يَٰصَٰحِبَىِ ٱلسِّجْنِ ءَأَرْبَابٌ مُّتَفَرِّقُونَ خَيْرٌ أَمِ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْوَٰحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ · مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِهِۦٓ إِلَّآ أَسْمَآءً سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ أَنتُمْ وَءَابَآؤُكُم مَّآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَٰنٍ
Yā ṣāḥibayi's-sijni a-arbābun mutafarriqūna khayrun ami'llāhu'l-wāḥidu'l-qahhār · Mā taʿbudūna min dūnihi illā asmāʾan sammaytumūhā antum wa-ābāʾukum mā anzala'llāhu bihā min sulṭān · Ini'l-ḥukmu illā li'llāh · Amara allā taʿbudū illā iyyāh · Dhālika'd-dīnu'l-qayyimu wa-lākinna akthara'n-nāsi lā yaʿlamūn
"'My two companions of the prison! Are separate lords better, or God, the One, the Overpowering? What you serve besides Him are nothing but names you and your fathers have given; God has sent down no authority for them. Judgement belongs to God alone. He has commanded that you serve none but Him. That is the upright religion; but most people do not know.'"
The proof in this verse was treated in another form at al-Zumar 39/29, and the two verses may be compared directly. What was recorded in al-Zumar:
The example is taken from the life of that day: a slave who has more than one owner, and a slave who has a single owner. مُتَشَٰكِسُون — root ش-ك-س: quarrelsome, ill-tempered, at odds… The verse does not argue the theoretical falsity of plurality — it shows its practical outcome. A man with more than one owner cannot know whose bidding to follow; each wants a different thing, and he can satisfy none of them fully. That is, the matter is taken out of the realm of a dispute about belief and made a question of direction.
| Al-Zumar 39/29 | Yūsuf 12/39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Form | A parable — two slaves are described | A direct question — no parable |
| Key word | Shurakāʾu mutashākisūn (ش-ك-س — at odds) | Arbābun mutafarriqūn (ف-ر-ق — scattered) |
| Form of the question | Hal yastawiyāni mathalā — are they equal | Khayrun am… — which is the better |
| Addressee | General | Two prison companions — persons named |
| The other side | Rajulan salaman li-rajul — a man wholly given to a single owner | Allāhu'l-wāḥidu'l-qahhār — with two names |
And the difference is worth recording; I give it as my own reading: in al-Zumar the matter was set out through the condition of a slave — that is, the hearer put himself in the slave's place. In Yūsuf there is no parable, because the hearers are already in that condition: two young men in prison, under someone's orders. The scene leaves no need for a parable.
مُتَفَرِّقُون — root ف-ر-ق, Form V: to scatter, to break apart. The adjective is used of lords: separate from one another, scattered.
ٱلْوَٰحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ — The two names come together, and this is a pattern in the Qurʾān. This pair of names was tabulated in al-Ikhlāṣ, al-Ḍuḥā and Ṣād 38/65-66:
What was recorded in Ṣād: in almost every place where the name occurs it comes together with al-Wāḥid (Yūsuf 12/39; al-Raʿd 13/16; Ṣād 38/65; al-Zumar 39/4; Ghāfir 40/16).
I rely on that treatment. In al-Ikhlāṣ too this verse was cited as an example in the discussion of why aḥad is said where "Allāhu wāḥid" could have been said.
And the work done by the two names coming together must be recorded: wāḥid conveys number, qahhār power. The question had begun with "how many" (mutafarriqūn); the answer gives both the number and the power. I give this as my own reading; its ground is that the question and the answer are built on the same plane.
This expression was analysed in detail at al-Najm 53/23 (in hiya illā asmāʾun sammaytumūhā antum wa-ābāʾukum), and it is essential to rely on that here. What was recorded there:
Root: س-م-و. The majority of the lexicographers attach the noun to this root: a name is what raises a thing up, what brings it out from among the rest and makes it visible. The verse does not say "you named them wrongly"; it says "you named them". Had it said "you gave them the wrong name", it would have implied that a right name might exist. The verse points at the act itself: the operation of naming does not prove that there is something there to be named. The human mind, on hearing a name, assumes that something corresponds to it… The verse cuts this automatic assumption. A name is a sign a human being has set down; the existence of the sign does not entail the existence of the thing signified. سُلْطَان — burhān or bayyina could have been said; sulṭān was said — and its root carries dominion. These names have no power that binds you.
| Al-Najm 53/23 | Yūsuf 12/40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | In hiya illā asmāʾ — they (three names are meant) | Mā taʿbudūna … illā asmāʾ — the things you serve |
| Pattern | In … illā | Mā … illā |
| Focus | The thing named | The act directed at the thing named — service |
The difference is worth recording, and I give it as my own reading: in al-Najm the subject of the sentence is the idols; in Yūsuf the subject is the act of service. That is, what is voided here is not only the name but the behaviour directed at the name.
And the same sentence will occur once more in the sūra, from another mouth: in the father's words in verse 67. The same pattern, the same words, in both places.
| Verse | Who says it | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 40 | Joseph — in prison | Divine oneness — to whom service is owed |
| 67 | The father — as he sees his sons off | Precaution — the limit of the measure taken |
This is a countable repetition within the sūra. And I add as my own reading: the same sentence is used once in a context of belief and once in a context of precaution. In both it does the same work: it determines where the last word lies.
ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْقَيِّم — the root ق-و-م: standing straight, in balance. The root was treated at al-Kahf 18/1-8 (qayyiman) and at al-Baqara 2/255 (al-Qayyūm). I do not repeat it here.