al-Jumuʿa 62:9

Yā ayyuha'lladhīna āmanū idhā nūdiya li'ṣ-ṣalāti min yawmi'l-jumuʿati fa's-ʿaw ilā dhikrillāhi wa dharu'l-bayʿ. Dhālikum khayrun lakum in kuntum taʿlamūn

"O you who believe! When the call is made for the prayer on the day of jumuʿa, hasten to the remembrance of God and leave off trading. If you know, this is better for you."

For eight verses the speech was in the third person: they, that community, those who do not carry the book. In the ninth verse the address becomes directly "O you who believe".

This is the very manoeuvre of the fourth verse of Sūrat al-Māʿūn. There too the text had first set up a "they", put the reader at ease, and then drawn the boundary over to the reader's own side. The difference is this: in al-Māʿūn the transition is made in a single verse and in a shocking way (fa-waylun li'l-muṣallīn). In al-Jumuʿa the transition is made with a command, calmly — but the sūra reaches the same result by recording, two verses later, that the command was broken.

That is, Sūrat al-Jumuʿa spreads over three verses what al-Māʿūn does in one: first it turns the address, then it lays down an obligation, then it shows how that obligation fails.

The root ن-د-ي: to call out, to summon. Nidāʾ — a calling out. From the same root comes nādī (an assembly, a place of gathering); an interesting link, because an assembly is "the place that is called to".

The verb is passive: nūdiya — "when the call is made". Who calls? It is not said.

This is a striking preference. The verse does not describe the one who calls the adhān, the one who summons, or the form of the call. Only that the call takes place is entered on the record. What gives rise to the obligation is not from whom the call comes but that it has been made.

لِلصَّلَاةِ — "for the prayer". The lām here states purpose.

مِنْ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ — here there is a grammatical matter. What is the function of the particle min?

In the classical sources of grammar two explanations are given:

The second explanation says something finer: the obligation covers not the whole of the day but a part of the day. This agrees exactly with the content of the tenth verse — when the prayer is over, disperse, seek your provision. That is, the particle min states from the very outset that the regulation is limited.

As my own reading I find the second explanation more fitting, because the next verse of the sūra confirms it. It is not binding.

The root س-ع-ي was treated in detail at al-Layl 92/4 and in summary at al-Ghāshiya 88/9; I do not repeat it here. The summary: its concrete sense is to walk fast, to go at a pace close to running — the state between walking and running. From there it has widened to "to strive, to run after a piece of business".

The finding in the section on al-Layl works directly here: inna saʿyakum la-shattā — "your strivings are scattered", that is, "they do not go to the same place". At al-Ghāshiya 88/9, for its part: li-saʿyihā rāḍiya — faces content with their own striving.

Now this verse gives the word saʿy a direction: fa's-ʿaw ilā dhikrillāh — let your striving be towards the remembrance of God. The striving said in al-Layl to be scattered is here bound to a target.

This is a chain established among three sūras:

There is a disagreement about the meaning of the word here, and it is important:

Is saʿy here "to run", or "to turn towards it in earnest, leaving off one's business"?

In the classical exegesis the second sense predominates, and this has two grounds:

1. The breadth of the word itself. Saʿy is used regularly in the Qurʾān in the sense of "to make an effort"; the sense of physical running is not obligatory. Indeed in other verses of the Qurʾān saʿy is used for evil as well ("he strives on earth to spread corruption") — and there too what is meant is not physical running.

2. A reading of one of the Companions. It is transmitted in the sources that some of the Companions read this word as فَامْضُوا (famḍū — walk, go). Because this reading is contrary to the script of the muṣḥaf it is not counted an official variant reading; in the exegetical sources it is transmitted as an explanation of meaning. I do not ascribe the transmission with certainty to a particular person, because there are variants. But that such a record exists, and that it has been used in the exegetical tradition to show that saʿy does not mean "to run", is correct.

There is something else that supports this reading: in the hadith collections there are reports to the effect that one should not hurry on the way to prayer but walk with gravity. In a report found in al-Bukhārī it is stated that when the iqāma is called for the prayer one should go to it not running but walking, with calm and dignity. I do not quote its wording exactly, but it can be recorded that a report to this effect is found in the sound collections.

That is, the saʿy in the verse asks not for a change in the speed of the body but for a change of priority. Not to run, but to leave off and go.

إِلَىٰ ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ — "to the remembrance of God". What is dhikr here?

The third looks the most comprehensive, and it fits the sūra's own flow: in the eleventh verse the scattering occurs during the sermon, but what is criticised is the abandonment of the whole observance.

