

خَافَ — Root: خ-و-ف. To fear.

And a word-choice here is worth recording. In verses nineteen, twenty-six and forty-five the sūra was using the root خَشْيَة. Here خَوْف is used.

The distinction recorded above should be recalled: the lexicographers count khawf general fear and khashya fear grounded in knowledge.

That the two words are found together in this sūra deserves to be recorded as an observation, but I do not claim that the difference between them is being deliberately used here — because the distinction is not a rule the lexicographers apply rigidly everywhere.

مَقَام — Root: ق-و-م. To stand. مَقَام — the place of standing, the position of standing, a station. And as a mīmic verbal noun: standing.

There are three views on the meaning of the construction:

The first and second views do not exclude one another and both arrive at the same thing: the person's knowing that he is under a watching and a reckoning.

The Qurʾān uses the same construction in one other place:

"For him who fears the station of his Lord there are two gardens." (al-Raḥmān 55/46)

The two verses carry exactly the same expression and both give the same result: the Garden.

The most quoted sentence of the sūra.

نَهَىٰ — Root: ن-ه-ي. To forbid, to hold back, to set an end.

And the idea beneath the root is worth recording: نِهَايَة — an end, a finish. مُنْتَهَىٰ — the final point that is reached.

That is, nahy is to set a final limit to something. To forbid is to say "this far".

And this connects with the forty-fourth verse of the sūra:

"Its final end belongs to your Lord." (79/44 — ilā rabbika مُنتَهَىٰهَا)

The same root, two distinct limits. One the limit a person sets for himself; the other the limit no one knows.

This is a repetition of a root that can be verified. The meaning the link sets up is my own reading.

ٱلنَّفْس — the self. This word was treated in detail in the section on Sūrat al-Shams and the findings there are not repeated.

But a grammatical point should be recorded: the verse does not say "his self", it says "the self" — ٱلنَّفْسَ, with the definite article, without annexation.

This choice is explained in two ways:

The first is the more widespread. The second is meaningful too and adds something: what is forbidden is not a fault peculiar to the person; it is the general tendency of the self.

ٱلْهَوَىٰ — craving.

Root: ه-و-ي. And this root was treated in detail in the section on al-Qāriʿa. The finding there will not be repeated here, but it needs recalling, because it carries the whole weight of this verse.

What was recorded in al-Qāriʿa was this: هَوَىٰ — to fall from a height; هَاوِيَة — the place fallen into, one of the names of the Fire; and:

"In Arabic 'desire' and 'to fall' are from the same root. What the lexicographers say about this connection is: hawā is what pulls a person downward; the word itself contains the fall. That is: whoever follows his craving arrives at hāwiya."

Now let us apply this to the present verse.

"He restrained the self from craving" — that is, he restrained the self from the fall. The word itself states the direction of the thing that must be restrained.

And the comparison of the two sūras is fruitful here:

Al-Qāriʿa uses the root as a point of arrival; al-Nāziʿāt as a point of departure. The two sūras take hold of the two ends of the same root.

This is a shared root that can be verified. The connection had already been set up in the section on al-Qāriʿa; here it is completed.

Craving in the Qurʾān. The word is almost always in a negative context in the Qurʾān:

"Have you seen him who takes his craving as his god?" (al-Jāthiya 45/23; al-Furqān 25/43)

"Do not follow craving, or it will lead you astray from the way of God." (Ṣād 38/26)

"They follow only conjecture and what their selves crave." (al-Najm 53/23)

ٱلْمَأْوَىٰ — Root: أ-و-ي. To take shelter, to take refuge. مَأْوَىٰ — the place taken refuge in, a refuge.

In the Qurʾān this verb occurs in scenes of taking shelter: "when they took refuge in the cave" (al-Kahf 18/10, 16); "I shall take refuge on a mountain that will protect me" (Hūd 11/43 — Noah's son).

And that the word comes with the definite article in both verses is worth recording.

The verse does not say "the Blaze is his refuge"; it says "the Blaze, that is the refuge" — hiya'l-maʾwā.

The meeting of two definite elements announces restriction in Arabic — this was recorded for Allāhu'l-Ṣamad in the section on al-Ikhlāṣ.

That is, the meaning is: there is no other refuge. That is the refuge.

And this connects with the section on al-Qāriʿa. There, in treating the expression "his mother is Hāwiya", this was recorded:

"To say 'his mother is Hāwiya' is to say 'that is the place he can go back to'. The person is not merely thrown somewhere; he arrives at the place he belongs to."

Al-Nāziʿāt sets up the same idea on both sides at once: both the Blaze and the Garden are al-maʾwā. In al-Qāriʿa it had been used for one side only.

And it connects with al-Nabaʾ as well. There the word مَـَٔاب (a place of return) was used twice, for two different addresses (78/22 and 78/39).

Three sūras, three words, the same idea:

All three say the same thing: a person arrives somewhere, and the place he arrives at is the place he belongs to.

I record this table as my own reading; the root senses of the three words are, however, dictionary data.