Sūrat al-⁠Fātiḥah, Verse 4

1. The Questions This Verse Raises §

Does naming Allah as the Owner and King of that Day limit His rule to that Day? §

The verse names Allah as the Owner and King of the Day of Recompense. This does not mean that He owns and rules only that Day.

“Lord of the worlds” has already answered the question. That description includes this world and the next. The verse now draws attention to the Day when the extent of His ownership will be plain to all.^⁠[30]

Ibn Kathīr states the governing rule:

What makes that Day different is not that Allah’s rule begins then. It is that every competing claim to power will disappear. Nobody will claim anything or speak except by His permission. Ibn Kathīr cites, among other verses:

Ibn ʿUthaymīn makes the same point through a question: Is Allah not the Owner of this world as well? Certainly He is. The difference is that His authority, kingship, and ownership will become completely visible on that Day. Allah will ask:

Nobody will answer.^⁠[32]

Allah already possesses the authority that everyone will then acknowledge.

What does the verse affirm about resurrection? §

Naming the Day of Recompense affirms the resurrection and the bodily return. It answers those who deny that human beings will be raised after death. The Day belongs to Allah and will certainly come.

This certainty also explains the force of the wording. The Day is still ahead of us, yet Allah names Himself as its Owner. Its coming is so certain that the wording presents it as something already standing before us.^⁠[33]

The Qurʾān declares:

The verse joins the certainty of the Day to the opportunity for return now. Knowledge of what lies ahead calls for a response while action remains possible.

Why does recompense imply a record of deeds? §

Recompense concerns what a person has actually done. For deeds to be judged and repaid with justice, they must be known and accounted for. The meaning of ٱلدِّين therefore includes an important implication: our deeds are written, recorded and counted.^⁠[35]

The Qurʾān makes that recording explicit, even for speech:

Another passage places denial of recompense beside the reality of the record:

The connection is direct. Denying the account does not stop the recording of deeds. When the Day comes, judgment will concern an accurately preserved record, including words that their speaker may long have forgotten.

مَٰلِكِ (mālik) or مَلِكِ (malik): does one convey more? §

A person can own a house without being a king. A king can govern a country without owning every house in it. Ownership and kingship are therefore distinct, even though they may belong to the same person. Al-Ṭabarī records the corresponding distinction in Arabic:

• مَلِك (malik), King, comes from مُلْك (mulk), kingship.
• مَالِك (mālik), Owner, comes from مِلْك (milk), ownership.^⁠[37]

When these words describe Allah in this verse, does either say more than the other? The commentators offer three explanations. Their reasoning turns on what is being compared: the words by themselves, the things owned and ruled, or the complete phrase “of the Day of Recompense.” Both qirāʾāt remain established throughout this discussion.

Position One: King conveys more §

The first explanation begins with the additional authority a king possesses. An ordinary owner controls what belongs to him; a king also commands those under his rule. On this reasoning, every king is an owner in some sense, but not every owner is a king. Fewer people qualify as kings, yet the title attributes more to those who do.

This is the point of Ibn ʿUthaymīn's statement:

“Narrower” concerns whom the word describes. The accompanying claim is that it conveys greater authority. Al-Baghawī, al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn al-Jawzī and al-Qurṭubī are named among the holders of this position.^⁠[39] Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ likewise regards مَلِك as more intensive in praise.^⁠[40]

Al-Ṭabarī develops a further reason from the sequence of al-Fātiḥah. “Lord of the worlds” has already established Allah's ownership. In his reading, “King” then expressly adds kingship and command, whereas “Owner” would repeat the ownership already conveyed.^⁠[41]

Al-Zamakhsharī also points to the qirāʾah of the people of the two Sacred Cities and to Allah's question,

Ibn Kathīr records both grounds for his choice.^⁠[42]

