al-Ḥadīd 57:20

Iʿlamū annama'l-ḥayātu'd-dunyā laʿibun wa lahwun wa zīnatun wa tafākhurun baynakum wa takāthurun fi'l-amwāli wa'l-awlād; ka-mathali ghaythin aʿjaba'l-kuffāra nabātuhu thumma yahīju fa-tarāhu muṣfarran thumma yakūnu ḥuṭāmā; wa fi'l-ākhirati ʿadhābun shadīdun wa maghfiratun mina'llāhi wa riḍwān; wa ma'l-ḥayātu'd-dunyā illā matāʿu'l-ghurūr "Know that the life of this world is only a play, an amusement, an adornment, a boasting among yourselves and a rivalry in the multiplying of wealth and children. Like a rain whose growth delights the tillers; then it withers, and you see it turn yellow; then it becomes chaff. And in the hereafter there is a severe punishment, and forgiveness from God, and good pleasure. The life of this world is nothing but the enjoyment of delusion."

The Qurʾān's most detailed description of the life of this world. Five words, then a similitude, then a verdict.

This verse was mentioned in the section on al-Takāthur as "the sūra's dictionary" — for what Sūrat al-Takāthur does not say (the multiplying of what) this verse says. Now we take up the verse itself.

The five words are not ranged at random. The order needs examining:

In the classical commentaries it is said that this ordering corresponds to the stages of a human life: the child plays, the young man amuses himself, then he adorns himself, then he boasts, then he accumulates. This reading is widespread and reasonable; but since it is not stated plainly in the text I record it as an interpretation.

There is another logic to the ordering, visible from within the text, and it is firmer: the first three are for one person, the last two are reciprocal.

Play, amusement and adornment are things a person can do on his own. But tafākhur and takāthur are in the tafāʿul form — analysed fully in the section on al-Takāthur: this form conveys reciprocity (mushāraka); it shows the act going back and forth between two parties.

That is, the list moves from things done alone towards things done with another. And this is where the harm increases.

لعب — root ل-ع-ب: to play. At the centre of the word stands purposelessness: an occupation with no outcome, done for its own sake. The lexicographers describe laʿib as "an act with no outcome".

لهو — fully analysed in the section on al-Takāthur. What was recorded there: the root ل-ه-و, whose original sense is to turn away from a thing, to be occupied with something else; and the usual English rendering "amusement" is misleading, because at the centre of lahw stands not merriment but a shifting of place — attention is taken from one place and set upon another.

And the distinction the lexicographers make was recorded there as well: laʿib is purposeless play, while lahw is what draws a person away from what matters.

I do not repeat it here. What is to be recorded is that the two stand side by side in this verse too. In the section on al-Takāthur it was noted that this pair frequently occurs together in the Qurʾān, and al-Anʿām 6/32 was given as an example: "The life of this world is only a play and an amusement."

Al-Ḥadīd 57/20 raises that short description to five. Al-Anʿām is content with two words; al-Ḥadīd adds three more. And the three added words take the matter out of the individual and make it social.

Root: ز-ي-ن: to beautify, to adorn. From the same root come tazyīn (adorning), muzayyan.

The Qurʾān uses this root in an interesting way: mostly in the sense of a thing being "made to seem fair". "Their deeds were made to seem fair to them" (al-Anʿām 6/43, al-Naml 27/4 and elsewhere) — zuyyina lahum.

This usage shows the risk the word carries: an adornment is not the thing itself; it is what is put upon the thing. And what is adorned looks as good as its adornment.

The word is directly related to ghurūr (deception) in the last sentence of the verse. It was recorded in the section on al-Infiṭār: gharra is "to make a thing appear other than it is". Adornment does exactly that.

And zīna is a turning point in the verse's list. Play and amusement concern the person himself. Adornment, however, requires someone looking. If no one is going to see, one does not adorn oneself.

That is, at the third word another person enters the scene. And the fourth and fifth words describe the relation formed with that other person.

Root: ف-خ-ر: to boast. There is a note on the concrete sense of the word: some lexicographers connect the word فخّار (fakhkhār) — baked clay, earthenware — with the same root. It occurs in the Qurʾān: "He created the human being from dry clay like baked pottery" (al-Raḥmān 55/14).

