Sūrat al-⁠Fātiḥah, Verse 2

1. The Questions This Verse Raises §

Are حَمْد and شُكْر the same word? §

Ḥamd is usually translated as praise, and shukr as thanks. The words often meet in one act: a person receives a kindness, recognizes it, and speaks well of the one who gave it. Does this shared use make them synonyms, or does each word name something distinct?

Three explanations address the question.

One explanation treats them as synonyms. Al-Ṭabarī points to ordinary Arabic usage: ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ شُكْرًا (al-ḥamdu lillāhi shukran), “praise be to Allah in thanks.” He understands the language as allowing one word to stand in the place of the other. Al-Mubarrad gives the same explanation.^{⁠[52]⁠[53]}

An athar, a saying from an early Muslim, attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما describes ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ as:

This wording belongs to the athar attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās. The hadith qudsi in Muslim answers the same verse with

Al-Qurṭubī also draws on the accepted Arabic expression ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ شُكْرًا; al-Sulamī records the same expression from Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and Ibn ʿAṭāʾ.^⁠[56]

A second makes praise one part of thanks. Al-Zamakhsharī treats ḥamd as one of the branches of shukr. Thanks can be expressed in more than one way; praise spoken by the tongue is one of those ways.^⁠[57]

A third distinguishes what prompts the act from how it is expressed. On this explanation, neither word simply contains the other. Each is wider in one respect and narrower in another, a relationship called عُمُوم وخُصُوص (ʿumūm wa-khuṣūṣ).^{⁠[58]⁠[59]}

Consider first what the act is for. You can praise someone for courage or horsemanship even when you received no benefit from either. Thanks, however, responds to a benefit received: you thank a person for helping you. In this respect, praise reaches further than thanks.

Now consider how it is expressed. Praise is spoken by the tongue. Thanks may be expressed by the heart, the tongue and the limbs. A person can acknowledge a kindness inwardly, thank the giver aloud, and respond through an action. In this respect, thanks reaches further than spoken praise.^⁠[60]

Saying that praise is spoken by the tongue does not mean that the heart may be absent:

Praise describes the one praised with attributes of perfection, together with love and reverence. The hadith

reinforces this requirement.^⁠[62] The tongue voices the praise; the heart agrees with it.

The distinction also appears in the words’ opposites. Ḥamd is opposed to ذَمّ (dhamm), blame, as is مَدْح (madḥ), commendation. Shukr is opposed to كُفْرَان (kufrān), ingratitude. Their different opposites support the conclusion that praise and thanks do not mean exactly the same thing.^⁠[63]

Ibn Kathīr explains the distinction through the usage of later scholars, al-Jawharī’s dictionary and a poetic witness. Al-Jawharī’s entry begins

The poem names the hand, tongue and hidden heart as responses to another’s favors, illustrating the different ways of giving thanks.^⁠[64]

Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī (d. 502 AH / 1108–09 CE), a lexicographer of Qurʾānic vocabulary, offers another way of relating praise, thanks and commendation:

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī also records this explanation.^⁠[66] It describes which meanings include others. The preceding analysis compares two things separately: the occasion for praise or thanks, and the means by which each is expressed. These are different accounts of their relationship, and the distinction between the questions should remain clear.

Praise and thanks are distinct in meaning, even though they can meet in the same words. Their different opposites, occasions and forms of expression explain why neither should simply replace the other. In al-Fātiḥah, ḥamd includes praise for Allah’s perfection as well as for His favors.^⁠[67]

A related question remains: how does praise differ from ثَنَاء (thanāʾ), extolling?

