Tafsir of Al-Fatihah 1:4

( Māliki yawmi al-dīn ): Mālik (Master), as an active participle, was read with a khafd (genitive case) by ‘Asim, al-Kisa’i, Khalaf (in his selection), and Ya‘qub. This is the reading of the ten [reciters], except for Talhah and al-Zubayr. It is also the reading of many of the Companions, including Ubayy, Ibn Mas‘ud, Mu‘adh, and Ibn ‘Abbas, as well as the Successors, including Qatadah and al-A‘mash. Malik (King), as a verbal noun with khafd, was read by the remainder of the seven, as well as Zayd, Abu al-Darda’, Ibn ‘Amr, al-Miswar, and many of the Companions and Successors.

Malik was read in the meter of sahl by Abu Hurayrah, ‘Asim al-Jahdari, and it was narrated by al-Ju‘fi and ‘Abd al-Warith from Abu ‘Amr; it is the dialect of Bakr ibn Wa’il. Maliki, with the lengthening of the kaf, was read by Ahmad ibn Salih from Warsh from Nafi‘. Malik in the meter of ‘ajal was read by Abu ‘Uthman, al-Sha‘bi, and ‘Atiyyah. Anas ibn Malik and Abu Nawfal ‘Amr ibn Muslim al-Basri read Malika yawma al-dīn with the nasb (accusative) of the kaf without an alif. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas and ‘A’ishah read it similarly, but with the raf‘ (nominative) of the kaf.

Malaka, as a past-tense verb, was read by Abu Hanifah (according to one account), Abu Haywah, Jubayr ibn Mut‘im, and Abu ‘Asim ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr al-Laythi, and they put the day (yawm) in the accusative. Ibn ‘Atiyyah mentioned that this is the reading of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib—may Allah honor his countenance—al-Hasan, and Yahya ibn Ya‘mur. Malika, with the accusative, was also read by al-A‘mash, Ibn al-Sumayqa‘, ‘Uthman ibn Abi Sulayman, and ‘Abd al-Malik, the judge of India. Ibn ‘Atiyyah mentioned that this is the reading of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and Abu Salih al-Samman. Ibn ‘Asim narrated from al-Yamani Malikan with accusative and tanwin. Malik with the raf‘ of the kaf and tanwin was narrated from Khalaf, Ibn Hisham, Abu ‘Ubayd, and Abu Hatim, putting the day in the accusative. Maliku yawmin with raf‘ and idafah (genitive construction) was read by Abu Hurayrah, Abu Haywah, and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, with differing accounts from them; the author of al-Lawami‘ attributes this to Shaddad al-‘Uqayli al-Basri. Mulik, as a fa‘īl form, was read by Abu Hurayrah in one narration and by Abu Raja’ al-‘Utaridi.

Malik with intense imalah was read by Yahya ibn Ya‘mur and Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani. Qutaybah ibn Mihran reported from al-Kisa’i that he distinguished between them. Abu ‘Ali al-Farisi did not discover this and said that no one performed imalah. It is mentioned that he read Malak with an alif, the lam doubled, and the kaf kasrah. These are several readings I have mentioned due to the strangeness of such occurrences in a single word, some referring to the mulk (kingship) and some to the malik (master).

Some linguists said: Both refer to al-malak, which is binding and fastening, such as malaka al-‘ajīn (he kneaded/firmly pressed the dough). They cited the verse of Qays ibn al-Khatim: "I grasped it firmly (malaktu biha) with my palm, and so I tore its opening; one standing before it sees what is behind it."

The mutawatir (widely transmitted) readings are Mālik and Malik. They are like the brilliant stars of its pillars and the poles of its radiant spheres. There is disagreement regarding which is more eloquent. Al-Zamakhshari said: Malik (King) is the choice because it is the reading of the people of the Haramayn (Mecca and Medina), and due to the saying of the Exalted: "To whom does the mulk (kingship) belong?" and His saying: "The King (malik) of mankind," and because mulk (kingship) is general while malik (master) is specific. The author of al-Kashf also preferred it, arguing that the reading Mālik (Master) involves a type of repetition because "the Lord (rabb)" has a similar meaning, and because the Exalted described His transcendent Self with mulkiyyah (kingship) in the statement "Master (mālik) of the mulk (kingdom)"—using the damm (dammah)—rather than mālikiyyah.

