al-Maʿārij 70:11-14

Yawaddu'l-mujrimu law yaftadī min ʿadhābi yawmiʾidhin bi-banīh · Wa ṣāḥibatihī wa akhīh · Wa faṣīlatihi'llatī tuʾwīh · Wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿan thumma yunjīh "The criminal will wish that he might ransom himself from the punishment of that day with his sons, his wife, his brother, the kin who sheltered him, and all who are on the earth — so that then it might save him."

And the force of this scene emerges when it is compared with a list set up in another sūra of the Qurʾān.

In Sūrat ʿAbasa the same day and the same people are described, but with an entirely different verb:

"On that day a man will flee from his brother, his mother, his father, his wife and his children. On that day each one of them will have concern enough for himself." (ʿAbasa 80/34-37)

In the section on ʿAbasa this list was treated in detail and three logics were set out: difficulty of severance, exhaustiveness, and chronology. The table framed there was this: brother (lateral bond) → parents (upward) → wife (horizontal, chosen) → children (downward); and it was recorded that the order runs "from the easiest to break to the hardest".

In the section on ʿAbasa this list of al-Maʿārij was not mentioned at all. I make the comparison here.

And the two lists run in exactly opposite directions.

ʿAbasa moves inward: it begins with the brother and arrives at the children. The conclusion recorded in the section on ʿAbasa was this: "The measure of the terror is the last item of the list" — that is, the moment the bond hardest to break is broken.

Al-Maʿārij moves outward: it begins with the children and arrives at the whole earth. And here too the measure of the terror stands at the head of the list: the offer opens with the children.

The two sūras traverse the same web of bonds from two different directions.

But the real point is not the direction.

In ʿAbasa these people are fled from. In al-Maʿārij the same people are offered as ransom.

And between these two verbs there is a great difference:

• To flee is to leave someone behind. It does him no harm; it simply takes no interest in him. As recorded in the section on ʿAbasa, this is also the explanation the verse itself gives: "each one of them will have concern enough for himself." That is, the flight arises not from selfishness but from lack of capacity.
• To ransom is to hand someone over. To present him as a price. And what is presented as a price passes to the other party.

So al-Maʿārij is one step beyond ʿAbasa. In ʿAbasa the bonds were dissolving; in al-Maʿārij the bonds are used.

I record this as my own reading. The senses of the two verbs and the contents of the two lists are data that can be verified; the interpretation of the opposition is my own.

The second logic recorded in the section on ʿAbasa was exhaustiveness: "Every axis of kinship a person can belong to has been counted. No one is left outside. So this is not a sample list but a census."

Al-Maʿārij makes the same census and then goes beyond it.

ʿAbasa ended with four axes: lateral, upward, horizontal-chosen, downward. Al-Maʿārij counts three axes (downward: sons; horizontal-chosen: wife; lateral: brother), then widens to the kin, then to the whole earth.

So al-Maʿārij's list does not end with kinship; it takes in the whole of humanity.

And there is a reason for this: a ransom is a price that must be sufficient. A list of those fled from may have a limit (as many as your relatives); the limit of a ransom list is set by the size of the debt. The man raises his offer, raises it again, and begins to offer things that are not his to give.

I record this as my own reading.

Root: و-د-د. Wudd — love, affection. Wadūd is one of the names of God; mawadda is the bond of love.

And the choice of the verb is bitter.

Yawaddu means "he wishes" — but at the centre of the root there is love. In Arabic wadda is to want something with affection; not an ordinary demand.

So the verse, using a verb from the root of love, describes the wish to hand over those one loves.

I record this as an observation about the word. The sense of the root is set down in the dictionaries; I do not claim that the verse intends this contrast — wadda is an ordinary verb for "to want" in Arabic and is often used in this sense in the Qurʾān ("The disbelievers wish that…", al-Nisāʾ 4/102; al-Baqara 2/109).

ٱلْمُجْرِم — Root: ج-ر-م. Jarm — to cut, to sever; jarīma (crime) comes from here. The lexicographers' explanation: a crime is the act that severs a person from the community. Mujrim is the active participle: one who commits a crime.

And note: the verse does not say "disbeliever", does not say "wrongdoer". مُجْرِم — criminal. That is, a legal category is chosen; the scene is a courtroom scene.

Root: ف-د-ي. Fidya — the price given to redeem a captive or an obligation. ٱفْتَدَىٰ (iftiʿāl) — to give a price in order to redeem oneself.

And the word was the name of a concrete institution in that society.

A man taken captive in war was redeemed by a price paid by his tribe. Fidya was not a metaphor; it was a working practice. The Qurʾān records it: "Then release them, either as a favour or for a ransom" (Muḥammad 47/4).