Is حَمْد simply ثَنَاء? §

Many commentators explain ḥamd as thanāʾ: extolling Allah by His beautiful names and exalted attributes. Al-Ṭabarī and al-Zamakhsharī are among them, and Ibn Manẓūr records this meaning in Lisān al-ʿArab.^⁠[68]

Al-Qurṭubī calls it

praising the One praised by His attributes. He also quotes Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq’s explanation that whoever praises Allah by the attributes with which He described Himself has praised Him.^{⁠[69]⁠[70]} Kaʿb al-Aḥbār expresses the connection briefly:

is Allah’s extolling of Himself.^⁠[71]

Ibn Taymiyyah makes a more specific distinction. He treats ḥamd as the general category, then asks about its quantity and quality:

Here, اسم جنس (ism jins) means a noun naming a whole kind of thing. Ḥamd names praise generally. Thanāʾ describes praise repeated and added to; it concerns how much praise is offered. تَمْجِيد (tamjīd), magnifying, concerns praise of greatness and majesty; it describes the character of the praise.^⁠[73]

The hadith qudsi makes the distinction audible in the prayer. The servant says

and Allah answers

The servant continues with

and Allah answers

With

comes

The praise grows as the recitation continues, and the mention of Allah’s greatness gives it the character of magnification. Describing thanāʾ as repeated praise therefore leaves intact what the earlier explanation recognizes: extolling praises Allah through His names and attributes. It makes the relationship more precise by distinguishing praise generally from its repetition and magnification.^{⁠[75]⁠[76]}

This distinction best explains the three answers in the hadith. The second answer recognizes the further praise offered in speaking of His mercy, and the third recognizes the magnification of Allah. Treating all three terms as simply interchangeable would leave that progression unexplained.^⁠[77]

Who are ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ? §

The word عَالَم (ʿālam) means a world; here it appears in the plural. Does “the worlds” mean those who receive revelation and warning, living or rational beings more broadly, or the whole creation? Four explanations appear in the commentaries.

Jinn and mankind. This explanation is attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما through two isnads, and is also given by Saʿīd b. Jubayr, Mujāhid and Ibn Jurayj. These athar state the explanation without supplying its argument.^{⁠[78]⁠[79]⁠[80]⁠[81]} Al-Qurṭubī gives a reason from another verse:

Warning addresses those who can receive it and answer for their response. In that verse, “the worlds” therefore means mankind and jinn.^⁠[82]

Everything with reason. Al-Farrāʾ and Abū ʿUbaydah include humans, jinn, angels and devils. On this explanation, animal kingdom is not called a world.^⁠[83]

Everything that has a soul and takes food. This explanation is given by Zayd b. Aslam and Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ.^⁠[84]

Everything other than Allah. The explanations gathered under this reading describe creation from several directions. An athar from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما names every heaven and all it contains, every earth and all it contains, and what is known along with what is unknown.^⁠[85] Qatādah explains the plurality of worlds through their kinds: every class of creatures is a world.^⁠[86] Al-Zajjāj includes everything created in this life and the next.^⁠[87] These descriptions show the breadth of the same meaning; mentioning one aspect does not make it a boundary excluding the others.

Ibn Kathīr states that breadth directly:

The plural includes all the kinds to which the word applies: the creatures of the heavens, the earth and what lies between them; angels, mankind, jinn, devils, animals and things that do not move. In this sense,

Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, the Najdī scholar of the twelfth Islamic century, explains what all these worlds have in common:

The distinction is between the Lord and the creation that depends on Him. No rank within creation removes that dependence.

The word can also identify the people of a particular era. Al-Ṭabarī explains this use by bringing two verses together. Of Banū Isrāʾīl, the Qurʾān says:

To this Ummah it says:

Al-Ṭabarī understands Banū Isrāʾīl’s distinction in relation to the worlds of their own time. The two statements then agree: their earlier distinction does not displace the later Ummah’s description as the best nation.^{⁠[91]⁠[92]} Saʿīd b. Jubayr gives a related explanation in terms of peoples: each nation is a world.^⁠[93]

In this verse, “the worlds” includes the whole creation. A particular context can give the word a narrower scope. At 25:1, the mention of warning identifies mankind and jinn. At 26:165, the context identifies the males among the human worlds of that time. Nothing in “Lord of the worlds” calls for either restriction.^⁠[94]

Al-Qurṭubī supports the comprehensive meaning with the exchange between Firʿawn (Pharaoh) and Mūsā (Moses) at 26:23–24. Firʿawn asks:

Mūsā answers:

That answer explains “the worlds” through the heavens, the earth and everything between them. Al-Qurṭubī concludes:

How many worlds are there? §

Some early athar give numbers for the worlds. The numbers differ, and their presence in a commentary does not give them all the same authority.

