al-Humaza 104:2

Alladhī jamaʿa mālan wa ʿaddadah "He who gathered wealth and counted it over and over."

Alladhī is a relative pronoun, and it is an adjective to the humaza lumaza of the preceding verse: "every humaza lumaza who…"

There is a point of grammar here. Alladhī is singular, whereas the word it qualifies has come with kull and conveys plurality in sense. In Arabic it is permissible to treat kull as singular according to its wording and as plural according to its sense; here the sūra uses the singular, and in the eighth verse (ʿalayhim — "over them") it will use the plural. This is not an inconsistency but the separate use of the two faces of kull.

In respect of meaning, what follows is this: a relative pronoun gives not an identity but a description. It does not say "such-and-such a man"; it says "the man who does this". The identity indefinite, the behaviour definite.

جمع — to bring together, to gather, to build up a store.

مالًا has come indefinite. Not "the wealth" but "a wealth". In Arabic indefiniteness conveys either belittlement or magnification; here the exegetes defend both. But it has a more important consequence: the kind of the wealth, its quantity and its source are not stated.

This is a deliberate gap. The sūra does not say "unlawful wealth", does not say "stolen wealth", does not say "wealth earned by usury". The method of earning never comes up at all. The criticism is directed not at where the wealth came from but at the relationship formed with the wealth.

This is the first point that separates the sūra from a criticism of income.

The densest word of the sūra.

Pattern: the تفعيل (tafʿīl) form. One of the functions of this form is takthīr: it conveys the multiplicity of the act, its repetition, its intensity. As in kasara (he broke) → kassara (he broke into pieces); or qattala (he killed many).

So ʿaddada is not "he counted" but "he counted over and over". Not an operation done once, but an operation repeated.

There is disagreement over the meaning of the word, and two main readings stand together in the sources:

A third, less widespread reading is also transmitted: to diversify — to increase the kinds of the wealth, to multiply its items.

All three come out at the same place in the text: the wealth becoming, instead of something used, an object that is kept. But the first reading is the one that overlaps best with the rest of the sūra; for the verb that is to come in the third verse (yaḥsabu — he supposes) is a verb of the mind, and counting too is an operation of the mind. There is a natural passage between the two.

The structure of the sentence looks simple, but it holds a complete diagnosis.

Gathering is an act done once. An operation is carried out, the wealth increases, it is over. Counting is repetitive — and the tafʿīl pattern registers this grammatically. The verse, that is, shows two separate stages in the life of wealth: it is acquired once, it is counted continually.

The verbs that are not said are at least as important as those that are. The verse does not say: he spent, he ate, he used, he gave, he invested, he put it to work, he distributed. Wealth does not appear at all as an economic instrument. Only two things happen: it accumulates, and it is counted.

This is the description of wealth's ceasing to be a means and becoming an end. The value of a means lies in its use; the value of an end lies in its existence. The act of counting is exactly the sign of this change: if you count a thing again and again, you are not using it.

Why does a man count what he owns again and again?

Number has a function, and that function is not economic but mental: number makes uncertainty measurable. You cannot say anything definite about the situation you are in; but you can say something definite about the quantity of what you own. Number extracts a controllable figure out of an uncontrollable field.

The consequence of this is that the relief counting gives is short-lived. For the number does not remove the real uncertainty; it merely stands in its place. When the uncertainty returns, the counting is repeated with it.

The verse's choice of the tafʿīl pattern sits exactly on this point. The repetition lies not in the nature of the act but in the act's not working. If an operation yields a result, there is no need for it to be repeated.

A limit has to be drawn here: this is not a clinical diagnosis and must not be read as one. The sūra is not speaking of an illness; it is speaking of an ordinary and widespread behaviour that everyone recognises. Nor is repetition in itself a fault. What the verse counts as the fault will be said in the third verse: what the number stands in the place of.

The same behaviour is described in other places in the Qurʾān too, and almost always with the same two verbs:

"He gathered and stored away." (al-Maʿārij 70/18)

A sentence of two words, and of the same structure as al-Humaza 104/2: a verb of gathering, and after it a verb of keeping. There too what is told is not what was done with the wealth but what was not done with it.

"I gave him extended wealth, and sons before his eyes… Then he hopes that I will give him more." (al-Muddaththir 74/12-13, 15)

Here too the same type of character is described: one who has been given, hoping for more. And there is a striking word: the wealth is mamdūd — extended. The last word of Sūrat al-Humaza is mumaddad — extended. The two sūras qualify two different things with the same root (م-د-د): the one the wealth, the other the columns of the fire. I record this as an observation, not as a claim.

"Wealth and sons are the adornment of the life of this world." (al-Kahf 18/46)

"Does he suppose that his wealth will profit him? No — he will surely be flung into the Crusher" — this is al-Humaza's own sentence; but the Qurʾān states the same judgement openly in other places as well: "His wealth will not profit him when he falls" (al-Layl 92/11); "His wealth and what he earned did not profit him" (al-Masad 111/2).