So the verse reminds the one addressed of a transaction he knows: the redeeming of a captive.

And it reverses the logic of the transaction. Normally the ransom is paid by someone else — the captive's family, his tribe. Here the captive himself tries to pay, and what he wants to pay is his family.

That is, those who would pay the ransom become the ransom itself.

I record this as my own reading. The workings of the institution of ransom are a historical datum; the interpretation of its reversal is my own.

The Qurʾān rejects this offer elsewhere too:

• "If they had all that is on the earth and as much again with it, they would offer it as ransom to escape the evil punishment of the Day of Resurrection." (al-Zumar 39/47)
• "From none of those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers will an earth-full of gold be accepted as ransom." (Āl ʿImrān 3/91)
• "On that day no ransom will be taken from you or from those who disbelieved." (al-Ḥadīd 57/15)

Al-Zumar 39/47 is particularly close, because there too the expression "all that is on the earth" occurs — the same as al-Maʿārij 70/14.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

Root: ف-ص-ل. Faṣala — to separate, to cut apart, to open a space between. Faṣl (separation), tafṣīl (setting out in detail), fāṣila (that which separates — the name given to verse-endings as well), fiṣāl (weaning) are from the same root.

فَصِيلَة, as the lexicographers describe it, is a person's nearest group of kin; the branch that splits off from the tribe.

So the word itself conveys a separation. Faṣīla is the small group broken off from the great trunk — and it is a person's nearest.

And this yields a nicety of wording: the group formed by being broken off is now offered up to be broken off from the man. I record this as a nicety; I do not claim the verse intends it, for faṣīla is an ordinary Arabic word in this sense.

The word's relative in the Qurʾān: "Warn your nearest kin" (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/214 — ʿashīrataka'l-aqrabīn) — a different word is used there. Al-Maʿārij's faṣīla conveys a narrower circle.

Root: أ-و-ي. Awā — to take shelter, to lodge. آوَىٰ (ifʿāl) — to shelter, to give a place of refuge. Maʾwā — a place of refuge, a shelter.

And this root occurs in a verse treated in this commentary:

"Did He not find you an orphan and shelter you?" (al-Ḍuḥā 93/6 — a-lam yajidka yatīman fa-āwā)

This verse was treated in the section on al-Ḍuḥā; I do not repeat it.

But the two verses must be set side by side:

So the same verb names, in one sūra, a favour that is counted, and in the other a bond one wishes to sacrifice.

And the presence of the relative clause is critical. The verse does not merely say "his kin"; it says "the kin who sheltered him". That is, the clause recalls what that group is for: it sheltered you.

And the man offers it up.

I record this as my own reading. The shared root and the presence of the relative clause are data that can be verified.

The last item of the list, and the conclusion.

وَمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا — "and all who are on the earth." The offer passes out of kinship into humanity.

And this shows the madness of the offer: the man is offering things he does not own. The people of the earth are not his; he cannot give them.

So the offer is no longer a bargain but a thrashing about.

ثُمَّ يُنجِيهِ — "so that then it might save him."

ثُمَّ here puts a distance between. That is: were he to give all this, only after that might he be saved. Deliverance does not come directly after the list; it is far off.

يُنجِى — Root: ن-ج-و. Najā — to be saved; أَنْجَىٰ — to save. Najāt and nājiya are from the same root.

And who is the subject of the verb? Two readings: the ransom (may what is given save him), or the act of ransoming. Both come out in the same place.

The sentence is left incomplete. The verse does not say "he will be saved"; it says "so that it might save him" — a wish. And whether the wish is fulfilled is not said.

But the next verse gives the answer, and gives it in a single word: كَلَّا.

Let us read the four verses together:

The criminal will wish that he might ransom himself from the punishment with his sons, his wife, his brother, the kin who sheltered him and all who are on the earth — so that then he might be saved.

The sentence lengthens, and as it lengthens the offer grows. This is the sūra's technique of word order: the four verses are a single sentence, and each verse adds one item to the list.

And the verse-ending of the four verses is the same as well: banīh, akhīh, tuʾwīh, yunjīh — all ending in -īh.

The verse-ending of ʿAbasa's list of flight was the same: akhīh, abīh, banīh, yughnīh (80/34-37). This sound was recorded in the section on ʿAbasa.

Two sūras tell of the same subject with the same sound. I record this as an observation; the verse-endings of the two lists can be counted in the text. I do not claim that the shared sound is deliberate — in Arabic, words ending in the first-person and third-person pronouns naturally give this sound.