Abū al-ʿĀliyah describes mankind as one world and jinn as another. He then mentions eighteen thousand worlds of angels on the earth (or fourteen thousand, with the narrator unsure which number he heard), and three thousand five hundred worlds at each of the earth’s four corners. Al-Ṭabarī gives this athar without commenting on its reliability.^⁠[97] Other counts are attributed to Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, a thousand nations; Wahb b. Munabbih, eighteen thousand; Muqātil, eighty thousand; and Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī رضي الله عنه, forty thousand.^⁠[98]

Ibn Kathīr makes two judgments within the material he gathers. Of Abū al-ʿĀliyah’s count, he says:

He also judges the one hadith attributed to the Prophet ﷺ to be weak, identifying Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Hilālī as a weak narrator.^⁠[100] He passes on the other counts without a separate judgment on each.

The way he gathers the material also matters. The counts from Saʿīd, Wahb and Muqātil appear in a group he takes from al-Baghawī:

The same group includes Kaʿb al-Aḥbār’s statement that none but Allah knows how many the worlds are. Ibn Kathīr takes the forty-thousand count from al-Qurṭubī, then moves to al-Qurṭubī’s explanation of what “the worlds” includes.^⁠[101]

These are two different questions: what the verse includes, and how many worlds there are. The comprehensive meaning of “Lord of the worlds” does not depend on establishing a particular count. Kaʿb’s statement leaves their number to Allah; it is an athar from him, and Ibn Kathīr does not give it a separate grading.^⁠[102]

Is ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ better than لَا إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ? §

The question compares praise with the declaration that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. Ibn Kathīr presents two explanations, the first through al-Qurṭubī.^⁠[103]

One gives preference to the verse of praise. “All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of the worlds” includes tawheed, the affirmation that worship belongs to Allah alone, and joins praise to that affirmation. On this reasoning, it brings the two meanings together, while لَا إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ (lā ilāha illā llāh) declares tawheed.

The other gives preference to the declaration of tawheed. This declaration marks the distinction between faith and unbelief and is the profession by which a person enters Islam. Ibn Kathīr mentions the Prophet’s ﷺ command to fight the idolaters of his own time until they made this profession as evidence of its place at the entrance to Islam.^⁠[104]

The hadith with which Ibn Kathīr closes the discussion makes a distinction within the question itself. Jābir رضي الله عنه narrates:

The declaration is called the best remembrance, while praise is called the best supplication. Each excellence is stated with its own description. This explains the conclusion more precisely than assigning one unqualified rank to both phrases: the hadith itself tells us what kind of excellence is being named. Al-Tirmidhī graded the hadith حسن (ḥasan); Ibn Kathīr cites that judgment as al-Tirmidhī’s.^⁠[106]

What follows from praising the Lord of every world? §

“All praise belongs to Allah” affirms His perfection. “Lord of the worlds” tells us how creation stands before Him. Read together, the two statements explain why He deserves worship, why His creatures need Him, and why their acts cannot be treated as though they had no responsibility for them.

The names explain the praise.

Praise must rest on something true of the one praised. Without that basis, it becomes falsehood.^⁠[107] The opening of al-Fātiḥah gives both the praise and its grounds. Allah is praised in His divinity, His lordship, His mercy and His kingship. His praise of Himself also appears in 28:70 and 30:18, declaring the perfection that is already His.^{⁠[108]⁠[109]}

Ibn al-Qayyim distinguishes a general affirmation from a detailed one. “All praise” affirms Allah’s perfection as a whole. The divine names that follow identify central aspects of it.^⁠[110]

The five names considered across this opening passage are Allah, al-Rabb, al-Raḥmān, al-Raḥīm and al-Malik. Allah is the One worshipped with love and reverence; al-Rabb affirms His lordship; al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm affirm His mercy; and al-Malik affirms His kingship.^⁠[111]

Each name conveys perfection, and their combination conveys further perfection. The One praised is Lord, Merciful and King together. His names thus give substance to the praise with which the sūrah begins. Praise includes love of Him and submission to Him; denying the attributes of the One praised undermines that praise. Ibn al-Qayyim’s formulation of this point appears in the commentator discussion below.^⁠[112]

Perfect praise has consequences for human responsibility.