Position Two: Owner conveys more §

The second explanation asks us to look more closely at ownership itself. The word “owner” reaches beyond kings: many people own something without ruling a people. Thaʿlab favours مَٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ on the basis of this wider application.^⁠[43]

He also draws attention to what follows the word. Arabic uses مالك for something owned and مَلِك for people ruled. Al-Samīn records his comparison between مَٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ, “Owner of the Day of Recompense,” and مَلِكِ ٱلنَّاسِ (maliki l-nās), “King of mankind” (114:2). A day is something owned; mankind are people ruled.^⁠[44]

Ibn ʿAṭiyyah presses the comparison further. He quotes the first position's premise:

Then he challenges the conclusion drawn from it:

What is missing? The comparison has not yet identified what the owner owns and what the king rules. A man who owns one small thing and a king who governs a vast territory are being placed under two general labels. That does not settle which description conveys more when both concern the same thing. In Ibn ʿAṭiyyah's words:

His example is a great and populous city. One man owns the whole city. Another is its king but possesses only the right to direct and rule it. Now the object of comparison is the same city. The owner has the power of disposal that belongs to ownership, and the city itself belongs to him as well. Ibn ʿAṭiyyah therefore concludes:

He explains:

And adds:

Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī, as quoted by Ibn ʿAṭiyyah, brings this directly to Allah's ownership. In His case, owning a thing includes authority over it:

The Qurʾān says:

Sovereignty itself belongs to Him.^⁠[48] “Owner,” when said of Allah, cannot mean someone whose property lies under another's final authority.

Ibn ʿAṭiyyah applies the city comparison to the verse:

His conclusion also preserves both recitations:

His preference concerns the fullness of a description. It does not make the other revealed wording defective.

Position Three: neither conveys more in this verse §

The third explanation begins with a limit in the human comparison. Among created beings, ownership and kingship may each be incomplete. An unnamed respondent recorded by al-Samīn accepts the distinction for creatures but denies that it determines what the two descriptions convey about Allah.^⁠[50]

Al-Biqāʿī then considers the whole phrase. “Owner of the Day of Recompense” places everything belonging to that Day under Allah's ownership. “King of the Day of Recompense” places all its affairs under His command. In either wording, no part of that Day remains under someone else's independent control. Each description establishes His exclusive authority.

This conclusion depends on the words “of the Day of Recompense.” Al-Biqāʿī compares مَلِكِ ٱلنَّاسِ, “King of mankind” (114:2), where there is no corresponding qirāʾah with مَالِك. Joining the word to people does not produce the same equality of meaning that arises when it is joined to this Day.^⁠[51]

Ibn ʿĀshūr identifies the same turning point. Earlier comparisons, he says, proceeded:

They did so while:

Once the whole phrase is considered:

Ibn ʿUthaymīn brings out the benefit of reciting both. A created being may be a king who owns nothing or an owner who rules nobody. Allah is both Owner and King, with complete and real kingship.^⁠[53] Comparing the revealed wordings to choose which is more beautiful or excellent is impermissible.^⁠[54]

Conclusion §

The third position is strongest in the context of this verse. The reason lies in the complete expression, not in treating “Owner” and “King” as identical words. Whichever qirāʾah is recited, it names Allah in relation to the Day when nobody else will possess an independent share in its affairs. His ownership leaves nothing outside His possession; His kingship leaves nothing outside His command.^⁠[55]

The two words still contribute their own meanings. مَٰلِكِ tells us that the Day belongs to Him. مَلِكِ tells us that He rules it. Their equal affirmation of His exclusive authority does not erase that distinction. It explains why neither can be treated as an incomplete description that the other must replace.

Both qirāʾāt are revealed and transmitted. A qualified reciter may recite either through its established طريق (ṭarīq). The scholarly comparison clarifies their meaning; it does not authorize abandoning either one.

And Allah knows best.

