Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:29

"God has set forth a parable: a man in whom there are partners who are in disagreement."

This is the introduction of a parable among the Quranic parables, following the explanation that the wisdom behind setting them forth is for remembrance, taking heed, and the attainment of piety. The meaning of "setting forth a parable" here is to apply a strange situation to another like it, and to establish it as its equivalent.

Mathalan (a parable) is the second object of daraba (to set forth), and rajulan (a man) is its first object, delayed from the second to evoke anticipation and to allow what follows—which is the crux of the comparison—to attach to it. Alternatively, mathalan is the object of daraba, and rajulan (et seq.) is an appositive (badal) to it—an appositive of "whole for whole."

Al-Kisa'i said: Rajulan is in the accusative because of an omitted preposition; that is, "a parable [concerning] a man." Others have said differently, and the discussion on its counterpart has preceded.

Fihi (in him) is a predicate placed at the beginning, shuraka'u (partners) is the subject, and mutashakisun (in disagreement) is its adjective. Although an indefinite noun—when qualified—permits the placing of its predicate first, the sentence functions as an adjective for rajulan, and the connective is the pronoun hu (in fihi), or the prepositional phrase itself is in the position of an adjective for it. Shuraka'u is raised by fihi because of its role as an active participle, as it relies upon the qualified noun. It is also said that fihi is connected to shuraka'u, which is the subject, with mutashakisun as its predicate; however, there is no apparent reason for placing it first.

The meaning is: God, the Exalted, has set forth a parable for the polytheist, as his doctrine leads him to claim that each of his deities has a share in his servitude. He is like a slave in whom a group of partners share; they are in conflict due to the sharpness of their tempers and the corruption of their natures. They pull at him and alternate in their competing demands, leaving him in confusion and a distracted heart.

"...and a man," that is, and He has set forth for the monotheist a parable: a man salman—that is, exclusively for one man, with no one else having any claim over him at all. He is, therefore, in a state of rest, free from confusion and the distraction of the heart. The "man" was chosen for the parable because he is more perceptive of what causes his misery or his happiness, whereas a child or a woman might be heedless of such matters.

'Abdullah [ibn Mas'ud], Ibn 'Abbas, 'Ikrimah, Mujahid, Qatadah, Az-Zuhri, Al-Hasan (with a difference of opinion reported from him), Al-Jahdari, Ibn Kathir, and Abu 'Amr read it as saliman—an active participle from salima, meaning pure and free from partnership. Ibn Jubayr read it as silman (with a kasra on the sin and sukun on the lam), and it has also been read as salman (with a fatha and then sukun). Both are verbal nouns (masdar) used to describe them, emphasizing the absolute freedom from partnership.

It is also said that wa-rajulun salimun—in the nominative—implies "and there is a man [who is] salim." It is permissible not to assume any omission, and for rajulun to be the subject and salimun the predicate, as it is a place for elaboration, for what indicates this has already preceded. This would be like the saying of Imru' al-Qays: "When she cries from behind it, I turn to her with a side, and a side of ours has not changed."

His saying—Exalted be He—: "Are they equal as a parable?" is an act of negation and rejection of their equality. It is a negation of the most eloquent and emphatic nature, signaling that this is so clear and manifest that no one could possibly articulate their equality or stutter in judging their distinctness. This is of necessity because one of them is in blame and toil, while the other is in peace of mind and contentment. It is also said: of necessity because one of them is in the highest of heights and the other in the lowest of depths. Regardless, the secret in making the superior and inferior ambiguous is to point to the perfection of the clarity for anyone possessing even the slightest sense.

The accusative of mathalan is due to it being a discriminative (tamyiz) transformed from the subject, as the underlying meaning is "Are their parables and their states equal?" The limitation of the discriminative to the singular is to indicate the genus, and the limitation to the singular first [in the text] is in His saying: "God has set forth a parable." It has been read as mathalayn (two parables)—that is, "Are their two parables and their two states equal?" It is dualized, even though the intent of the discriminative is achieved by the singular without confusion, to signal an additional meaning: the difference in category. It is also permitted that the pronoun in yastawiyan (do they two equal) refers to the two parables, as the meaning in the preceding is "a parable of a man and a parable of a man"—that is, "Are the two parables equal as two parables?" This follows the structure of kafa bi-hima rajulayn (they are sufficient as two men), and it belongs to the category of "To God belongs his merit as a knight." This returns to the question: "Are they equal as two men in that which was set forth as a parable?" Since the parable (mathal) means the strange quality that acts as a likeness, the meaning is: "Are they equal in that which pertains to description?"

His saying—Exalted be He—: "All praise belongs to God" is a confirmation of what preceded regarding the negation of equality, by way of an interpolation (i'tirad). It serves to alert the monotheists that the merit they possess is by the success granted by God, and that it is a magnificent blessing requiring constancy in His praise and worship. Or, it indicates that His—Exalted be He—explanation by setting forth the parable—that the monotheists have the highest example and the polytheists the example of evil—is a beautiful act and a complete grace from Him, the Almighty, which necessitates His praise and worship.

His saying—Exalted be He—: "Nay, most of them do not know."

This is a disjunction and a transition from stating the lack of equality in the aforementioned manner to stating that most people—namely the polytheists—do not know this, despite its perfect clarity, or that they are not among the people of knowledge, so they do not know it and remain in the quagmire of polytheism and misguidance. It is also said that the meaning is that they do not know that everything is from God, and that all praises belong to Him, the Almighty; thus, they associate others with Him, Glorified be He. Therefore, the statement is a completion of "All praise belongs to God," and there is no interpolation. It is not hidden that basing the speech on an interpolation, as you have heard, is better.