The Jabriyyah held that Allah compels people to perform their acts and then punishes them for those acts. The issue is what such punishment would mean: the servant would be punished for something beyond his power, or for something that was not his own doing.

The verse provides the answer through its affirmation of Allah’s perfection. Allah does not punish His servants for what they have no power over or for what is not their doing. A description that makes Him compel a helpless servant to act and then punish that servant for the compelled act contradicts the perfection for which He is praised.^⁠[113]

The Lord who creates is the One to worship.

The name Allah identifies the One worshipped with love and reverence. Ibn Taymiyyah connects the name with that worship:

Rabb then directs attention to dependence. Allah’s general lordship reaches all creation; His special care guides His faithful servants. Both appear within al-Fātiḥah: “Lord of the worlds” expresses the first, while “You alone we ask for help” points to the second. Their consequence is that all creatures should turn to Allah in their needs and in their worship. The One who creates, owns and governs them is the One who deserves their worship.^⁠[115]

Created things also bear witness to their Creator. Everything in the universe points to Allah’s existence and His perfection in His essence and attributes, answering the denial of His existence. Verse 14:10 asks whether there can be doubt about Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.^⁠[116]

Ibn Taymiyyah approaches the certainty of His existence from the other direction, beginning with Allah as evidence for everything:

His lordship also entails complete knowledge and power. The One who creates the worlds and governs them knows His creatures and their conditions. His power extends over them. Verse 65:12 joins Allah’s power over all things with His knowledge of all things. This is the ground within Verse 2 for the fuller discussion of divine knowledge and power in the sūrah introduction.^⁠[118]

The Creator has no beginning.

Allah is the First, without a beginning. The worlds are His creation: He brought them into existence after they had not existed. Verse 76:1 recalls the time when the human being was nothing worth mentioning, while 57:3 names Allah “the First.” The creation begins; its Creator is the First without a beginning.^⁠[119]

The world was created; it has not existed without a beginning alongside Allah. Three teachings of the verse establish this distinction:^⁠[120]

1. Praise includes Allah’s freely willed acts. He is praised for what He does as well as for His attributes. The creation of the world is His act: the created world comes after its Creator, rather than existing without a beginning alongside Him.
2. Lordship places all the worlds under their Creator. Everything in those worlds is ruled and created. Whatever is created comes into existence after not existing.
3. Oneness preserves what belongs uniquely to Allah. All praise belongs to Him alone, and all the worlds stand under His lordship. No part of those worlds shares the properties unique to its Lord.

The world therefore cannot share its Creator’s absence of a beginning. It exists through Him and remains under His lordship. The praise with which the prayer begins leads to the same conclusion as its declaration of lordship: worship and dependence belong to Allah alone.

2. How the Commentators Read This Verse §

Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH / 923 CE) §

Al-Ṭabarī reads the opening as words Allah teaches His servants to say. The command to say them is understood, although no verb of saying appears in the verse.

He explains this through a familiar feature of Arabic: a word can be left unspoken when the meaning supplies it. His poetic witness is

A sword can be girded on; a spear is carried. The listener supplies the second action without needing a second verb. In al-Fātiḥah, the later words إِيَّاكَ نَعۡبُدُ (iyyāka naʿbud), “You alone we worship,” likewise make the speaker’s role clear. They are words the servants address to Allah, helping us understand the opening praise as speech He teaches them.^⁠[121]

Having explained the divine name already, al-Ṭabarī begins his treatment of rabb by referring back to it:

The verse thus does more than describe Allah’s praise: it teaches the servant to offer it. Ibn Kathīr expresses the same point briefly. Allah praises Himself in these words and commands His servants to praise Him through them.^⁠[123]

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH / 1328 CE) §

Ibn Taymiyyah begins with two grounds of praise. Allah is praised for His kindness to His servants; this praise belongs to thanks. He is also praised for the perfection He possesses in Himself, whether or not the person praising Him is thinking of a particular favor.^⁠[124]

