Tafseer of The Groups · Az-Zumar · 39:29
Allah presents an example: a slave owned by quarreling partners and another belonging exclusively to one man - are they equal in comparison? Praise be to Allah! But most of them do not know.
Important: The Arabic source text is always authoritative. This translation is a study aid and has not been verified by scholars — do not use it as a basis for religious proof or for deriving rulings (ahkam). When in doubt, always consult the Arabic text and a qualified scholar.
The explanation of His statement, exalted is His mention: Allah stelt een gelijkenis: een man wiens eigendom verdeeld is over twistende deelgenoten, en een man die geheel toebehoort aan één man — zijn zij in gelijkenis gelijk? De lof zij Allah! Maar de meesten van hen weten het niet — Allah sets forth a parable: a man whose ownership is divided among quarrelling partners, and a man who belongs entirely to one man — are they alike in likeness? Praise be to Allah! But most of them do not know (39:29).
The Exalted, praised be His mention, says: Allah sets forth a parable for the one who disbelieves in Allah, who worships divergent gods and obeys a band of devils (shayāṭīn), and for the believer who worships none but Allah, the One. The Exalted, praised be His mention, says: Allah sets forth for this disbeliever as a parable a man who belongs to partners. He says: he stands amid a group of owners who are "mutashākisūn," that is: at odds with one another, in mutual dispute, bad in character — derived from their expression "rajul shakis": when a person is of bad character. Each of them uses him for his service according to the measure of his share and ownership in him. And a man who belongs entirely to one man. He says: and a man who is exclusively of one man — by this is meant the believer, the professor of God's oneness (muwaḥḥid), who has devoted his worship (ʿibāda) purely to Allah, who worships none other and submits to nothing besides Him in professing Lordship (rubūbiyya).
The reciters (qurrāʾ) differed over the reading of His statement wa-rajulan salaman. Some reciters of Mecca and Basra read this as "wa-rajulan sāliman," and they explained it in the sense of: a man who belongs exclusively to one man. This is also transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās.
Aḥmad ibn Yūsuf related to us, saying: al-Qāsim related to us, saying: Ḥajjāj related to us, on the authority of Hārūn, on the authority of Jarīr ibn Ḥāzim, on the authority of Ḥumayd, on the authority of Mujāhid, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, that he read it as "sāliman li-rajulin," that is, with the alif, and said: no one else has any share in him.
The generality of the reciters of Medina and Kūfa read this as wa-rajulan salaman li-rajulin, in the sense of: peace, reconciliation (ṣulḥ).
The correct judgment on this, in our view, is that they are two well-known readings, each of which has been read by scholars among the reciters, and which are close to one another in meaning. With whichever of the two the reciter reads, he attains what is correct. For "al-salam" is a verbal noun (maṣdar) of the expression: "salima fulān li-llāhi salaman," in the sense of: he belonged exclusively and purely to Him. The Arabs say: "rabiḥa fulān fī tijāratihi ribḥan wa-rabaḥan" (so-and-so made profit in his trade) and "salima silman wa-salaman wa-salāmatan." And "al-sālim" is a qualitative description of the man, while "salam" is its verbal noun. As for what was meant by the one who read it as "salaman," namely that it would mean "ṣulḥ" (reconciliation) — there is no ground in this place for the meaning "reconciliation." For what preceded in the description of the other concerned only the report that a group jointly has a share in him, and not any report about war on his part. It is therefore necessary that the report about his opposite concern his belonging exclusively to one who has no partner. There is no scope in this place for a report about war and reconciliation.
And in accordance with what we have said about this, the interpreters (ahl al-taʾwīl) have spoken.
* Mention of who said that:
Mohammed ibn ʿAmr related to me, saying: Abū ʿĀṣim related to us, saying: ʿĪsā related to us; and al-Ḥārith related to me, saying: al-Ḥasan related to us, saying: Warqāʾ related to us — both — on the authority of Ibn Abī Najīḥ, on the authority of Mujāhid, concerning His statement "rajulan fīhi shurakāʾu mutashākisūna wa-rajulan sāliman li-rajulin," he said: this is the parable of the god of falsehood and the god of truth.