All of this has been contested. Firstly, the reading of the people of the Haramayn does not prove superiority; for even if we concede that their predecessors were more knowledgeable in the Quran, we do not concede this for the era of the well-known reciters. Do you not see that Sahih al-Bukhari takes precedence over the Muwatta’ of Malik, even though he was the scholar of Medina? Furthermore, all famous readings are mutawatir, and after reaching the level of tawatur (which produces certainty), one does not pay heed to the origins of the narrators. The statement of al-Shihab—that it is not hidden that the people of the Haramayn, historically and currently, are the most knowledgeable in the Quran and the rulings—is also a claim that requires much proof, as is not hidden to those who have not been intimidated by mere noise.

Secondly, the argument using the verse "To whom does the mulk (kingship) belong today?" is undermined by His saying: "A day on which no soul shall possess (tamliku) anything for another soul." He, the Exalted, intended the Day to be the Day of Resurrection, which is the Day of Recompense. Denying mālikiyyah (mastery) from others necessitates establishing it for Him, as the context is to express His greatness. The "affair" at the end of the verse refers to the outcome of affairs, not commands, even if its usage for the latter is frequent.

Thirdly, the usage in "The King of mankind" is different from here, because if "Master of mankind" were read there (as has been read anomalously), it would repeat with "Lord of mankind." Here, however, there is no repetition due to the difference in context.

Fourthly, the claim that mulk (with dammah) is general and milk (with kasrah) is specific is contrary to the apparent meaning. The appearance is that between mālik and malik there is a partial generality in language and convention. Joseph the Truthful—peace be upon him—based on his being a mālik (master/ruler), governed the Egyptians during the famine; according to their law, he was a malik (king) and a mālik. A merchant is a mālik but not a malik, and a ruler over a land in which he holds no dominion is a malik but not a mālik.

Fifthly, the repetition presumed by the author of al-Kashf is a confusion that applies to both, as al-Jawhari mentioned that "the Lord" was also used to mean "the King."

Sixthly, the final evidence he provided can be overturned by saying that the Exalted described His Self with mālikiyyah rather than mulkiyyah. Furthermore, the annexation (idafah) of mālik to yawm (the Day) indicates that mālik is more eloquent than malik, because mulk (kingship) with the dammah has been placed under the umbrella of mālikiyyah (mastery), as if it were one of His possessions. That is what they said: "They shall have what they earned, and upon them shall be what they acquired."

In my view, there is no fruit to this disagreement; the two readings are like competing racehorses. There is no difference between mālik and malik as attributes of Allah—as al-Samin said—and one should not pay attention to those who say they are like hādhīr (cautious) and hadhir (wary). Whenever I attempt to favor one over the other, the evidence contradicts itself, the doors to traditional narrations close before me, and the eye of insight turns back frustrated and weary. However, I read as al-Kisa’i did—Mālik—to attain the increase of ten good deeds, and because it contains a clear indication of immense grace and vast mercy. The yearning for the Master (Mālik)—insofar as He is the Master—is greater than the yearning for the King (Malik)—insofar as He is the King. I conclude that what one hopes for from the King is that the human might be saved "tit for tat," but from the Master, one hopes for what is beyond that. Thus, reading it this way is kinder to sinners like me, and more appropriate to what precedes it.

His annexation of Mālik to the "Day of Recompense" in this sense serves to soften its heat, for hearing "the Day of Recompense" causes the hearts of the listeners to tremble. This is similar in one respect to the saying of the Exalted: "May Allah forgive you; why did you grant them permission?" The pivot is upon mercy, especially since the matter is grave, and the inducement toward it is more desirable, even though the situation is not devoid of intimidation. It is as if you are weighing these subtleties against what I have said, and this is what good opinion has led me to.

"The Day (al-yawm)" in convention is an expression for the time between sunrise and sunset. In the Shari‘ah, according to the Ahl al-Sunnah (except for al-A‘mash), it is an expression for the time between the second dawn and sunset. It is also used for time absolutely. "The Day of Resurrection" is a legal reality for its well-known meaning. Its composition is strange, as its first root letter is ya and its second is waw; nothing of that type came, as mentioned in al-Bahr al-Muhit, except yawm and its variations.