The second ground brings the divine attributes into the discussion. To praise someone for perfection is to affirm something good of him. Merely saying what he is not gives no perfection by itself. Praise therefore requires real attributes of perfection; a bare negation supplies neither good nor perfection on its own.^⁠[125]

The same reasoning explains why Allah is more worthy of praise than anything He created. Whatever good a creature is praised for came from its Creator. The One who gave that perfection is worthier of praise than the creature that received it. “All praise belongs to Allah” therefore speaks both about His own perfection and about the source of every good found in creation.^⁠[126]

Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH / 1350 CE) §

For Ibn al-Qayyim, knowledge of Allah’s attributes gives praise its substance. The more fully His attributes of perfection are affirmed, the more complete the praise. Denying those attributes removes the very qualities for which He is praised:

This explains why praise cannot be reduced to repeating a word while rejecting what that word affirms about Allah. Yet the servant’s knowledge and praise never encompass His perfection. Ibn al-Qayyim ends with the Prophet’s ﷺ words:

Al-Biqāʿī (d. 885 AH / 1480 CE) §

Al-Biqāʿī follows the order in which the verse gives the grounds of praise. Allah deserves praise for who He is. The description “Lord of the worlds” then names His relationship to the creation He owns and benefits:

The second ground adds His acts of lordship and generosity to the first ground, His own perfection. “The worlds” then directs attention to the beginning of creation. What has been made points to its Maker; the One who created it the first time can bring it into being again. This second inference prepares the reader for مَٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ, “Master of the Day of Recompense.”^⁠[130]

Al-Biqāʿī therefore reads the descriptions together: praise, lordship, the two names of mercy, and mastery of the Day stand in a meaningful order. The mention of the created worlds already prepares for the Day on which their people will return to their Creator.

3. Iʿrāb: Grammatical Structure§

Together, ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ forms a complete جملة اسمية (jumlah ismiyyah), a sentence built from a subject and predicate. The phrase رَبِّ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ describes the divine name within it.^⁠[131]

Where the grammar changes the meaning §

What does ٱل (al-) add to حَمْد (ḥamd)?

The definite article can direct attention to a kind of thing, or encompass all that belongs to that kind. This distinction lies behind two explanations of al-ḥamd.

ٱلِٱسْتِغْرَاق (al-istighrāq): encompassing every kind of praise. On this explanation, the article gives the statement its full reach: all praise belongs to Allah. A useful test is to replace the article with كُلّ (kull), “all.” The meaning remains: all praise is His. This use of the article applies to descriptive terms and nouns naming a whole kind of thing.^⁠[132] Al-Ṭabarī, Ibn ʿAṭiyyah, al-Qurṭubī, al-Nasafī, Ibn Taymiyyah, Abū Ḥayyān, Ibn Kathīr and Ibn ʿUthaymīn take the comprehensive explanation.^{⁠[133]⁠[134]⁠[135]}

Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb states it directly:

تَعْرِيف ٱلْجِنْس (taʿrīf al-jins): identifying praise as a kind. Al-Zamakhsharī explains the article as pointing to the familiar meaning of praise itself:

On this reading, the sentence declares that praise as such belongs to Allah. The first explanation makes its comprehensive scope explicit; the second begins with the recognized category of praise. Both concern the same noun, but they explain the article’s work differently.

The comprehensive explanation is stronger here. The substitution of kull, “all,” expresses the verse’s meaning: every kind of praise belongs to Allah.^⁠[138] The claim reaches even the good for which a creature is praised.

Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb develops this consequence in two stages. First, Allah deserves praise for gifts no creature could have made: our existence, hearing and sight, the heavens and the earth, and our provision. Second, He deserves praise for the good that reaches us through another person. Allah created the person, gave him the means to act, made him love the good act and strengthened him to perform it. Without these gifts, he could not have done the good for which we thank him.^⁠[139]

The person’s kindness is real, and thanking him remains part of thanking Allah. The Prophet ﷺ said:

The comprehensive meaning therefore teaches us to recognize both the kindness and its source. We thank the person who helped us, and praise Allah who made that person able and willing to help. All praise returns to Him without cancelling the gratitude owed to His servants.