Does مَٰلِكِ also mean that Allah has the power to bring that Day about? §

An additional interpretation takes مَٰلِكِ to mean “the One who has the power to bring the Day of Recompense about.” Allah's power to do so is affirmed by all the scholars in this discussion. Their question is whether this verse carries that meaning in addition to ownership and rule.

Al-Ṭabarī does not adopt it as an additional interpretation. Bringing the Day about means restoring creatures after death, and those creatures already belong to the worlds governed by رَبِّ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ, “Lord of the worlds.” On his reasoning, the proposed meaning adds nothing to what the preceding description has established.^⁠[56]

Ibn Kathīr answers that a meaning can remain true and compatible with the verse even if it is not the main point of its context:

Allah owns and rules the Day, and He alone can bring it about. These meanings can stand together. Ibn Kathīr nevertheless adds:

Ownership and rule are therefore the primary meaning here. Allah's power to bring the Day about may be included as a secondary meaning. This gives each its proper place: the additional meaning is sound, while the verse's central description remains His ownership and kingship of that Day.^⁠[58]

And Allah knows best.

2. How the Commentators Read This Verse §

Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH / 923 CE) §

Al-Ṭabarī reads the verse as declaring the end of every worldly ruler's temporary power. On the Day of Recompense, no one will contest Allah’s dominion or claim any share in His greatness:

Those who exercised authority in this world will then stand before Him humbled, knowing that their power was always temporary and dependent. Allah’s kingship alone is absolute.

3. Iʿrāb: Grammatical Structure§

The phrase continues the descriptions of Allah begun with لِلَّهِ, “belonging to Allah,” in verse 2. Its three words are linked: Owner of the Day, then Day of Recompense. In Arabic this connection is إضافة (iḍāfah). The first word in each connection is the مضاف (muḍāf); the word completing it is the مضاف إليه (muḍāf ilayh).^⁠[60]

Ibn ʿUthaymīn states the result briefly: the whole expression مَٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ, “Owner of the Day of Recompense,” describes ٱللَّهِ, Allah.^⁠[61]

Where a final vowel changes the construction §

Both established qirāʾāt end in -i: مَٰلِكِ (māliki) and مَلِكِ (maliki). In each, the word remains مجرور (majrūr) and continues the descriptions of Allah. A separately recorded form, مَالِكَ (mālika), ends in -a and is منصوب (manṣūb). Al-Ṭabarī explains how that ending can change a description into an address.

With مَٰلِكِ, the servant is still speaking about Allah: Lord of the worlds, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful, Owner of the Day of Recompense. He begins speaking to Allah in the next verse: إِيَّاكَ نَعۡبُدُ, “You alone we worship.”

With مَالِكَ understood as an address, the meaning would be “O Owner of the Day of Recompense.” This is a منادى مضاف (munādā muḍāf), a noun of address that is the first term of an iḍāfah. The addressing particle يَا (yā), “O,” is understood although it is not spoken. Al-Ṭabarī compares:

Here يَا يُوسُفُ, “O Yūsuf,” is understood without stating يَا. He also cites two pre-Islamic lines illustrating its omission.^⁠[62] Under this explanation of مَالِكَ, direct address would begin in verse 4.

Does the movement from “He” to “You” need a correction? §

Al-Ṭabarī suggests that the reciter who used مَالِكَ may have found the transition to direct address difficult. The passage speaks about Allah, then suddenly says إِيَّاكَ نَعۡبُدُ, “You alone we worship.” If the reader assumed that such a transition was not permitted, making the preceding verse an address as well would appear to resolve it. This is al-Ṭabarī's explanation of the reader's apparent reasoning.

His answer is that Arabic already permits the transition. The Qurʾān itself supplies the evidence:

The passengers are first addressed as you, then spoken of as they. Al-Ṭabarī calls the Qurʾān

A movement between speaking about someone and speaking to him is therefore no defect in Arabic. Al-Fātiḥah's transition needs no grammatical repair.

