فَتَقَطَّعُوٓا۟ أَمْرَهُم بَيْنَهُمْ زُبُرًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍۭ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ
"But they cut their affair apart among themselves into pieces. Every party rejoices in what it has."
The root ق-ط-ع: to cut, to sever. The pattern is Form V (taqaṭṭaʿa), and the lexicographers record that this pattern reports two things at once here: takalluf (doing it with their own hands) and muṭāwaʿa (being broken apart).
And the word order must be recorded: the verb is transitive — taqaṭṭaʿū amrahum. What is cut apart, that is, is not they but their affair. They are not being broken apart; they are breaking apart the one affair in their hands.
I give this as an observation about the word order, and its ground is the presence of the object. And the qualification baynahum (among themselves) shows that the breaking apart took the form of a division of shares.
The root was worked out at al-Qamar 54/43 and 54/52. I do not repeat it here. A summary of what was recorded there:
The root ز-ب-ر: to incise on a hard surface; and a mass of iron, a well lined with stone. Zubur — the plural of zabūr or of zibr: written pages, books. And in al-Qamar the difference between ز-ب-ر and س-ط-ر was tabulated: ز-ب-ر is incising, and it reports permanence — not being erased.
And in al-Qamar it was shown that the root builds a question-and-answer link within that sūra (a question at 54/43, an answer at 54/52). I rely on that treatment.
| Reading | What zubur is | Its ground |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Books — each party took a book of its own | The "written page" branch of the root; and the setting being religion |
| 2 | Pieces — the plural of zubra; zubratu'l-ḥadīd, a mass or piece of iron (it occurs at al-Kahf 18/96) | The verb (taqaṭṭaʿū) reporting a breaking into pieces |
| 3 | Groups, parties | kullu ḥizbin in the continuation of the sentence |
There is a variant reading as well: the readings zuburan (زُبُرًا — with ḍamma on the bāʾ, the plural of zabūr/zibr) and zubara (زُبَرًا — with fatḥa on the bāʾ, the plural of zubra) are transmitted. This variant reading bears directly on the disagreement above: the fatḥa reading supports the second sense, the ḍamma reading the first.
And the lexicographers differ over its parsing as well: is zuburan a circumstantial accusative (in pieces), or a substitute for amr? Both parsings are transmitted.
I record this much as my own reading, its ground being the analysis of the root in al-Qamar: at the core of the root is incising on a hard surface. Whichever sense is taken, the word reports something that cannot easily be undone — whether an incised text or a broken-off piece of iron. And set beside the verb (taqaṭṭaʿū), the permanence of what has been done comes to the fore. This is a reading, and it is not binding.
The sentence occurs once more in the Qurʾān, in exactly the same wording: al-Rūm 30/32. It was treated at al-Rūm 30/32 (mina'lladhīna farraqū dīnahum wa kānū shiyaʿan, kullu ḥizbin bimā ladayhim fariḥūn). I rely on that treatment.
| al-Rūm 30/32 | al-Muʾminūn 23/53 | |
|---|---|---|
| The verb before it | farraqū dīnahum — they divided their religion | taqaṭṭaʿū amrahum — they cut apart their affair |
| The name of the groups | kānū shiyaʿan — sects | zuburā — pieces / books |
| The shared sentence | kullu ḥizbin bimā ladayhim fariḥūn | Word for word the same |
The same concluding sentence, after two different verbs. This is an overlap that can be verified from the two texts.
حِزْب — the root ح-ز-ب: to gather together; and a definite portion of a thing. Ḥizb — a band, a party; and a section of a book. The lexicographers also record the branch of the root meaning "distress, hardship" (ḥazabahu'l-amr).
The distinction between the roots was worked out at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/75. I do not repeat it here. What was given there:
| Word | Root | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| tafraḥūn | ف-ر-ح | To rejoice, to be gladdened |
| tamraḥūn | م-ر-ح | To be giddy, to walk with a swagger |
And the finding recorded in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) was this:
Rejoicing is not condemned in itself — rejoicing without warrant is condemned. The second verb, by contrast, comes without qualification, because the word maraḥ already carries excess within it.
I rely on that treatment. And what belongs here is this: in this verse it is not maraḥ but fariḥ that is used — so what is condemned is not joy itself. Indeed at al-Rūm 30/1-5 the same root was used of the believers: wa yawmaʾidhin yafraḥu'l-muʾminūn.
This distinction was tabulated in al-Rūm, where the root's three occurrences (30/4, 30/32, 30/36) were gathered under the heading "joy changing according to what it is attached to". I rely on that treatment.
I record this as my own reading, its ground being the qualification in the sentence: what is condemned is not faraḥ but bimā ladayhim fariḥūn — rejoicing "in what they have". And the word ladayhim (what is beside them) must be recorded: joy is being measured by what is held in hand. The verse points at the object of the joy.
I give this as my own reading, its ground being the order of the two sentences: the verse first tells the breaking apart (taqaṭṭaʿū), then tells that the breaking apart continues (fariḥūn — an active participle, an ongoing state). And the second sentence explains why the first is not being repaired: each party is content with what it has. The breaking apart, that is, is not experienced as a loss.