This connection is the lexicographers' interpretation and is not certain. But if it is made, the picture that emerges is striking: hollow within, ringing when struck, easily broken. As a description of boasting.

The analysis of this root and of the word fakhūr was made in the section on al-Humaza, and the link between property and standing was taken up there. I do not repeat it here.

The pattern: تفاعل (tafāʿul) — reciprocity. Fakhara (he boasted) → tafākhara (they boasted against one another). This verb was counted among the examples when this form was illustrated in the section on al-Takāthur.

That is, tafākhur is not boasting on one's own. It is boasting becoming reciprocal — one side's boasting pushes the other into boasting.

Fully analysed in the section on al-Takāthur. What was recorded there:

• Root ك-ث-ر, pattern تفاعل: reciprocity
• Takāthur is not "to multiply" (that is taktīr); it is to vie with one another by multitude
• What is criticised is not accumulation itself but accumulation becoming relational
• And most importantly: in a pattern of reciprocity there is no finish line. An absolute threshold can be crossed; a relative measure has no threshold, because the measure keeps moving

I do not repeat it here. The only thing that must be recorded is this:

Sūrat al-Takāthur left the word without an annexed term — of what the multitude consisted was not said, and it was noted there that this was a deliberate ibhām (leaving indefinite). Al-Ḥadīd 57/20 supplies the annexed term: fi'l-amwāli wa'l-awlād — in wealth and in children.

That is, the two sūras complete one another: one gives the pattern, the other its commonest material.

That "children" should be named here is striking and must be read with care. The Qurʾān does not condemn having children — on the contrary it counts them a favour in many places. What is criticised is the child's becoming material for a competition in multitude as well: being seen as something to boast of by number, by success, by position.

The measure recorded in the section on al-Takāthur operates here exactly: to compete in the multitude of a good thing is also takāthur. The moral value of the material does not change the pattern.

Now the verse passes from a five-word description to an image.

غيث — root غ-ي-ث: to rush to help, to come to the rescue. From the same root come ighātha (help) and mughīth (one who helps). It occurs in the Qurʾān: "You were seeking help of your Lord" (al-Anfāl 8/9) — tastaghīthūna.

That this word should be used of rain is meaningful: a ghayth is not ordinary rain (maṭar) but the awaited rain, the needed rain, the rain that comes to the rescue. The rain that comes after drought.

This is the first element of the similitude and it sets the tone: what is described is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. A thing awaited.

Here is the place where the Qurʾān uses its own word in its own sense.

At al-Baqara 2/6 the root ك-ف-ر was fully analysed: its original sense is to cover, to put something over a thing, to conceal. And there, when the derivatives were counted, the tiller stood first — because he covers the seed with soil. And this very verse was cited as evidence:

"Like a rain whose growth delights the tillers (kuffār)" (al-Ḥadīd 57/20). The same word, in the same sūra, in an agricultural sense.

Now we are at the verse itself and can use the link exactly where it belongs.

كُفَّار here means not "the deniers" but "the tillers." This is the reading widely adopted in the classical commentaries, and its ground is the context: the one who rejoices at the growth of a plant is the one who sowed it.

A minority view reads the word as "the deniers" and explains it thus: those who rejoice most in this world are those who cover over the hereafter. This reading too does not run against the text, but the context supports the first more strongly — for the sentence is an agricultural scene and the word nabāt (growth) is named directly.

And here there is a fineness. That the two senses of the word should stand in the same sūra makes the original sense of the root visible: to cover. The tiller covers the seed, the denier covers the truth. The same act, two objects.

The definition recorded at al-Baqara 2/6 may be recalled here again: unbelief is not not-knowing; it is covering over what one knows. And the example of the tiller is the plainest proof of that definition — the tiller does not deny the existence of the seed, he covers it over.

أَعْجَبَ — root ع-ج-ب: to be astonished, to admire. ʿAjīb (astonishing), iʿjāb (to fill with admiration), ʿujb (self-admiration) are from the same root.

The verb is in the إفعال form: "it pleased him, it filled him with admiration." That is, the plant impresses the tiller.