"The Recompense (al-dīn)" is the retribution. From this is the mursal hadith from Abu Qilabah—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: "The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said: 'Righteousness does not wear out, and sin is not forgotten, and the Recompenser (al-dayyan) does not die. So be as you wish; just as you recompense, so shall you be recompensed.'" It is said there is a difference between them: dīn is that which is in proportion to the act of the one being recompensed, while jazā’ (recompense/reward) is more general. It is also said that dīn is a name for the beloved reward determined by the measure required by the reckoning, when it comes from one who has the power to enact the recompense. Thus, it is not said to one who recompenses on behalf of another, or who gives much in exchange for a little, that it is dīn; rather, it is called jazā’. The most probable view, in my opinion, is that dīn and jazā’ are synonymous. Therefore, the Day of Recompense is the Day of Judgment. This is supported by His saying: "This Day every soul shall be recompensed for what it earned" and "This Day you are being recompensed for what you used to do."

The annexation of Mālik to yawm (day) is by way of extension (tawassu‘). Grammarians have said that an adverb of time is either mutasarrif (flexible), which is that which is not restricted to being an adverb, or ghayr mutasarrif (inflexible), which is its opposite. The first is like "day" and "night." You may extend them such that you put them in the nominative, genitive, or accusative without implying the meaning of "in." Thus, they proceed like the direct object because of their equality in not requiring the preposition. If you say surtu al-yawma (I traveled the day), it is in the accusative like Zayd in darabtu Zaydan (I hit Zayd). Surtu (I traveled) proceeds like darabtu in transitivity metaphorically, because traveling does not affect the day as striking affects Zayd, yet it does not depart from the meaning of the adverb. This is why intransitive verbs take it as an object. This is not apparent in the explicit noun, but appears in the pronoun, as in the poet's saying: "A day we witnessed it...". If an adverb is extended, and its verb is intransitive, it becomes transitive; if it is transitive to one, it becomes transitive to two; if it is transitive to two, it becomes transitive to three—though this is rare, and some forbid it. If it were transitive to three, it would not become transitive to a fourth in the well-known view, as there is no precedent for it.

Ibn al-Siraj narrated its permissibility. This extension is a technical metaphor in the adverbial relation occurring after the relation of the real direct object. The transitive verb remains as it is; even if its object is not mentioned, it is either assumed or treated as an intransitive verb. Combining the literal and the metaphorical in a technical metaphor is not a point of disagreement. Thus, al-Radi said: "They agreed that the meaning of the adverb, whether extended or not, is the same." The meaning is: Master of the whole affair on the Day of Recompense. This is established for Him, the Exalted, eternally and forever. This is either because it is one of the essential attributes—on which there is agreement that they are established for Him in that way—or one of the active attributes, which, according to the Maturidis, are the same. Indeed, al-Zarkashi of the Ash‘aris said regarding the use of "the Creator" and "the Sustainer" for Him before the existence of creation and sustenance: it is a reality, even if we say that active attributes occur over time. Or, the meaning is: Master of affairs on the Day of Recompense, in the manner of "And the companions of Paradise called out." In the verse, there is a consequential metaphor, as understood from the speech of al-Baydawi in his commentary.

In both interpretations, its application to the definite is valid because the annexation is real. The extension in the adverb does not negate this, because it is an object in terms of meaning, not in terms of syntax; i.e., the Master relates to it with the relation of being-mastered. Even if the conditions for acting were present, it would act upon it, as the Sharif said. In this there is reflection. The most appropriate is that it implies continuity, and the continuous can have a nominal annexation just as it can be otherwise. The determination is entrusted to the context, as it encompasses all three times. It cannot be objected that the Day of Recompense and what is in it is not continuous in all times, so how can it be imagined that He, the Exalted, is Master on an ongoing basis? We say: With your Lord, there is no morning or evening, and He, the Exalted, is not temporal. Eternity without beginning and eternity without end are for Him a single point; the difference between them is by consideration, and the various expressions in His speech—exalted is His majesty—are with regard to the state of the addressee. Thus, continuity with regard to Him is realized without doubt. From here, an answer can be derived to the famous question that a master cannot be a master of a thing unless it exists, and the Day of Recompense does not exist now. Many have answered that since the Day of Recompense is a certainty, it is treated as if it were present. Furthermore, whoever dies has undergone their resurrection, so it is as if the Resurrection is occurring in the present, and the question vanishes. It is not hidden that the question remains according to the view of some theologians who say that time is nonexistent, for it is said that possessing the nonexistent is impossible. Unless it is said that the speech is a metonymy for His being the Master of the entire affair, because possessing time—like possessing space—necessitates possessing everything within it. It is not necessary in metonymy for the literal meaning to be possible. The necessity is in the sense of transferring the meaning in general, not in the sense of the impossibility of separation, so the objection does not apply.

