al-Naḥl 16:126-127

Wa in ʿāqabtum fa-ʿāqibū bi-mithli mā ʿūqibtum bih, wa la-in ṣabartum la-huwa khayrun li'l-ṣābirīn · Wa'ṣbir wa mā ṣabruka illā bi'llāh, wa lā taḥzan ʿalayhim wa lā taku fī ḍayqin mimmā yamkurūn

"If you punish, punish with the like of what you were punished with. But if you are patient, that is better for the patient. · So be patient. And your patience is only by God. Do not grieve over them, and do not be in distress at what they plot."

These two verses build the balance treated in detail at al-Shūrā, 42/40-43, and I rely on that treatment. What was recorded there was this:

"The sentence calls the recompense that is a man's right sayyiʾa as well… That the recompense should be called an 'evil' shows that using one's right and virtue are not the same thing. A man takes his right and is not blamed for it — the forty-first verse will say this outright. But what he takes is not named a good thing." "Mithl — equal, matching. And this word is the sentence's most important limit: the recompense must be equal. More than that is wrongdoing." "Immediately after the fortieth verse praises pardon, the forty-first defends the one who does not pardon. This order matters: had pardon been praised and left there, the man who takes his right would have been blamed by implication. The verse closes that door."

Now I compare the two places:

All six lines can be verified from the text. And three things must be recorded:

One — the word of measure is the same: mithl. Both sūras limit the right of recompense by equivalence. And what was recorded in al-Shūrā holds here too: more than that is wrongdoing.

Two — the name of what is held higher changes. al-Shūrā says ʿafw (pardon); al-Naḥl says ṣabr (endurance).

I record this as my own reading, and my ground is the difference between the two words: ʿafw is the relinquishing of a right — an act turned towards the other party. Ṣabr is endurance — a state turned towards oneself. al-Shūrā, then, puts the relation at the centre, al-Naḥl the person.

And in al-Shūrā ʿafw was not counted sufficient on its own; iṣlāḥ was added beside it. In al-Naḥl ṣabr comes alone — but with a qualification: wa mā ṣabruka illā bi'llāh.

Three — and the two sūras meet at the same place. al-Shūrā 42/43 says: wa la-man ṣabara wa ghafara inna dhālika la-min ʿazmi'l-umūr. al-Shūrā too, then, arrives in the end at the word ṣabr.

It was recorded in the al-Shūrā section: the construction ʿazmu'l-umūr occurs in three places in the Qurʾān, and in all three it comes together with ṣabr. al-Naḥl's closing stands like a fourth textual counterpart to that set of three — without using the construction, but arriving at the same place.

I record this sentence separately, because it is a limitation that comes with the command itself.

The wording of the sentence is this: a command (wa'ṣbir) → immediately after it a limitation (wa mā ṣabruka illā bi'llāh).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that juxtaposition: the verse commands patience and in the same breath says that the patience does not issue from the addressee's own source. In giving the command it also states where the strength to carry it out will come from.

And the same structure was recorded at Fuṣṣilat, 41/35: wa mā yulaqqāhā illa'lladhīna ṣabarū wa mā yulaqqāhā illā dhū ḥaẓẓin ʿaẓīm — the verb was passive: "it is granted". It was recorded there: "this stance is named not as a temperament that comes of itself but as something given." al-Naḥl says the same thing outright: illā bi'llāh.

This is an overlap verifiable across the sūras.

Two further prohibitions are added, and both are turned inward:

The root ح-ز-ن: the concrete sense the lexicographers give is hard, broken, difficult ground (al-ḥazn). Grief thus carries in its root the picture of "ground that is hard to walk on".

The root ض-ي-ق: narrowness, being pressed. And at al-Naml, 27/70, the same two prohibitions occur together (wa lā taḥzan ʿalayhim wa lā takun fī ḍayqin mimmā yamkurūn) — almost word for word the same sentence. This verse was treated in the al-Naml section, and the return of the root م-ك-ر within that sūra was recorded there. I rely on that treatment.

The exact overlap of the two verses must be recorded, and it is a verifiable fact.

And it was recorded in al-Ḥadīd: the Qurʾān records the grief of the prophets and does not condemn it — and this verse ("do not grieve over them") was named there as evidence. I rely on that treatment and take the note over here: the prohibition shows that the grief exists. What does not exist is not forbidden.

مِّمَّا يَمْكُرُونَ — and the root م-ك-ر occurs for the third and last time in the sūra (26, 45, 127). This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

I record this as my own reading: in the sūra the root occurs first as a finished history, then as a threat, and finally as a reason for consolation. The same fact is named from three distances, and in the last the addressee is told "do not be pressed by this" — because at the first occurrence its outcome had already been shown.