A point about the words: that it should say nūdiya li'ṣ-ṣalāti and then ilā dhikrillāh may be saying something by the change of word. The call is made to the prayer, the thing to be hastened to is the remembrance. That is, the name of the act of worship and its function are named separately. I record this as my own reading.

ذَرُوا — the root و-ذ-ر. This verb has an interesting feature: its perfect is not used in Arabic. Only the imperfect (yadharu) and the imperative (dhar, dharū) forms exist; for the past tense a verb is borrowed from another root (taraka).

The same holds for yadaʿu (he leaves, root ودع). The lexicographers call verbs of this kind "defective in conjugation".

This is a note of morphology not directly bearing on meaning; but it is worth recording, because the word itself states a "leaving off" while carrying a deficiency in its own conjugation.

In meaning, wadhara is "to abandon, to leave, to set aside". The lexicographers dwell on its difference from taraka: in wadhara, the sense of indifference to the thing left, or of leaving it behind, is more marked. I do not present this as a definite distinction.

الْبَيْع — the root ب-ي-ع: to sell. But the word has an interesting feature in Arabic: bayʿ can mean both "to sell" and "to buy". It is one of the words with contrary senses (aḍdād). The reason lies in the structure of the business: a transaction is a single act, it has two sides, and the word names the act itself.

Accordingly the verse does not say "leave off selling" but "leave off trading" — the whole of the transaction.

And here is the real matter: what the verse forbids is a lawful activity.

This point must not be passed over. The verse does not say "leave off drinking wine", "leave off gambling", "leave off wrongdoing". What it makes them leave is a business that the Qurʾān elsewhere plainly counts legitimate, and that in the very next verse it encourages.

That is, the regulation is not a moral prohibition but a regulation of priority. And regulations of priority are harder than moral prohibitions, because there is nothing evil in view. For leaving off what is evil the ground is ready to hand; for leaving off temporarily what is good, the only ground is priority itself.

This explains why the last verse of the sūra is so sharp. Those who ran to the caravan were not committing a sin. They were running after provision — after something the Qurʾān itself commands. The fault the sūra records is not immorality but the breaking of the order of precedence.

ذَٰلِكُمْ — a far demonstrative directed at a plural addressee. English has no counterpart for it: "this here, for you" — where the "you" is plural and the demonstrative marks it.

خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ — "better for you". Khayr here has the sense of the comparative: two things are being compared.

What are the two sides of the comparison? On one side going to the prayer, on the other going on with trade. The verse counts the first better than the second.

Note: it is not said that "trade is evil". Two good things are being compared and one of them is put first. This is why the word chosen is khayr, and not ḥalāl or wājib.

إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ — "if you know". The conditional clause makes not the ruling but the acceptance of it conditional. That is, not "it will be better if you know"; rather "it is better — but you will see this only if you know."

This caveat explains why the verse offers no justification. The verse does not explain why leaving off trade is better. It ties the seeing of this to a level of knowledge. And that knowledge is the product of the three verbs in the second verse (reciting, purifying, teaching).

Here the sūra closes in upon itself: the work of teaching set up in the second verse is asked for as a result in the ninth.

That the Friday prayer became institutionalised in Medina is clear both from the content of the sūra and from the transmitted reports. In the sources there are reports about the first collective Friday prayer performed in Medina before the emigration; there are differences in their details, and I avoid giving names.

There is a point about the institution itself worth dwelling on: a weekly, fixed gathering attended by everyone at the same time was no ordinary thing for that period.

In tribal society gatherings are tied to events: a war, a treaty, a season of pilgrimage, a market day. That is, the reason for gathering comes from outside. A fixed weekly gathering, on the other hand, carries its reason in itself: people gather because it is the day of gathering.

The social consequence of this is serious. A fixed calendar places a community inside a common time. An order in which everyone cuts his week at the same point produces a belonging above tribal belonging — because people standing at the same time in the same place, though they come from different lineages, have entered a common rhythm.

That the verse should name the day "the day of gathering" is meaningful for this reason: the day is named by the work done on it.

The function of the interruption. The most concrete counterpart of the verse today is the regular stopping of economic activity. In modern life the moments of stopping are gradually vanishing: markets are always open, communication is not cut off, the boundary between work and non-work is being erased. What the verse brings is not a prohibition but a cut — and the function of the cut is not rest either; it is to make room for something else.

Where the measure is placed. That what the verse makes them leave off is lawful changes the measure. The real matter in a person's life is most often not bad things; it is the order of good things. Nobody does evil five hours a day; but a great many people lose the important to the urgent. This is the place the verse touches.