Correct grammar does not establish a Qurʾānic qirāʾah §

The distinction can now be stated precisely. مَالِكَ can produce a valid Arabic address. That does not establish it as a recitation of the Qurʾān. Al-Ṭabarī accepts the grammatical explanation and still rules:

His reason is the agreement of the authoritative reciters and the scholars of the Ummah in rejecting it.^⁠[64]

Al-Bannāʾ records مَالِكَ from al-Muṭawwiʿī, a transmitter from al-Aʿmash, whose recitation belongs to the four beyond the ten. He gives two grammatical explanations: نصب على القطع (naṣb ʿalā al-qaṭʿ), where the word is detached from the preceding sequence and given the -a ending, or a منادى مضاف (munādā muḍāf), an address preparing for “You alone we worship.” The recitation remains classified as شاذ (shādhdh), irregular.^⁠[65]

A grammatical explanation tells us how a form makes sense in Arabic. An attribution tells us who is said to have recited it. Canonical status requires its own evidence; neither of those facts supplies it alone. This distinction also governs the forms examined in the Qirāʾāt section below.

4. Ṣarf: Roots and Word Formation§

Ṣarf examines how Arabic words are formed from their roots and what their forms add to their meanings.

The Root م-ل-ك: Strength, Ownership, and Kingship §

Ibn Fāris traces the root م-ل-ك to the idea of strength and firmness in possessing or controlling something. He illustrates this with the Arabic expression:

Ownership developed from this underlying meaning because the owner’s control over what he possesses is firm and established.^⁠[66]

The forms in the table bring out two aspects of this root. مَالِك (mālik) identifies the one who possesses; مَلِك (malik) presents kingship as an established quality.^⁠[67] In this verse both describe Allah, whose ownership and rule are complete.

The Root ي-و-م: A Day or a Span of Time §

Ibn Fāris gives the basic meaning of يَوْم as “day.” He adds that Arabic may also use the word for a momentous event or occasion.^⁠[68]

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī states the wider rule:

The expression Day of Recompense therefore does not tell us how many hours that Day lasts. It identifies the appointed period in which resurrection, judgment, and recompense occur.

دَيْن and دِين Are Not the Same Word §

Two Arabic words share the same root but differ in pronunciation and meaning:

A دَيْن (dayn) is something a person owes. It can be a financial right owed to another person or a duty owed to Allah, such as a vowed fast. A man asked the Prophet ﷺ whether he should make up a month's fast for his deceased mother. The Prophet ﷺ asked whether he would repay a debt she owed. When he answered yes, the Prophet ﷺ explained that a debt owed to Allah was even more deserving of repayment.^⁠[70] The comparison shows how the word can include both kinds of obligation.

The word in this verse is not دَيْن, debt. It is دِين, which here means recompense and judgment.

Reckoning, judgment and recompense §

Does يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ mean the Day of Judgment or the Day of Recompense? The two English expressions draw attention to different parts of the same account: the judgment and the repayment that follows it.

Ibn Fāris connects the root with submission and authority, then applies it directly to this verse:

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī identifies the meaning as:

His Arabic witness is the saying:

This emphasizes the relation between a person's deeds and what he receives for them. Al-Samīn also records explanations of الدين as الحساب (al-ḥisāb), reckoning; الحكم (al-ḥukm), judgment; and الطاعة (al-ṭāʿah), obedience. These are explanations he relates from others; his own stated meaning is recompense. “Obedience” is explained by the exposure of every act of obedience and disobedience on that Day.^⁠[73]

Al-Ṭabarī and al-Lāḥim bring reckoning and requital together.^{⁠[74]⁠[75]} Deeds are accounted for, judgment is given, and recompense follows. The explanations help us see the whole event by drawing attention to its different aspects.