4. Ṣarf: Roots and Word Formation§

Where the morphology changes the meaning §

How does رَبّ (rabb) describe the Lord?

A word may describe the one who acts, or it may name an action and be used to describe that person with emphasis. The grammatical question is which of these explains rabb.

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī records two analyses. One treats rabb as a description. The other treats it as a مصدر (maṣdar), a noun naming an action, used in place of the اسم فاعل (ism fāʿil), the word describing the doer. On the second analysis, the word for the action describes the one who performs it.^⁠[145]

The first analysis raises a further question. Is رَبّ shortened from رَابّ (rābb), “nurturer,” as بَرّ (barr), “dutiful,” is shortened from بَارّ (bārr)? Or is it an adjective formed directly on the pattern فَعْل (faʿl), without a verb behind it, like صَعْب (ṣaʿb), “hard,” and ضَخْم (ḍakhm), “bulky”? Al-Samīn leaves these alternatives open.^⁠[146]

Ibn ʿĀshūr considers the action noun alongside a derived description of a settled quality. This is a separate comparison from the question of whether rabb is shortened from rābb:

As a maṣdar, it describes Allah with emphasis:

As a صِفَة مُشَبَّهَة (ṣifah mushabbahah), its pattern would be uncommon. Ibn ʿĀshūr explains: فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَكُونُ عَلَى فَعْلٍ مِنْ فَعَلَ يَفْعُلُ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا, this descriptive form only rarely takes the pattern faʿl from a verb of the class faʿala yafʿulu. This formula identifies the vowel pattern of the verb in its past and present forms: a in the past, u in the present. His example is نَمَّ الْحَدِيثَ يَنُمُّهُ فَهُوَ نَمٌّ: he spreads talk, and so is described as one who spreads it.^⁠[148]

Ibn ʿĀshūr also considers which meaning of the verb supplies the derivation:

His reason comes from the sūrah’s order. If rabb already meant “owner” here, مَٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ, “Master of the Day of Recompense,” would repeat that meaning two verses later. It would be

A later expression is normally expected to add a meaning, unless the context indicates that it repeats an earlier one for emphasis. He therefore favors the derivation that gives this description the distinct sense of raising and governing.^⁠[150]

The classification of lordship as a divine attribute is a separate matter:

Nurturing is something He does; being Lord is something He is. This classification does not settle whether the word is a shortened form, an action noun, or an adjective of a settled quality. The grammatical explanations concern its form and derivation. Ibn ʿĀshūr’s preference concerns the sense of raising and governing within this verse; the wider meanings of lordship were explained above.

Is ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ (al-ʿālamīn) the plural of عَالَم (ʿālam)?

Al-Ṭabarī treats عَالَم as a collective noun, one which names a group without having a singular from the same root. He compares الأنام (al-anām), “living creatures,” الرهط (al-rahṭ), “a band of men,” and الجيش (al-jaysh), “an army.” Its plural is عَالَمُون (ʿālamūn).^⁠[152] Ibn Kathīr gives the same analysis.^⁠[153]

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī raises a difficulty. On his account, عَالَم (ʿālam) includes every existing thing other than Allah, while عَالَمُون (ʿālamūn) includes only rational beings. A plural would then include fewer kinds of things than its own singular. For this reason he does not treat the second as an ordinary plural of the first. He compares Sībawayh’s refusal to make أعراب (aʿrāb), “the Bedouin,” the plural of عرب (ʿarab), “the Arabs.”^⁠[154]

The answer rests on what the plural ending does. Under تَغْلِيب (taghlīb), a group containing different kinds takes the grammatical form of the kind given precedence. The ending used for rational beings can therefore include the rest of creation along with them. On this explanation, the ending does not narrow the word to rational beings, so the singular is not wider than the plural.^⁠[155]

The plural analysis is the one followed here. The ending is explained by taghlīb, while “the worlds” retains its broad sense. This follows al-Ṭabarī’s analysis, also given by Ibn Kathīr.^{⁠[156]⁠[157]}

What does the root of عَالَم (ʿālam) suggest?

