al-Muṭaffifīn 83:29-31

Inna'lladhīna ajramū kānū mina'lladhīna āmanū yaḍḥakūn • Wa idhā marrū bihim yataghāmazūn • Wa idha'nqalabū ilā ahlihimu'nqalabū fakihīn "Those who committed crimes used to laugh at those who believed. When they passed by them they would wink to one another. And when they returned to their households they would return delighting."

Up to verse twenty-eight the sūra related two groups: the fujjār and the abrār. In the twenty-ninth verse the scene changes: it turns from the hereafter to this world.

And the function of this section is this: in the first half of the sūra a verdict was given; in this section the behaviour that verdict rests on is shown.

There is also a change of manner: verses 1-28 were sentences of verdict and description; verses 29-33 tell a story. A narration built with four idhā's, advancing scene by scene.

Root: ج-ر-م. And the lexicographers have recorded an explanation of the concrete sense of the root:

Jarm means to cut, to pluck — in particular to pluck fruit from its tree. Jarama'n-nakhla — he gathered the dates, he cut them off. Jarīm — cut off, plucked.

From here jurm — crime. The explanation the lexicographers give: a crime is an act that tears the person from where he stands or that cuts a bond.

I transmit this explanation as the lexicographers have recorded it; I do not offer it as a settled etymology.

The word's form ajrama (the ifʿāl form) means "to commit a crime". Mujrim is a frequently used word in the Qurʾān.

And one fixed expression is striking: lā jarama — a formula of oath or assertion occurring in the Qurʾān, in the sense "assuredly, without any doubt". Its connection with the root's sense "to cut" runs through the idea of "decisively".

The choice of the word is meaningful: the verse does not say "the unbelievers" or "the deniers". It says "those who committed crimes". That is, the mockery is named not as a matter of belief but as an act.

And this repeats the diagnosis of verse 12: the source of denial is a moral ground.

The structure: kāna + imperfect. In Arabic this conveys a continuing past: not an event that happened once but a behaviour that has become a habit.

The same structure occurred twice earlier in the sūra: mā kānū yaksibūn (14) and kuntum bihī tukadhdhibūn (17). In all three a repeated, settled act is being related.

ضَحِكَ — root ض-ح-ك: to laugh. And when the verb comes with the particle مِن it means "to laugh at someone, to mock" — the same structure as the English "to laugh at".

And there is a detail in the word order: kānū mina'lladhīna āmanū yaḍḥakūn. The phrase (mina'lladhīna āmanū) has been brought in front of the verb.

An element brought forward gains emphasis. That is, the verse stresses not their laughing but whom they laughed at: those who believed, in particular.

This shows that the mockery was not random. A target had been chosen.

Root: غ-م-ز. Its concrete sense: to nudge, to press, to make a sign with the eye or the brow.

• ghamaza bi-ʿaynihi — he made a sign with his eye.
• al-ghamīza — a fault, a weak point; a defect found in someone that can be pointed out.
• ghamaza'd-dābba — he felt out the lameness of the animal.

The pattern: تَفَاعُل (tafāʿul) — reciprocity. Taghāmaza — they winked to one another.

This pattern explains the nature of mockery, and it has to be dwelt on.

The verb is reciprocal, that is, it requires at least two people. Mockery is not done alone. If one person is mocking another, a third person must see it; otherwise the act is not completed.

That is, mockery is an act that appears two-sided but is in fact three-sided: the mocker, the mocked, and the one who sees the mockery.

And the real addressee is the third. The wink is made not to the one mocked but to the one beside him.

This connects directly with لمز, taken up in the section on al-Humaza. It was recorded there: "لمز — to fault, to find defects, to belittle with a sign of brow and eye, to point in a way that lowers someone in others' esteem."

And the conclusion reached there: "the common ground of the two words is the act itself — to make someone small — and the difference lies in the instruments of that act."

Al-Muṭaffifīn 83/30 shows exactly this form of lamz — and with the tafāʿul pattern adds that it is a group act.