“The Day of Recompense” remains the strongest English rendering here. It names the outcome of the account while allowing for the reckoning and judgment that precede it. Allah owns the Day on which deeds will be examined, judged and repaid; His right to pardon remains part of that ownership, as Ibn ʿAbbās's explanation makes clear.^⁠[76]

5. Balāghah: Rhetorical Analysis §

Balāghah examines how the wording and arrangement of a passage develop its meaning and affect the reader.

Why connect ownership to this Day? §

In مَلِكِ ٱلنَّاسِ, “King of mankind” (114:2), kingship is connected to people. Here, the إضافة (iḍāfah) connects ownership and kingship to the Day of Recompense. Naming that Day brings four aspects of the meaning into view:

1. Its greatness: no other day resembles it in what will occur.
2. Allah's exclusive command: nobody will share in judgment or exercise authority beside Him.
3. The full visibility of His ownership: what was always true will be impossible for anyone to deny.
4. The end of temporary holdings: created beings' possessions and authority will no longer give them a claim or power.^⁠[77]

These points explain the emphasis. The Day is great in itself, and it reveals the complete dependence of those who once appeared powerful. Allah's ownership encompasses the present world as well; the verse draws our attention to the appointed Day when every such temporary holding has ended.

Hope and fear in the same heart §

The previous verse names Allah ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ, “the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.” This verse names Him as Owner of the Day of Recompense. Al-Biqāʿī describes the movement as ترغيب (targhīb), encouragement that awakens hope, followed by ترهيب (tarhīb), warning that awakens fear.^⁠[78]

The sequence matters because either truth, neglected, changes how a person lives. Forgetting judgment can turn hope into permission to persist in wrongdoing. Forgetting mercy can leave a person seeing only his sins and the punishment they deserve. These adjacent verses give him reason to hope in Allah and reason to fear disobeying Him.

The same pairing appears elsewhere in the Qurʾān:

In another verse:

And Allah describes Himself as:

The order varies, but mercy and warning remain together. The hadith of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه gives this pairing its force. The Prophet ﷺ said:

Each half checks a dangerous certainty. The believer cannot presume safety from punishment, and the disbeliever must not suppose that Allah's mercy is beyond hope. The servant approaches Allah with both fear and hope, allowing neither to overwhelm the other and lead him to ruin.^⁠[81] Verse 3's discussion explains how the occasion guides the choice of encouragement or warning; here the emphasis is on keeping both truths in the servant's approach to Allah.

From knowledge of Allah to worship §

Al-Biqāʿī traces the preparation for the next verse through four descriptions. Praise establishes Allah's right to every praise. Lordship awakens love for the One who creates, sustains and cares for His servants. Mercy encourages hope. Ownership of the Day of Recompense awakens reverence and accountability.

The servant has now named the One whom he praises, loves, hopes in and fears. The sūrah turns from speaking about Him to addressing Him:

The movement to worship grows out of what has just been said about Allah. Praise becomes an address to Him, with hope and reverence present together.

6. Qirāʾāt §

Qirāʾāt are the established ways in which the Qurʾān was transmitted and recited. At this word, the ten canonical readers recite two forms.^⁠[83]

The Two Canonical Qirāʾāt at a Glance §

Both qirāʾāt are متواتر (mutawātir), mass-transmitted: they are established through numerous reliable asanid at every stage, on a scale that precludes their agreement upon an error.^{⁠[84]⁠[85]⁠[86]}

Al-Budūr al-Zāhirah and al-Muyassar confirm these assignments among the ten readers. Ibn Mujāhid gives its earlier seven-reader form.^⁠[87]

Al-Muyassar also records that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, who is outside the ten, recited مَٰلِكِ. That is an attribution of this form to al-Ḥasan; the passage does not grade the isnad from him.^⁠[88]

How One Written Form Accommodates Both Qirāʾāt §

The two qirāʾāt differ in sound by one long vowel:

• مَٰلِكِ has a long ā.
• مَلِكِ has a short a.

