al-Taghābun 64:17

In tuqriḍu'llāha qarḍan ḥasanan yuḍāʿifhu lakum wa yaghfir lakum, wa'llāhu shakūrun ḥalīm

"If you lend God a good loan, He will multiply it for you and forgive you. God is one who returns thanks, forbearing."

The sūra's language of trade takes here its last and boldest form.

Root: ق ر ض. And the concrete sense of the root carries the whole weight of the word: to cut, to sever, to gnaw off with the teeth.

The concrete usages give the picture clearly:

• مِقْرَاض (miqrāḍ) — shears. A cutting instrument. It has no connection with the English "shears", but the function is the same.
• قَارِض / قَوَارِض (qāriḍ) — a rodent. An animal that severs with its teeth. In modern Arabic this word is still used for the class of rodents.
• قَرَضَ الثَّوْبَ — he cut the cloth.
• And the concrete sense of the root occurs openly in one place in the Qurʾān: in the narrative of the Companions of the Cave, the sun's taqriḍu the cave — "cutting past" it, that is, turning aside from it and moving away (al-Kahf 18/17).

Where, then, does the sense "loan" come from? Directly: what is lent is a piece cut and severed from a person's property.

That is, a qarḍ is a slice separated from the whole of one's property. The word pictures the act of giving as a diminishing — just like infāq (using up, going out of the hand) in the preceding verse.

And this binds the two verses together: the sixteenth verse said anfiqū (let it out of your hand), the seventeenth verse says tuqriḍū (cut and give). Both words carry the sense of diminishing. Then a third word comes and turns the diminishing round: yuḍāʿifhu — He multiplies it.

And here a finding already set up in the corpus comes into play.

When al-Baqara 2/3 was treated the following was recorded, and I do not repeat it, I recall it:

"The verse does not say 'they spend what We have given them', it says 'of what We have given them'. In Arabic min here conveys partiality: a portion of it. That is, one is not asked to give away everything."

And the verse that sets up the balance was mentioned there too: "Do not keep your hand chained to your neck, nor open it out altogether" (al-Isrāʾ 17/29).

The word qarḍ carries this partiality in its root. To cut a thing is possible only if there is a whole — and what is cut is a part of the whole. Had the whole been given, it would not have been called qarḍ.

That is, the limit set up in al-Baqara by a letter (min) is set up here by a root. The two verses say the same balance with two different grammatical instruments.

I write this as my own reading; the sense of the root is a datum of the text, this link between the two verses is my own inference.

The adjective determines the quality of the loan. In the classical commentaries several contents are given to this adjective, and they do not exclude one another:

All four are defensible and all four come out at the same place: what is qualified is not the amount of what is given but the manner of giving. The verse does not say "if you give much"; it says "if you give well".

This is the side of the verse most dwelt on, and it requires speaking carefully.

The sentence runs: in tuqriḍu'llāha — "if you lend God". That is, God is shown as the borrowing party.

At first sight this is strange. The sixth verse of the sūra had just said wa'llāhu ghaniyyun ḥamīd — "God is without need", that is, He needs nothing at all. Why should one who has no need borrow?

This question must be answered by saying that the expression is a figure of rhetoric — and this must be done without exaggeration.

The relation of lending has three properties, and the expression loads all three at once:

One. In a loan ownership is not transferred. The property lent remains the lender's; it will be taken back. In a gift it is not so. That is, the expression says that what is given is not lost.

Two. In a loan repayment is a debt. A gift is without return; a loan creates an obligation. The expression positions the return not as a promise but as a debt.

Three. A loan raises the position of the giver. The lending party stands in a superior position relative to the borrowing party — the borrower is the one in need. This is the most striking thing the expression does: it puts the human being in the position of creditor.

And this third is the source of the whole effect of the verse. The Qurʾān presents the alms to be given not as a favour or a tax but as a debt of which one is the creditor.