Bishr related to us, saying: Yazīd related to us, saying: Saʿīd related to us, on the authority of Qatāda, concerning His statement ḍaraba Allāhu mathalan rajulan fīhi shurakāʾu mutashākisūna, he said: this is the polytheist (mushrik) over whom the devils quarrel, the one not granting him to the other. "Wa-rajulan sāliman li-rajulin," he said: that is the believer who has made the supplication and the worship pure.
Mohammed ibn Saʿd related to me, saying: my father related to me, saying: my uncle related to me, saying: my father related to me, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, concerning His statement ḍaraba Allāhu mathalan rajulan fīhi shurakāʾu mutashākisūna up to His statement bal aktharuhum lā yaʿlamūna, he said: the quarrelling partners: that is the man who worships divergent gods; each people worships a god that pleases it and rejects all else besides it among the gods. Allah has set forth this parable for them. And for Himself He has set forth a parable, He says: a man who belongs exclusively to one man. He says: they worship one god over whom they do not differ.
Mohammed related to us, saying: Aḥmad related to us, saying: Asbāṭ related to us, on the authority of al-Suddī, concerning His statement ḍaraba Allāhu mathalan rajulan fīhi shurakāʾu mutashākisūna, he said: it is a parable for their idols which they used to worship.
Yūnus related to me, saying: Ibn Wahb informed us, saying: Ibn Zayd said, concerning His statement ḍaraba Allāhu mathalan rajulan fīhi shurakāʾu mutashākisūna wa-rajulan salaman li-rajulin, he said: behold the man who belongs to partners who quarrel with one another and are all bad in character; there is not one of them but you find him seizing a portion of the property to use him for his service — their wickednesses — while that other belongs to none but one. This is merely a parable which Allah has set forth for those who worship the gods and who have placed their rights upon their necks; Allah has set it forth as a parable for them, and for the one who worships Him alone. Hal yastawiyāni mathalan? Al-ḥamdu li-llāhi! Bal aktharuhum lā yaʿlamūna. And concerning His statement "wa-rajulan sāliman li-rajulin" he says: there is no partnership in him.
His statement: hal yastawiyāni mathalan (are the two alike in likeness?). The Exalted, praised be His mention, says: is the one who serves a group of partners who are bad in character and who are at odds over him in his service, while he is in dispute with his partners over him — equal to the one who serves a single one whom none contests with him? When he obeys him, that one acknowledges the merit of his obedience and honors him, and when he commits a fault, he forgives him his fault. He says: which then of these two is in a better state, more spacious of body, and with less weariness and exhaustion?
As Mohammed ibn Saʿd related to me, saying: my father related to me, saying: my uncle related to me, saying: my father related to me, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās hal yastawiyāni mathalan al-ḥamdu li-llāhi bal aktharuhum lā yaʿlamūna, he says: is the one over whom there is disagreement better, or the one over whom there is agreement?
His statement: al-ḥamdu li-llāhi (praise be to Allah). He says: the complete thanks and the perfect praise belong to Allah alone, to the exclusion of every object of worship besides Him. His statement: bal aktharuhum lā yaʿlamūna. The Exalted, praised be His praise, says: and not alike is this one who is shared to the one whose ownership is exclusively of one; but most of these polytheists in Allah do not know that the two are not alike, and so, in their ignorance of that, they worship divergent gods besides Allah. And it was said hal yastawiyāni mathalan and not "mathalayni" (two likenesses), because the two of them together form a single likeness, so that the likeness ran in the singular — as the Exalted, praised be His praise, said: En Wij maakten de zoon van Maryam en zijn moeder tot een teken — And We made the son of Maryam and his mother a sign, since the meaning of the two of them was one in the verse.
And Allah knows best.