And the link set up in the section on al-Humaza appears here once more: there the joining of mockery and the hoarding of wealth in one and the same person was taken up, and this conclusion was reached — "belittling is the mechanism that turns accumulation into worth."

Al-Muṭaffifīn too holds the same two things together: those who shave off the measure (1-3) and those who laugh at the believers (29-33). The sūra does not join them plainly, but they stand at the two ends of the same text.

I record this link as my own reading.

A small detail, but it sets up the scene.

The party passing is the criminals. Marrū bihim — they pass. The believers are standing still.

That is, the scene is this: one group of people is standing somewhere; another group passes by them, and as they pass they look at one another and wink.

This picture accords with the other information the Qurʾān gives about the first years of Mecca: the believers were few in number, socially weak, and outside the main current of the society. As was taken up in the section on Quraysh, the leading men of Mecca held the trade and the standing of the city in their hands.

The verses recorded in the section on al-Humaza complete this picture:

• "And when they see you they take you only in mockery." (al-Furqān 25/41)
• "Why was this Qurʾān not sent down to a great man of the two cities?" (al-Zukhruf 43/31)

And the conclusion reached there: "The objection is not theological but positional." At al-Muṭaffifīn 83/32 the wording of that objection too will be given.

The same verb occurs twice in the verse: idha'nqalabū… inqalabū.

Root: ق-ل-ب. As was recorded in the section on al-Humaza, the original sense of the root is to turn, to be turned over, to pass from state to state; qalb (the heart) is from this root, because it passes from state to state.

Inqalaba (the infiʿāl form) — he turned, he turned back. And in Arabic it is used especially for returning home.

The repetition of the verb is not a grammatical necessity. The sentence could have been wa idha'nqalabū ilā ahlihim kānū fakihīn. The repetition is a choice.

In classical rhetoric the function of such repetitions is emphasis and drawing attention. Here there is a further function: the second occurrence of the verb states how the returning was. That is, "they returned" and "they returned delighting" are said separately.

And the root's sense of "passing from state to state" is at work here. The word itself conveys a change of state. But the verse says exactly the opposite: nothing changes in the returning. They come back in the same good spirits.

I offer this reading as my own inference.

This phrase is the sharpest detail of the section, and it is generally passed over.

The verse says where the mockery ends: it does not end. It goes home.

That is, the mockery made in the course of the day is recounted at home in the evening. The scene does not close; it is passed on.

This has two consequences:

One. The mockery leaves no trace on the conscience. If the person were troubled by what he had done, he would not be in good spirits on the way home. By saying fakihīn the verse records exactly the opposite: what was done is carried not as a burden but as a gain.

Two. The mockery multiplies within the household. A mockery recounted produces the same way of looking in those who hear it. The behaviour, that is, passes from one person to a household.

I offer this finding as my own reading; the verse does not speak plainly of a passing on, but the expression "returning to their households delighting" is open to this reading.

Root: ف-ك-ه. An interesting root: it carries both the sense of fruit and the sense of cheer.

• فَاكِهَة (fākiha) — fruit. In particular fruit that is not a staple food, eaten for pleasure.
• تَفَكُّه (tafakkuh) — to eat fruit; and figuratively to pass the time pleasantly, to jest.
• فَكِه (fakih) — cheerful, jesting, in good spirits.

The link the lexicographers set up is this: fruit is what is eaten not for need but for pleasure. Cheer is in the same category — not necessary, but pleasant.

That is, the word names the mockery an entertainment. What is done is not a quarrel, an enmity, a struggle; it is something sweet.

A variant reading. The word has been read in two ways:

Both readings are transmitted. I give no names of imams.

The difference in sense is small but real: the first conveys permanence, the second momentariness. The context appears better suited to the first, because throughout the sūra continuity has been stressed with the kāna + imperfect structure.

Another use in the Qurʾān is worth recording: "And a bounty in which they took delight." (al-Dukhān 44/27) — in the enumeration of the things the people of Pharaoh left behind. Again the same root, again the same tone.