But here one must stop and enter a reservation. No divine need can be inferred from this expression; the sūra's own sixth verse blocks it. The expression is a manner of speech describing the position of the giver. How such expressions in the Qurʾān — hand, face, coming, sitting — are to be understood is a separate debate in the literature of kalām and I do not carry it here.

What I shall record is narrower and tied to the text: the expression is itself the method of encouragement. And the encouragement is done not by frightening but by raising position. This agrees with a finding recorded in Nūḥ: there it was shown that Noah's proposal was framed "not by frightening but by gain".

Root: ض ع ف. And the root has an interesting side: the same root means both weakness (ḍaʿf) and doubling (ḍiʿf).

The lexicographers explain this thus: ḍiʿf is a thing's like, that is, another as much as itself. When two things are put one on top of the other they "double" each other. Weakness, on the other hand, is power's being divided and broken up. The common ground is the idea of splitting in two / doubling. I relate this link of derivation as the lexicographers record it; I do not claim it is certain.

The pattern: Form III (ḍāʿafa). This form normally conveys reciprocity; here it is in the sense of intensity and repetition — it is used close in meaning to ḍaʿʿafa in Form II.

And the amount is not stated. The verse does not say "He doubles it"; it says "He multiplies it". The amount has been left open.

Elsewhere the Qurʾān gives a number for this multiplying — the likeness of a single grain giving seven ears and each ear holding a hundred grains occurs at al-Baqara 2/261, and there too the number is left open by saying wa'llāhu yuḍāʿifu li-man yashāʾ. That is, even where a number is given, the upper end is left open.

The meaning of this within the framework of trade is this: this is not a fair exchange. In a fair exchange the return equals the value of what is given. Here the return is out of all proportion.

And this completes the idea of taghābun in the ninth verse: coming off worse is a transaction in which what is given and what is taken are not equal. Here the verse sets up a deliberate inequality — but in the opposite direction. That is, at the end of the sūra a transaction is shown that is the contrary of coming off worse: an exchange in which the giver gains.

I write this as my own reading.

The return for the loan has two items: multiplying and forgiveness.

The second is unexpected. In a relation of debt the debtor pays the principal and any increase there may be; he does not forgive the creditor's sins. Here the verse goes beyond the framework of the relation.

The root غفر was treated at the fourteenth verse (helmet, protective cover); I do not repeat it here. Only one link should be made: in the fourteenth verse it was the servant who forgave (taghfirū) and in return it was said that God is ghafūr. Here the servant gives and in return is forgiven.

The two verses tie the same root to two different acts: forgiving and giving. Both are met with forgiveness.

The most striking of the sūra's verse-endings.

شَكُور — root ش ك ر. And the word's being used of God requires an explanation, because thanks is normally the attitude shown by the lower to the higher.

In al-Insān, when this root was treated, it was recorded that it occurs within that sūra in three forms: shākiran (3), shakūrā (9), mashkūrā (22) — and this was established: "It turns the direction of thanks about: asked of the human being → not asked of the human being → given to the human being."

The pattern شَكُور conveys intensity. Used of God, the lexicographers give it this sense: the one who accepts little as much, who gives a great return for a small good. That is, shakūr is not the one who is grateful; He is the one who gives back more than was given.

And the verse-ending overlaps exactly with the content of the verse: the verse spoke of multiplying, the verse-ending gives the name of the one who multiplies.

حَلِيم — root ح ل م: not to hurry, not to grow angry, not to answer at once. Ḥilm is being able to defer the punishment while having the power. The word is counted as of the same root as ḥulm (dream, puberty), another branch of ح ل م; the lexicographers do not establish the link firmly, and neither do I.

The coming of the two names together sets up a balance:

• Shakūr — He returns good for good, and more than was given.
• Ḥalīm — He is not in haste to return evil for evil.

That is, the same attitude in both directions: to good at once and abundantly, to evil late and in measure. The verse-ending closes the sūra's whole language of reckoning with a description of temperament.

And the placing of the name ḥalīm here seems also to bear on the matter of the loan: for those who do not lend, no threat comes. The sūra encourages; it does not punish.