al-Shūrā 42:43

Wa la-man ṣabara wa ghafara inna dhālika la-min ʿazmi'l-umūr

"And whoever endures and forgives — that is among the matters that call for resolve."

Note: the two verses begin with the same structure.

The same lām of emphasis, the same conditional pattern, two opposite behaviours. This is a fact that can be verified from the text and is the proof of the balance at the level of arrangement: the two behaviours are presented in the same grammatical form.

ʿAzm — root ع-ز-م. It occurred in al-Aḥqāf at 46/35 in connection with ulu'l-ʿazm. The sense of the root: to resolve firmly upon a matter, to make one's intention firm. The lexicographers record that the root holds certainty and firmness.

The construction ʿazmu'l-umūr occurs in three places in the Qurʾān, and the context of all three is the same:

In all three occurrences the construction comes together with endurance. This is a verifiable fact.

And the work of the construction here must be recorded, because it is the last piece of the balance.

When a person gives up his right, an onlooker can read it in two ways: as virtue or as inability.

The construction ʿazmu'l-umūr closes the second reading. The word ʿazm conveys decision and will. Pardon, that is, is named not "not being able to" but "deciding not to".

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the lexical sense of the word.

Now, by tabulating together the four verses from the fortieth to the forty-third, I show how the balance is built. This is a structure of arrangement that can be verified from the text.

The two ends of the balance are these, and both are the text's own expressions:

One end: not submission. The thirty-ninth verse counts taking one's right as an attribute; the forty-first plainly defends the one who takes his right. The sūra does not praise submitting to a wrong.

The other end: not locking oneself into retaliation. The fortieth verse ties pardon to an unmeasured reward; the forty-third names pardon a work of will. The sūra does not present making a return as the only way either.

And the passage between the two ends has been secured, at the level of arrangement, as follows:

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding:

These four verses reject two false solutions at once.

The first false solution: "pardon in every case." This makes wrongdoing sustainable, because no cost is left in front of the wrongdoer. The sūra closes this with the thirty-ninth and forty-first verses.

The second false solution: "always make a return." This turns a relationship into a series of accounts and carries the constant risk of overstepping the mithl limit. The sūra balances this with the note at the end of the fortieth verse and with the forty-third.

And what must be noticed is this: the sūra imposes no preference. Both ways are left open. What is said is that both are lawful and that the recompense of one will come from elsewhere.

One further observation: in the fortieth verse the condition of pardon is two verbs — ʿafā and aṣlaḥa. The pardon the sūra praises, that is, is the pardon that repairs a relationship. A giving-up that does not repair does not fully fall under the wording of the verse.

The counsel given to a person who has been wronged usually falls into one of two extremes: either "do not dwell on it" is said and the wrong becomes normal, or "pursue your right to the end" is said and the matter fills the person's whole life.

These four verses do neither. They grant the right, set its limit, encourage pardon, but do not make pardon obligatory and do not blame the one who does not pardon.

And in practice the most useful note is the sentence at the end of the fortieth verse: innahu lā yuḥibbu'ẓ-ẓālimīn. The possibility of turning into a wrongdoer while making a return is recalled in the very sentence that grants the right. This is the place where the exercise of a right most often slips: the return's not stopping at the limit of mithl.