The early Qurʾānic copies, however, write both through the same consonantal form:

Al-Dānī records the same spelling in the regional Qurʾānic copies. The early written form contains no full-sized alif, so it accommodates both transmitted pronunciations.^⁠[89]

The small alif placed above the letters in many modern copies guides the reciter toward the qirāʾah مَٰلِكِ. It is a pronunciation mark rather than an additional letter in the underlying written form.

Two Readers Whose Names Require Clarification §

The Ibn Kathīr named among the ten is Ibn Kathīr al-Makkī, the reciter of Makkah. He is not Ibn Kathīr, the later commentator from Damascus.

Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ presents a different case. The reader of Baṣrah is the same Abū ʿAmr who appears elsewhere as a grammarian and scholar of Arabic.

Ibn al-Jazarī names the principal readers here rather than their رواة (ruwāh), the transmitters who preserved and passed on each reader’s recitation.^⁠[90]

The Status of the Two Qirāʾāt §

Ibn Kathīr the commentator states:

Ibn ʿĀshūr reaches the same conclusion:

The status of the qirāʾāt does not depend upon choosing one meaning over the other. مَٰلِكِ establishes Allah as the Owner of that Day, while مَلِكِ establishes Him as its King. Both are Qurʾān.

Al-Ṭabarī’s Preference §

Al-Ṭabarī prefers مَلِكِ, King. His preference concerns the meaning he considers more suitable in the context. It does not deny the transmission of مَٰلِكِ.

His reasoning is that رَبِّ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ, “Lord of the worlds,” has already established Allah’s ownership. The qirāʾah مَلِكِ then adds an explicit declaration of kingship, command, and judgment. On the Day of Recompense, every temporary ruler will be humbled and Allah’s kingship will appear without any rival.^⁠[93]

Al-Ṭabarī also explains that he treated the transmission of the qirāʾāt in his separate Kitāb al-Qirāʾāt. He does not repeat that complete transmission discussion in his commentary because the two works serve different purposes.^⁠[94]

His commentary explains why he considers “King” especially fitting here. The qirāʾah itself is received through transmission; his preference neither creates it nor displaces “Owner.”

Forms recorded beyond the ten §

Other forms appear in works of tafsir and qirāʾāt. The table identifies their attributions and the evidence for their status. It also distinguishes two easily confused pronunciations: مَلِيك (malīk), with a long vowel inside the word, and مَلِكِي (malikī), with its final vowel lengthened.

Ibn al-Jazarī states concerning al-Yamānī’s form:

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī mentions two of these forms together:

He does not name a reader for either form in that statement.^⁠[105]

Ibn Kathīr describes Nāfiʿ’s separate pronunciation:

This lengthens the ending of مَلِكِ. It does not turn the word into مَلِيك.

Ibn Jinnī treats four places in al-Fātiḥah in al-Muḥtasab, but verse 4 is not among them. None of these forms therefore receives support merely by appeal to the irregular qirāʾāt collected in that work.^⁠[107]

Did Marwān introduce the qirāʾah مَلِكِ? §

An athar from al-Zuhrī states that the Prophet ﷺ, Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, Muʿāwiyah and Yazīd all recited مَٰلِكِ, “Owner,” and that Marwān was the first to recite مَلِكِ, “King.” Ibn Abī Dāwūd records it as something that reached al-Zuhrī; Abū Dāwūd also includes it.^{⁠[108]⁠[109]}

Taken as a claim that Marwān originated the qirāʾah, it would make “King” a governor's innovation. Yet “King” is an established recitation received through several centres of Qurʾānic learning. The historical claim must therefore be examined alongside that evidence, with attention to what each hadith and each judgment on its isnad actually says.

Ibn al-Sarrāj's answer §

Ibn ʿĀshūr relays the answer of Abū Bakr b. al-Sarrāj:

He also offers a narrower possible meaning: the speaker may have meant that Marwān was the first to recite “King” in one particular town. Being the first known reciter in a town would not make him the originator of the qirāʾah.^{⁠[110]⁠[111]}

What al-Tirmidhī's two hadiths establish §

Al-Tirmidhī records hadiths containing each wording. His comments require attention to two separate questions: Does the hadith have an established isnad? What wording does that isnad support? A sounder version of a hadith may omit the very clause being examined.

