al-Maʿārij 70:19-21

Inna'l-insāna khuliqa halūʿā · Idhā massahu'sh-sharru jazūʿā · Wa idhā massahu'l-khayru manūʿā "Man was created halūʿ: wailing when evil touches him, withholding when good touches him."

Here the sūra stops and delivers a diagnosis.

For eighteen verses there was something being told: a question, an answer, a scene, an offer, a fire. Now the text draws back and describes man.

And this is the very movement Sūrat al-Fajr makes. What was recorded in the section on al-Fajr was: "The historical section ends here, and the text puts a single subject in the place of the peoples: al-insān."

Al-Maʿārij makes the same movement: the scene of the resurrection ends and a single subject is left.

ٱلْإِنسَٰن — the definite article. This was treated in the section on al-Fajr and I do not repeat it. In summary: the article conveys comprehensiveness (istighrāq), taking in the whole of the kind. And: "when the name of a species is used in the singular, the verdict does not descend on individuals one by one but is written into the definition of the species… this is not a majority statistic; it is the description of the default state, which holds unless the contrary is shown."

And the qualification "unless the contrary is shown" becomes critical here — because in the twenty-second verse an exception will come.

The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān. And this is both the cause of the disagreement over its meaning and the resolution of it.

Root: ه-ل-ع. The meanings the lexicographers give: fierce greed; intolerance; rapacity; inner restlessness; impatience.

In the classical dictionaries halaʿ is described as "the fiercest greed" and "the fiercest jazaʿ" (wailing). That is, the word is a combination of two states: one who is never sated in acquiring, and who cannot bear it in losing.

Pattern: فَعُول. This is the intensive pattern in Arabic: one who does the act much, who is in that state habitually. Ṣabūr (much enduring), shakūr (much thankful), ghafūr, ʿaẓūm.

And now note what the verse does.

The Qurʾān uses a word and then immediately defines it — and this is not something one meets often in the Qurʾān.

The twentieth and twenty-first verses are the definition of halūʿ:

هَلُوع = idhā massahu'sh-sharru جَزُوع + wa idhā massahu'l-khayru مَنُوع

And the two words used in the definition are on the same pattern: فَعُول.

Three words, one pattern. And the verse-ending is the same too: halūʿā / jazūʿā / manūʿā.

So in defining a word the sūra makes the definition with two words from the same pattern. The definition carries the form of what is defined.

I record this as an observation about form; the metre and verse-endings of the three words are data that can be verified.

A finding recorded in the classical sources: there is no need to dispute the meaning of halūʿ, because the verse has explained it itself. This view is widely transmitted in the sources. I record it; I do not ascribe it to a particular person.

And this verse is one of the Qurʾān's "man is thus" sentences. Read together, these sentences yield a striking pattern:

Most of the diagnoses in the list are on the pattern فَعُول.

And this is no coincidence: faʿūl is the intensive pattern, that is, it conveys a settled state. The Qurʾān names man's faults not as "he sometimes does this" but as "one who is thus".

I record this as an observation about patterns; the metres of the words are data that can be verified. The interpretation that the pattern constitutes an order is my own.

In the section on al-ʿĀdiyāt 100/6 kanūd was treated, and there its link with the sense of "soil that yields no crop" was framed. The two diagnoses complete one another: kanūd names the one who does not give, halūʿ names both the one who wants to take and the one who does not give.

And the most serious question here lies in this verb.

The verb is passive: khuliqa — "he was created". That is, this state is not something man acquired later; it is something present in his creation.

Is this an excuse?

The question is serious and has been debated in the classical sources. Two main approaches:

The first approach is closer to the text, and its ground lies within the text: three verses later the exception comes.

If a state cannot be overcome, there can be no one excepted from it. The twenty-second verse marks off a group by saying "illa'l-muṣallīn"; so being halūʿ is not a fate but a starting point.

I state this as a preference; it is not binding. But the presence of the exception is beyond dispute in the text.

And this accords with the framework set up in Sūrat al-Shams. In al-Shams 91/8 it is said of the soul that "its wickedness and its godwariness were inspired into it" — that is, both directions were given. This was treated in the section on al-Shams. Al-Maʿārij says the same thing from another angle: the constitution is given, the choice is not.

Root: م-س-س. Massa — to touch, to graze. And the choice of the verb is meaningful.

The verse does not say "when it befalls him", does not say "when it strikes him". It says "when it touches him".

Touch is the lightest form of contact. Not a blow but a graze.

So the verse shows the disproportion of the reaction: the lightest contact produces the fiercest response. A light evil touches him and the man collapses; a light good touches him and the man closes up.