One explanation derives it from عَلَامَة (ʿalāmah), “a sign.” Ibn Kathīr takes this derivation from al-Qurṭubī, then adds his own observation, marked قلت (qultu), “I say”: every world points to its Creator and His oneness.^⁠[158] Al-Samīn calls the derivation المشهور (al-mashhūr), “the well-known explanation.”^⁠[159] It is also the more evident derivation adopted here.^⁠[160]

Another explanation relates the word to عِلْم (ʿilm), “knowledge.” This can mean two things. If it means that Allah created the worlds with knowledge of them, the meaning is correct. The Qurʾān says:

If it means that the worlds are named for the limited knowledge they possess, that explanation remains possible. The verse cited alongside this possibility is:

The derivation from “sign” is more evident, while the possibility of a connection with both roots remains open.^⁠[162] These explanations concern what the name suggests. The separate question about its plural concerns the breadth of what it names and the function of its ending.

5. Balāgha: Rhetorical Analysis §

Praise as an abiding truth: الجملة الاسمية (al-jumlah al-ismiyyah) §

The verse says ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ, “All praise belongs to Allah.” It does not use a verb such as نَحْمَدُ ٱللَّهَ (naḥmadu llāha), “we praise Allah.” The difference is between describing an act of praise and declaring that praise belongs to Him.

An act takes place at a particular time. The nominal sentence presents Allah’s right to praise as continuing and permanent. He is worthy of praise at all times, in all ages and in every state.^⁠[163]

Al-Sāmarrāʾī draws out the breadth of this meaning: praise belongs to Allah before the beginning and after the end. It agrees with the Qurʾānic declaration:

Our act of praising Him begins and ends. His worthiness continues.

A statement that also teaches a command: خبر بمعنى الأمر (khabar bi-maʿnā al-amr) §

The verse states that praise belongs to Allah. Through that statement, Allah also teaches His servants to praise Him. The command can be expressed directly, as at 27:59:

Here the statement itself conveys the instruction: Allah declares His praise and commands His servants to offer it.^⁠[165] Al-Ṭabarī explains this by supplying an understood verb of saying. He also cites an athar from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما in which Jibrīl tells the Prophet ﷺ to say ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ.^⁠[166]

The servant receives both the instruction and the words with which to fulfill it.

A plural that gives precedence to rational beings: التغليب (al-taghlīb) §

The ending of ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ is the one used for rational beings, yet the word includes the rest of creation too. Under taghlīb, the whole group takes the grammatical form of those given precedence within it.

Here that precedence belongs to those addressed by revelation and charged with moral responsibility. Intellect and perception make that responsibility possible; they are “the peg on which moral responsibility hangs.”^⁠[167] The ending thus draws attention to responsible beings without excluding the other worlds under Allah’s lordship.

Two Qurʾānic parallels illustrate the use of such forms. After teaching Ādam the names, Allah says:

The pronoun “them” takes the form used for rational beings, while referring to the things whose names Ādam was taught. A similar form appears in the description of animals:

The grammatical form need not confine the meaning to rational beings. The person reciting “Lord of the worlds” is among the worlds he names, and is also among those responsible for answering his Lord.

The divine name comes first: التقديم (al-taqdīm) §

The verse places ٱللَّهِ (Allāhi) before رَبِّ (rabbi). Ibn ʿUthaymīn gives two reasons for this order.^⁠[169]

First, Allah is the proper name to which the other divine names are attached. The name comes first, and the descriptions follow it.