When you read Malik (King), you are safe from this dispute if you make it a fixed adjective or attach it to rigid generic nouns like "Sultan." But if you make it an intensive form like "wary," it is attached to the active participle, and the same objection that befell us applies to you. As for me, by the grace of Allah, I am not shaken by storms; rather, such matters only make me love the Master more.

He said "Master of the Day of Recompense" and did not say "Day of Resurrection" in observance of the rhyme and to favor generality. For "Recompense" as the meaning of dīn includes all states of the Resurrection from the beginning of the resurrection to the eternal everlasting, and it almost encompasses the entire first creation. Moreover, one does not understand "recompense" from "Day of Resurrection" as one does from "Day of Recompense." Its consideration is not devoid of grace. Also, dīn has meanings in which its usage has spread, such as "obedience" and "law," so the soul of the listener goes to every permissible path. Each of these two meanings has been asserted by someone. The meaning then, upon assuming an omitted noun, is: on the first, the Day of Recompense that is for the religion/law; on the second, the Day of Recompense established in the religion/obedience. If by "obedience" in the first, one means absolute submission—as this will be apparent on that day, whether outwardly or inwardly—and the annexation of "Day" to "religion" in the second is due to the attachment between them in terms of recompense, then there is no need for assuming an omission.

The specification of the "Day" by annexation, even though He is the Master and King of all things in all times, is either for glorification or because the kingdom and kingship obtained in the world by some people, according to the appearance, will vanish, and the creation will shed them in the Hereafter: "And they all will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone." He, the Exalted, will be the only one on that day in possession of them, a uniqueness in which there is no concealment. Therefore, He, the Exalted, said: "A day on which no soul shall possess anything for another soul, and the command on that day will belong to Allah," and "To whom does the kingdom belong today? To Allah, the One, the Overpowering." Furthermore, the first and the last will gather there, the Spirit and the angels will stand in rows, the servants will gather on one plain, and the attribute of Beauty and Majesty will appear in its most perfect manifestation. Thus, the attribute of Mastery and Kingship for the whole will be known in one moment, beyond what was known for each individual or each group over the succession of times.

He, the Exalted, concluded these attributes with this attribute as an indication of the return (i‘ādah), just as He opened with what indicates the origination (ibdā’). Including these attributes for Him is a justification for establishing what preceded and a preparation for what follows. It contains an indication that praise is not merely praise of Allah, but with knowledge of the attributes of perfection and the descriptors of majesty; these are their roots.

It is sometimes said in applying these attributes after mentioning the Name of the Essence, which gathers the attributes of perfection, that it is an indication that what people praise and glorify is for one of four things: either for His being perfect in His essence and attributes, even if there is no benevolence from Him toward them; or for His being a benefactor to them and granting them grace; or because they hope for His kindness and benevolence in the future; or because they fear the perfection of His power. These are the aspects necessitating praise and glorification. It is as if He, the Exalted, says: O My servants, if you praise and glorify for the perfection of essence and attributes, then praise Me, for I am Allah. If for benevolence, nurturing, and blessing, then I am the Lord of the worlds. If for hope and desire for the future, then I am the All-Merciful, the Especially Merciful. If for fear, then I am the Master of the Day of Recompense.

Some people argued—as the Imam said—for the necessity of gratitude by intellect before the coming of the law, because He, the Exalted, established praise here for His essence, and described Himself as being to the worlds as All-Merciful and Especially Merciful, and Master of the consequence of their affairs on the Day of Resurrection. Establishing the ruling upon an appropriate description indicates that the ruling is justified by it. This proves the establishment of praise for Him before the law and after it. This, despite its arguments, is evidence against it, not for it; for this is an explanation from Allah, not an obligation of the intellect, so it is aural, not intellectual. The one who uses this as evidence is like one who butts his head against a rock.

Moreover, in mentioning these five names, there are also subtleties: A human being is a body, a satanic soul, a predatory soul, a beastly soul, and an intellectual angelic essence. The manifestation of His name "Allah" is for the angelic essence ("Verily, in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest"), and the name "Lord" for the satanic soul ("O Lord, I seek refuge in You from the promptings of the devils"), and the name "All-Merciful" for the predatory soul—based on it being a composition of kindness and severity ("The sovereignty on that day will be the truth for the All-Merciful"), and the name "Especially Merciful" for the beastly soul ("He has made lawful for you the good things"), and "Master of the Day of Recompense" for the dense body ("We will attend to you, O you two heavy ones").