And the choice of the word is striking here too. Aʿjaba conveys not a neutral satisfaction but admiration. The tiller looks at his crop and is filled with wonder. This is the exact counterpart of the relation to the world the sūra describes: what he sees really is beautiful and really is the fruit of his own labour.

The similitude does not make the world out to be worthless. On the contrary: it grants its value and its attraction.

هيج — root ه-ي-ج: to boil, to seethe, to be set in motion; and, of a plant, to dry up and wither.

These two senses of the root look unrelated at first glance. The lexicographers make the link thus: a thing's reaching its final point, its overflowing. When a plant reaches the final point of its growth it does not stop; it begins to dry. This link is the lexicographers' interpretation.

The choice of the word is extremely economical. A single verb carries both "it reached ripeness" and "it began to dry". That is, the peak and the decline are in the same word.

It would have been possible to tell this with two separate verbs: "it grew, then it dried." The verse tells it with one verb, and thereby implies that there is no separate moment between the two.

The conjunction ثُمَّ conveys tarākhī (an interval): "then", but after some time has passed. It differs from fāʾ. There are two thummas in the verse and both set time between the stages.

مصفرّ — root ص-ف-ر: to be yellow. The pattern is افعلال (ifʿilāl) — a particular form used in Arabic for colours and defects. This form conveys that the colour is thoroughly settled: iṣfarra — it turned wholly yellow.

That is, not "it went yellowish" but "it turned utterly yellow."

That the verb is turned towards the one addressed is striking: fa-tarāhu — "you see it." The verse suddenly turns to the reader. This is the device called iltifāt in Arabic (a shift in the direction of address), and its function here is plain: to move from describing the scene to placing the reader inside it.

حطام — root ح-ط-م: to break, to crumble, to shatter. Ḥuṭām is what has been broken up and crumbled — the state of dry grass when it is rubbed in the hand and falls apart.

From the same root comes حطمة (ḥuṭama), which occurs in verses 4-5 of Sūrat al-Humaza as a name of the Fire. That the root was treated there is useful here: ḥuṭama is the fire that breaks and crumbles.

It was treated in the section on al-Aʿlā: fa-jaʿalahu ghuthāʾan aḥwā — "then He made it darkened chaff."

What was recorded there:

• غثاء (ghuthāʾ) — the debris a flood carries on its surface
• أحوى (aḥwā) — a darkened colour; not pure black but green or red with black mixed into it
• And it was noted that there are two readings as to which word aḥwā qualifies, and that the first requires fewer assumptions

Al-Ḥadīd 57/20 and al-Aʿlā 87/4-5 draw the same picture but with different words:

The difference itself is meaningful. Al-Aʿlā finishes in two steps: He brought it out, He made it chaff. Al-Ḥadīd sets down three steps: it filled with wonder, it yellowed, it crumbled.

And the difference suits the work of each sūra. Al-Aʿlā is a short and sharp sūra; it moves fast. Al-Ḥadīd, on the other hand, wants to tell the process itself — for verse 16 of the sūra also described a process (fa-ṭāla ʿalayhimu'l-amad).

The difference of colour should also be noted: in al-Aʿlā the colour is darkened, in al-Ḥadīd yellow. Yellow is the first sign of drying; darkening is a later stage. Al-Ḥadīd catches the process at an earlier point.

What the similitude describes needs attention, because it is easily summed up as "the world is transient" and passed over. The verse says something finer than that.

What is described is not the plant's dying but how quickly its death comes.

The plant's life is a season. And the three stages within the season — sprouting, drying, crumbling — follow one another fast. Between the plant the tiller looks upon with wonder and its yellowed state there are weeks.

The two thumma conjunctions supply this speed. Each conveys an interval; but because the three stages are counted in a single sentence, the intervals are compressed in the reader's mind.

And the root sense of the word دنيا comes into play here. It was recorded at al-Baqara 2/4: ad-dunyā is from the root د-ن-و — what is near. And this finding was made there: "The human being's basic problem is in fact described here as well — it is easy to see what is near, and hard to take into account what comes after."

The similitude is precisely about this problem of seeing. When the tiller looks at the plant he sees its greenness; he does not see its yellowing, because it has not happened yet. And the verse, by setting the three stages side by side in a single sentence, makes visible what is not seen.