Second, the peoples to whom the messengers were sent denied Allah’s exclusive right to be worshipped while acknowledging His lordship. On this explanation, the verse begins with the name that identifies the One who alone deserves worship, then describes Him as Lord. It leads with the truth they needed to acknowledge. Ibn ʿUthaymīn gives both reasons without selecting between them.^⁠[170]

6. Qirāʾāt §

Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833 AH / 1429–30 CE), author of the standard work on the ten qirāʾāt, identifies one verse-specific difference in al-Fātiḥah, at Verse 4. The other matters he treats are أصول (uṣūl), recitation principles that apply throughout the Qurʾān. There is no verse-specific difference among the ten canonical readings at Verse 2.^⁠[171]

Ibn Kathīr also records three forms outside the canonical ten. His account names the reading of the seven as its point of comparison; that historical scope explains the first row below.^⁠[172]

Ibn Jinnī describes the two vowel-harmony forms as

Ibn Kathīr independently calls Ibn Abī ʿAblah’s reading شاذ.^⁠[174]

The attribution of the two harmony forms needs care. Ibn Kathīr gives Ibn Abī ʿAblah the لُلَّهِ form:

Makkī’s list, quoted by Ibn al-Jazarī, gives the same attribution.^⁠[176] The table follows these two accounts.

Ibn Jinnī gives a different attribution. He assigns the لُلَّهِ form to قراءة أهل البادية (qirāʾatu ahli l-bādiyah), “the recitation of the desert Arabs.” He gives ٱلْحَمْدِ لِلَّهِ as Ibn Abī ʿAblah’s reading on the authority of companions of his own:

He also assigns this latter form to al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and Zayd b. ʿAlī, agreeing with the other two accounts about those names.^⁠[177] Ibn al-Jazarī adds that the names in his list are not exclusive:

The form with naṣb has its own attributions. Ibn Kathīr names Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah and Ruʾbah. Ibn al-Jazarī cites Abū al-Faḍl al-Rāzī’s al-Lawāmiḥ, which attributes it to Zayd b. ʿAlī, Ruʾbah and Hārūn b. Mūsā al-ʿAtakī.^⁠[179] Ibn Jinnī discusses the two harmony forms at this verse, without including the مَنْصُوب (manṣūb) form.^⁠[180]

Its absence from al-Muḥtasab does not mean that no one transmitted it; the other named works do. Its status is nevertheless outside the canonical ten. This also keeps a separate principle clear: a qirāʾah requires transmitted authority; grammatical possibility alone does not establish one. An imaginable grammatical form outside the transmitted qirāʾāt is not thereby a form to recite.

Why do the harmony forms bring the two vowels together? Ibn Jinnī begins with the phrase’s frequency in Arabic speech. Frequently used expressions can undergo changes that make them easier to pronounce. He compares لم يكُ (lam yaku) with لم يكن (lam yakun), “he was not,” and لا أدرِ (lā adri) with لا أدري (lā adrī), “I do not know.” In the two readings, one vowel follows the other and the words are treated as a single unit.^⁠[181]

He regards ٱلْحَمْدُ لُلَّهِ (al-ḥamdu lullāhi) as the easier form, for two reasons. First, the later sound follows the earlier one, fitting the order of a cause before its effect. Second, the two vowels have different grammatical roles. The ضمة (ḍammah), u, on the د (dāl) is an إعراب (iʿrāb) ending: it marks the word’s role in the sentence. The كسرة (kasrah), i, on the ل (lām) belongs to بناء (bināʾ): it is fixed as part of the word. Ibn Jinnī gives the iʿrāb vowel the stronger claim, so the fixed vowel follows it.^⁠[182]

From this he draws an observation he says had not been made before him. ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ is a sentence with a subject and predicate, yet its two parts were treated as one word for vowel harmony. For him, that treatment shows how closely the subject and predicate belong together.^⁠[183]

Pausing at the verse endings. Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها narrates that the Prophet ﷺ paused at each verse ending. He recited the Basmala, the opening phrase بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ (bismi llāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm), then ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ, then ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ, then مَٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ.^⁠[184]

Ibn Kathīr describes both pausing and joining. Some recite with these pauses. The majority in his account join the ٱلرَّحِيمِ (al-raḥīmi) at the end of the opening phrase to ٱلۡحَمۡدُ. They give its final م (mīm) a كسرة (kasrah), i, avoiding the meeting of two vowelless letters. Al-Kisāʾī also gives a third form from some Arabs. Ibn Kathīr passes on Ibn ʿAṭiyyah’s qualification about it:

And Allah knows best.