I record this as my own reading. The sense of the verb is set down in the dictionaries.

And the verb is the same in both verses: massahu'sh-sharr, massahu'l-khayr. The only thing that changes is what touches; the manner of the touching is the same.

The Qurʾān uses this formula elsewhere too:

• "When a hardship touches man he calls upon Us; then when We grant him a favour from Us he says, 'this was given me only because of my knowledge.'" (al-Zumar 39/49)
• "When We grant man a favour he turns away and draws aside; but when an evil touches him he prays at length." (Fuṣṣilat 41/51)
• "If We let him taste a mercy from Us, he says, 'this is my due.'" (Fuṣṣilat 41/50)

Fuṣṣilat 41/50-51 is particularly close and counts the same two situations as al-Maʿārij.

Root: ج-ز-ع. Jazaʿ — the opposite of patience: intolerance, collapse, lamentation.

On the concrete sense of the root the lexicographers record this: jazaʿa is to cut something through the middle, to break it in two; jizʿ is a part of something, a cut portion. And from here arises the sense of "to break, to snap under strain".

I transmit this explanation; I do not present it as a settled etymological ruling. But the sense at work in the verse is beyond dispute, and the Qurʾān itself uses it as the contrary of patience:

"Whether we wail or are patient, it is all the same for us." (Ibrāhīm 14/21)

And the link with the fifth verse. In the fifth verse the sūra had said "be patient with a beautiful patience". Now it describes man as jazūʿ — the exact contrary of patience.

This link was recorded above; I do not repeat it. The only thing to record is that the sūra gave the remedy before the illness.

Root: م-ن-ع. Manaʿa — to prevent, to hold back, to refuse, to withhold.

And this root occurs in the last verse of Sūrat al-Māʿūn:

"And they withhold the māʿūn." (al-Māʿūn 107/7 — wa yamnaʿūna'l-māʿūn)

This verb was treated in the section on al-Māʿūn, and there the following was recorded: "There is a difference between not giving and withholding: manʿ is not giving something that has been asked for. That is, there is a request. If no one asked, there is no 'manʿ'."

Let us set the two verses side by side:

Al-Māʿūn names the act; al-Maʿārij names the constitution the act comes out of.

So the two sūras are two links of one chain: al-Maʿārij shows the character, al-Māʿūn the behaviour.

I record this as my own reading. The shared root and the patterns of the two words are data that can be verified.

And now the most fruitful external link of this sūra.

Sūrat al-Fajr, in verses 15-16, takes up exactly the same two situations — abundance and straitness — and records man's error there. This was treated in detail in the section on al-Fajr, and the following table was framed:

And the conclusion recorded in the section on al-Fajr: "Man uses the right word and draws the wrong inference." And: "Man's error is not unbelief… The error concerns what the thing given means."

Now let us put al-Maʿārij into the same table:

The two sūras take the same two situations and record two different errors: al-Fajr the wrong inference, al-Maʿārij the wrong reaction.

And this means the two sūras complete one another:

• Al-Fajr: when abundance comes he says "I deserved it"; when straitness comes he says "I have been humiliated". The error is in the mind.
• Al-Maʿārij: when good touches him he holds on; when evil touches him he collapses. The error is in the behaviour.

And the two errors require one another. This was recorded plainly in the section on al-Fajr: "One who counts abundance an 'honouring' is bound to count straitness a 'humiliation'." What al-Maʿārij adds to this is: one who counts abundance his own due does not share it (because what is deserved is not shared), and one who counts straitness a humiliation cannot bear it (because humiliation is unbearable).

So the two behaviours al-Maʿārij describes are the natural consequence of the two inferences al-Fajr describes.

I record this as my own reading. The verses of the two sūras and the findings in the section on al-Fajr are data that can be verified; the interpretation that the two errors require one another is my own.

I want to draw attention to one more thing.

The two reactions in the definition of halūʿ are the exact opposite of what they should be:

And note: halūʿ goes the wrong way in both situations.

In hardship, where he should hold, he lets go (he is not patient); in abundance, where he should let go, he holds (he does not give).

So the definition of halūʿ is this: in both situations, using his hand the wrong way round.

And this fits exactly when joined with the sense of the root of patience. What was recorded in the section on al-Baqara 2/45 was: ṣabr, by its root, is to hold. Patience is holding, spending is letting go. Halūʿ lets go where he should hold, and holds where he should let go.

I record this as my own reading. The senses of the roots are data that can be verified; the table of inversion is my own.