The hadith of Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها describes the Prophet ﷺ reciting verse by verse and includes:

Al-Tirmidhī calls this hadith غريب (gharīb) and states that its isnad is not connected. He judges al-Layth's version sounder, but that version does not contain the clause specifying “King.” His preference for al-Layth's version therefore cannot be used to authenticate that missing clause.^⁠[113]

Ibn al-Jazarī discusses the underlying hadith about pausing at the ends of the verses and judges it:

His quotation contains مَٰلِكِ, “Owner.”^⁠[114] These are two forms of the hadith's wording, containing the two established qirāʾāt. The judgment on the verse-by-verse recitation must be kept distinct from the evidence for a particular reading clause.

The next hadith is from al-Zuhrī, from Anas رضي الله عنه, and says that the Prophet ﷺ and the caliphs recited مَٰلِكِ. Al-Tirmidhī calls it غريب (gharīb) and says that he knows this isnad from al-Zuhrī through Anas only through Ayyūb b. Suwayd al-Ramlī. He then mentions other asanid through al-Zuhrī, including an incomplete one from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab.^⁠[115]

Ibn ʿAṭiyyah notes that al-Tirmidhī includes hadiths describing the Prophet ﷺ, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar reciting both with and without the alif.^⁠[116] That observation identifies the material in the collection. The particular judgments just examined show why its differing wordings cannot be reduced to one blanket claim about authenticity.

“Sounder” in Abū Dāwūd's comparison §

Abū Dāwūd compares the athar containing the Marwān claim with two other asanid:

The word أصح (aṣaḥḥ), “sounder,” ranks the asanid in the comparison. It does not by itself declare one of them صحيح (ṣaḥīḥ), sound in absolute terms. All three pass through al-Zuhrī. Abū Dāwūd's statement therefore supplies a relative assessment of this material, not an independent authentication of the claim that Marwān introduced “King.”

Ibn Kathīr's answer §

Ibn Kathīr answers al-Zuhrī directly:

Ibn Shihāb is al-Zuhrī. Ibn Kathīr's answer is that al-Zuhrī's knowledge of the history did not encompass the evidence known to Marwān. In the same discussion he records several asanid collected by Ibn Mardawayh for مَٰلِكِ, “Owner.” Both wordings have a place in the material he presents.^⁠[119]

What establishes the two qirāʾāt §

The decisive evidence is the continuous transmission of the Qurʾānic reciters. Ibn ʿĀshūr calls مَلِكِ the qirāʾah of the majority.^⁠[120] Ibn al-Jazarī identifies four of the ten with مَٰلِكِ and the remaining six with مَلِكِ. Those six represent the recitational centres of Madīnah, Makkah, Baṣrah, Syria and Kūfah.^⁠[121]

A claim about one governor cannot account for “King” being received through these several recitational centres. Its authority rests on that established transmission, and the historical athar cannot displace it.

“Owner” is equally established. Ibn ʿĀshūr names seven Companions from whom it is related: ʿUthmān, ʿAlī, Ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy b. Kaʿb, Muʿādh b. Jabal, Ṭalḥah and al-Zubayr رضي الله عنهم.^⁠[122]

The conclusion is firm: مَٰلِكِ, “Owner,” and مَلِكِ, “King,” are both canonical and mass-transmitted. The written Qurʾānic form accommodates both. A commentator's preference for the meaning emphasized by one does not remove the other, and a grammatically possible form recorded outside the ten does not acquire their status merely by appearing in a book.

Both revealed wordings remain in the recitation of al-Fātiḥah. Allah possesses the Day entirely, and He rules it without rival.