This is the technique of the similitude: compressing time. A process lasting months is lived through in a sentence.

The similitude ends and the verse turns suddenly to the hereafter.

The word order is striking: first the punishment, then forgiveness and good pleasure. In the Qurʾān the good news usually comes first; here it is the reverse.

In the classical commentaries it is said by way of explanation that the first ruling after a description of this world ought to be a warning. This is a reasonable explanation, but since it is not stated plainly in the text I record it as an interpretation.

رِضْوَان — root ر-ض-و: to be content, to be well pleased. Riḍwān is an intensive verbal noun: great good pleasure.

That the word is placed last is meaningful. It was recorded in the section on al-Bayyina: that sūra set something higher than the description of the Garden above it — mutual good pleasure (98/8). The same hierarchy is here as well: forgiveness is counted, then riḍwān comes.

And riḍwān will recur in verse 27 of the sūra — there as the intention of monasticism: ibtighāʾa riḍwāni'llāh.

The closing sentence of the verse and one of the most quoted expressions of the sūra.

متاع — root م-ت-ع: to derive benefit from a thing, to profit by it. A matāʿ is what is benefited from; goods, provisions, temporary property. From the same root come mutʿa, tamattuʿ, istimtāʿ.

At the centre of the word stands transience. A matāʿ is the provision a traveller carries with him — taken in order to be used up, enough to last to the end of the road.

غرور — fully analysed in the section on al-Infiṭār. What was recorded there: ghurūr is both being deceived and the thing that deceives; al-gharūr is an intensive form and is used in the Qurʾān as a name of Satan. And Āl ʿImrān 3/185 was given as an example: "The life of this world is nothing but the enjoyment of delusion" — matāʿu'l-ghurūr.

That is, this sentence is word for word the same as Āl ʿImrān 3/185. The same construction in two verses.

There is a disagreement over how the construction is to be read:

Both readings are possible and the difference of sense is not great.

The commonest mistake in reading this verse is to take it as a rejection of the world. The text does not permit this and gives its grounds itself.

One. The elements of the similitude are favourable. Ghayth is the rain that comes to the rescue; the plant really is beautiful; the wonder is real. The verse does not present the world's attraction as an illusion — it presents it as real but transient.

Two. The verse does not say "the world is bad"; it says "the life of this world is only these things". The innamā pattern conveys restriction. That is, the matter is not the badness of the world but the limitedness of its scope. A statement of a boundary, not a value judgement.

Three. The same sūra lists things to be done in the world: spending (7), fighting (10), lending (11), the upholding of justice (25). All of these are things done in the world. A text that rejected the world would not command them.

Four. And in verse 27 monasticism will be criticised — that is, withdrawal from the world is criticised by the sūra itself.

If we look again at the five-word list this becomes clear: in the list there is no property, no child, no food, no work. What is in the list is a particular relation formed with these: turning them into a game, being distracted, reducing them to adornment, making them material for boasting, making them the subject of a rivalry.

That is, what is criticised is not the objects but the relation formed with the objects. This is the same measure recorded in the section on al-Humaza: there too it was not property but the relation formed with property that was criticised.

One: the present-day counterparts of the five words.

Because the list describes not a historical society but a structure, counterparts are easily established. But care is needed in establishing them, because the strength of the list lies in its abstractness — as was recorded in the section on al-Takāthur, the indefiniteness requires the one addressed to make his own list.

The only thing to record is this: the last two words are reciprocal, and reciprocity means that the measure lies outside oneself. The person loses his own measure; the measure becomes the position of the other party.

Two: the measure being movable.

This was recorded in the section on al-Takāthur and is worth repeating here, because the verse sets two reciprocal words side by side: a relative measure has no threshold. To be able to say "enough" a fixed measure is needed; in a comparative measure a point of "enough" cannot be defined.

Three: the time-scale of the similitude.

The similitude is built on a season. And there is a reason for this: a season is the longest cycle a human being can see in its entirety. A person sees the birth and the death of a plant within the same year.

He cannot do the same for his own life — because he is inside it. What the similitude does is to make a cycle that can be seen from outside a model for a cycle that is lived from within.