al-Maʿārij 70:38-39

A-yaṭmaʿu kullu'mriʾin minhum an yudkhala jannata naʿīm · Kallā innā khalaqnāhum mimmā yaʿlamūn "Does each one of them covet being admitted to a garden of bliss? No! We created them from what they know."

Root: ط-م-ع. Ṭamiʿa — to want greedily, to set one's eye on, to carry an expectation that has no ground.

And in Arabic there is a difference between ṭamaʿ and rajāʾ (hope):

Ṭamaʿ is to expect to obtain without any reason for obtaining.

And the word sits exactly right in this verse: the people hope to enter the Garden; but for thirty-five verses the sūra had been counting who will enter the Garden — a list of eight items. These people are not on that list.

So the question is: on what ground?

And the question is not answered; it is cut off by kallā.

The Qurʾān uses ṭamaʿ in a positive context too — so the word is not bad in itself: "We hope our Lord will forgive us our faults" (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/51); "Call upon Him in fear and hope" (al-Aʿrāf 7/56). The value of the word depends on the ground of what is hoped for.

I record this because the verse does not forbid ṭamaʿ; it rejects the groundless kind.

The verse speaks not collectively but one by one: "each one of them."

The preceding verse had shown them in clusters (ʿizīn). Now the clusters too break up: each one separately.

And this prepares the next step: the list was an individual list; the reckoning too is individual.

ٱمْرِئ — Root: م-ر-أ. A person, a man. Al-marʾ was treated in the section on ʿAbasa 80/34, and there its kinship of root with murūʾa (manliness, virtue) was recorded as a nicety; I do not repeat it.

And there is a link between the two verses: in ʿAbasa 80/34 al-marʾ was fleeing; here imruʾ is coveting. The same word, in two different scenes.

The verb's being passive is critical.

The verse does not say "to enter the Garden". It says "to be admitted to the Garden": yudkhala, passive.

That is, entering is not something the person does; it is something done to him. He does not pass through the gate himself; he is taken in.

And this accords with the last sentence of the list: "It is they who will be honoured in gardens" (70/35) — passive there too: mukramūn.

Two passive verbs, about two different groups: one is honoured, the other covets being admitted. The same passivity, one realised and one merely hoped for.

I record this as my own reading. The patterns of the two verbs are data that can be verified.

جَنَّةَ نَعِيمٍ — "a garden of bliss". It comes indefinite (naʿīm, undetermined). Root: ن-ع-م. Niʿma, naʿīm, nāʿim — softness, abundance, ease.

And in the section on al-Takāthur naʿīm was treated ("then on that day you will be asked about the bliss", 102/8) and the views on the scope of the bliss were given there in a table. I do not repeat it.

Kallā occurs twice in the sūra:

Both cut off an expectation. One the expectation of escape, the other the expectation of gain.

And both are groundless expectations: he had nothing to give as ransom, he has no ground for entering the Garden.

I record this as my own reading. The two occurrences can be counted in the text.

The shortest and hardest answer in the sūra.

The expression is compressed and has two readings:

The first reading is the more widespread in the classical sources and has strong support within the Qurʾān:

• "Did We not create you from a despised fluid?" (al-Mursalāt 77/20)
• "Then He made his progeny from an extract of a base fluid." (al-Sajda 32/8)
• "Let man look at what he was created from!" (al-Ṭāriq 86/5)

Al-Ṭāriq 86/5 was treated in this commentary and what that looking does was taken up there; I do not repeat it.

The second reading is defensible too and fits the context: the question carried a claim of right ("why should I not enter?"), and the answer cuts off the ground of that claim.

In my judgement the two do not exclude one another and together give a single idea: there is no superiority in one's origin. I do not impose a preference.

And here is the finest point in the expression.

The verse does not name the substance. It does not say "We created them from a fluid". It says "from what they know".

That is, the knowledge is referred back to the addressee: you already know.

And this does two things:

One — it says without saying. The word is not mentioned, but everyone knows. This is a choice of decorum and is often found in the Qurʾān's language on this subject.

Two — it uses the addressee's own knowledge against him. The same technique was recorded in the section on al-Takwīr 81/22: "the verse uses the strongest evidence in the addressee's hands — his own observation — against him."

There the evidence was "your companion"; here it is "what you know".

I record this as my own reading. The finding in the section on al-Takwīr is taken from there.

And the root خ-ل-ق occurs twice in the sūra, and both are sentences of diagnosis:

Both sentences begin with the same particle (inna) and use the same root.

And together they complete a picture: his disposition is intolerant, his substance worthless.

And note: the first is passive (khuliqa — "he was created"), the second active (khalaqnāhum — "We created them"). That is, when the diagnosis is delivered the agent is concealed; when the claim is rejected the agent is declared.

I record this as my own reading. The patterns of the two verses are data that can be verified.