al-Muṭaffifīn 83:18-21

Kallā inna kitāba'l-abrāri la-fī ʿilliyyīn • Wa mā adrāka mā ʿilliyyūn • Kitābun marqūm • Yashhaduhu'l-muqarrabūn "No! The book of the good is in ʿilliyyūn. And what will make you know what ʿilliyyūn is? A marked writing; those brought near bear witness to it."

These four verses are the counterpart of verses 7-9, and the comparison can be made point for point:

Three verses are on exactly the same pattern; the fourth exists only on the side of the good.

This is another example of the matter of "the breaking of symmetry" taken up in the section on al-Qāriʿa. There it was recorded that in relating two groups the symmetry is deliberately broken. Here the break comes in the form of an extra sentence, and it falls on the side of the good.

That is, the record is kept for both, both are marqūm, and for both the place is declared "unknowable". The difference is in one place only: one of the two records has a witness.

The word was taken up at al-Infiṭār 82/13, and the analysis of the root was made at al-Baqara 2/44: the original sense of the root ب-ر-ر is breadth; barr — the land, the wide expanse facing the sea; birr — the goodness that is the opposite of narrowness.

And as was recorded in the section on al-Infiṭār, the abrār are, in the word's own logic, "the broad ones".

In this sūra the word occurs twice: 18 (their book is in ʿilliyyūn) and 22 (they are in bliss). In al-Infiṭār it occurred once. Two of the three occurrences are exactly the same sentence: inna'l-abrāra la-fī naʿīm (al-Infiṭār 82/13 = al-Muṭaffifīn 83/22).

Root: ع-ل-و. Height, elevation. ʿAlā — it rose. ʿUluww — loftiness. Aʿlā — highest. ʿAliyy — exalted; one of the names of God.

The lexicographers dispute the form of the word, and the cause of the dispute is a grammatical oddity.

ʿIlliyyūn is in form a sound masculine plural — that is, the regular plural used for rational beings (like muslimūn, ṣāliḥūn). But the singular of the word is not a rational being; it is the name of a place or of a rank.

The views:

And the asymmetry here is worth recording:

The lower side is singular in form, the upper side plural.

The explanation given for this asymmetry in the classical sources is this: height comes in degrees, lowness is a single place. The Qurʾān speaks of "degrees" for the garden: "They are of degrees with God." (Āl ʿImrān 3/163).

I transmit this as an explanation; I do not offer it as a settled ruling. The grammatical oddity has other explanations too, and the lexicographers are not agreed.

The theme of height will continue in this sūra: in verse 27 تَسْنِيم will come, and that word too is from the root of "height". So the book of the good is above, and their drink is from above.

The sentence is exactly the same as verse 9. The analysis of the word was made there: ر-ق-م, to strike a trace and a mark onto something; a writing made unerasable and proof against confusion.

And the repetition itself carries a verdict: the character of the two books is the same. Kept with the same care, of the same exactness, marked in the same way.

That is, the record is impartial. The difference is not in the record but in what is recorded.

This is directly connected with the measure theme of the sūra, and I offer it as my own reading: the muṭaffif was the person who used the measure with a bias — the same instrument, two different results. The sūra shows that the record is not like this by framing the same sentence twice: the same record, two different directions.

The place where the sūra breaks the symmetry.

شَهِدَ — root ش-ه-د. It carries two senses, and both are possible here:

1. To be present. Shahida'l-majlisa — he attended the gathering. Mashhad — a place where one is present. Shāhid — one who is there. 2. To bear witness, to testify. Shahāda — testimony.

The two senses are not separate from one another: to be able to testify one must have been present. The word holds both in a single root.

There are two readings of the verb in the verse:

Both are mentioned in the sources and they do not exclude one another.

The second reading has the tighter link with the sūra, and I state this as a preference. The reason is this: the subject of the sūra is documentation. The correctness of the measure, the exactness of the record, the markedness of the writing. The final stage of a document is its confirmation by a witness.

And the Qurʾān sets this up plainly in one place: al-Baqara 2/282, the longest verse, commands that witnesses be called after a debt is written down. That is, the writing is not counted sufficient on its own; witnesses are required.

Al-Muṭaffifīn 83/21 sets up the same two stages for the record of the hereafter: it was written (marqūm) and witnessed (yashhaduhu).

I offer this link as my own reading.

Root: ق-ر-ب. To be near. Qurb — nearness. Qarīb — near. Qurbān — that which brings near; the word for a sacrificial offering comes from here. Aqribāʾ — near relations.

The word is a passive participle of the تفعيل form: muqarrab — "one brought near". That is, passive: they do not draw near themselves, they are brought near.

This is the most important detail of the word. Nearness is named not as an achievement but as a position given.

Its use in the Qurʾān:

• "And the foremost, the foremost; those are the ones brought near." (al-Wāqiʿa 56/10-11)
• "The Messiah will never disdain to be a servant of God, nor will the angels brought near." (al-Nisāʾ 4/172)

And this word occurs twice in the sūra: 21 (they bear witness to the book) and 28 (they drink from the spring). Both are on the side of the good, and in both the muqarrabūn stand as though a group distinct from the abrār.

This distinction will be taken up at verse 28.

A question has to be asked: if the record is certain in any case, what need is there of a witness?

The explanation given in the classical sources: the testimony is not for the truth of the record but for the honour of what is recorded. Who has witnessed a document shows the document's value.

And this sets up the sūra's balance of punishment and reward. On the side of the fujjār there was no extra sentence; on the side of the abrār there is. That is:

The punishment is exactly what is deserved; the reward adds something on top of what is deserved.

This is a balance the Qurʾān sets up plainly elsewhere: "Whoever brings a good deed shall have ten like it; and whoever brings an evil deed shall be requited only with its like." (al-Anʿām 6/160).

The word occurring in al-Anʿām 6/160 is striking: for the requital of the evil deed it says mithluhā — its like. That is, on the side of punishment the principle of equivalence works; on the side of reward it does not.

And equivalence, as was taken up in the section on al-Infiṭār, is the sense of the root عدل. That is, punishment is given with justice, reward with excess.

I offer this link as my own reading; I make no claim that al-Anʿām 6/160 explains the structure of al-Muṭaffifīn, only that the same principle appears in two places.