The Basmala: In the Name of Allah

1. The Questions Raised by the Basmala §

Scholars have discussed seven principal questions about the Basmala:

1. Is it a verse of the Qurʾān at the beginning of al-Fātiḥah and the other sūrahs?
2. Why is it absent before Sūrat al-Barāʾah?
3. What does its opening letter بِ (bi) mean?
4. Which unstated verb completes the phrase?
5. Is it recited aloud or quietly in prayer?
6. What is the difference between al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm?
7. Where does the word اسْم (ism), “name,” come from?

Scholarly discussion of the Basmala centers on seven practical and interpretive questions, beginning with its status as a Qurʾānic verse.

1. Is the Basmala a Verse of the Qurʾān? §

Everyone agrees that the complete Basmala appears within Qurʾān 27:30, in Sulaymān’s letter:

﴿إِنَّهُ مِن سُلَيْمَانَ وَإِنَّهُ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ٣٠﴾

“It is from Sulaymān, and it is: In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.” (27:30)

At that location, all four positions accept its Qurʾānic status.^⁠[55]

The difference begins with the Basmala written before al-Fātiḥah and before the other 112 sūrahs that begin with it.

The answer affects several practical questions:

• Does the Basmala count as the first of al-Fātiḥah’s seven verses?
• Is al-Fātiḥah complete when it is recited without the Basmala?
• What should a reciter do between two sūrahs?
• Is the Basmala being recited as Qurʾān at that location, or being said as a separate remembrance?

Four Positions at a Glance §

Position One: It Is Qurʾān Only at 27:30 §

The first position accepts the Basmala as Qurʾān within Sūrat al-Naml but nowhere else. At the heads of the other sūrahs, it is neither a complete verse nor part of one.

Two arguments are given.

1. It was not heard before al-Fātiḥah in prayer §

Some hadiths from the Companions state that they did not hear the Prophet ﷺ recite the Basmala before al-Fātiḥah. Supporters reason from its absence in what was heard to its absence from the verse count: how could words that are not recited as part of the sūrah be one of its verses?

There is a difference between not hearing and not reciting. The hadith can fit either an omission or a quiet recitation that does not reach those standing behind the Prophet ﷺ. Unless those possibilities can be distinguished, the listener’s account cannot establish which occurred.^⁠[57]

2. Its presence in the written copies does not prove membership §

The Basmala is written between the sūrahs in the مَصَاحِف (maṣāḥif), the early written copies of the Qurʾān. Supporters of the first position answer that a separator may be written between two texts without belonging to either one.

Taken together, the evidence for this position contains no proof that is both sound in its isnād and explicit in meaning.^⁠[58]

The position therefore raises a valid distinction between being written beside a sūrah and being part of that sūrah. Its difficulty is proving that the Basmala has no Qurʾānic status at those repeated locations.

Position Two: It Is a Verse of al-Fātiḥah Alone §

The second position counts the Basmala as a verse of al-Fātiḥah but not of the other sūrahs.

It is reported from Saʿīd b. Jubayr, most reciters and jurists of Mecca and Kufa, al-Shāfiʿī, Isḥāq, Abū ʿUbayd, Abū Thawr, Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī, al-Zuhrī, and ʿAṭāʾ, and it appears in one riwāya, a transmitted account of Aḥmad’s position.^⁠[59]

Five evidences are presented for this position.^⁠[60] They do not all establish the same thing:

• Three hadiths have sound or accepted forms but do not state the complete claim.
• The Basmala’s placement in the written copies supports more than one position.
• One hadith directly calls the Basmala a verse of al-Fātiḥah, but the specialists give different judgments about whether its words are marfūʿ or mawqūf.

Evidence One: Its place in the written Qurʾānic copies §

The Basmala’s place at the head of al-Fātiḥah is common ground. The positions differ over what that placement establishes. The third position appeals to the same placement before every sūrah except al-Barāʾah, while the fourth understands it as an independent separating verse.

Its written presence therefore supports the discussion without deciding which account of membership is correct.

Evidence Two: Umm Salamah’s description of the Prophet’s recitation §

Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها describes the Prophet ﷺ reciting al-Fātiḥah verse by verse and beginning with the Basmala.

Ibn al-Jazarī graded the hadith good with a sound isnād, as reported by Yāsīn.^⁠[61] Its limitation for this position lies elsewhere: the hadith does not say that the recitation occurred inside the prayer.

It establishes recitation of the Basmala at the beginning of al-Fātiḥah. Since it leaves the setting unstated, it cannot by itself establish what occurred inside prayer. The practice of saying the Basmala outside prayer is accepted across these positions, but that agreement does not resolve the verse count.^⁠[62]

Evidence Three: Anas’s description of its pronunciation §

Anas رضي الله عنه reports that the Prophet ﷺ lengthened each of the three divine names in the Basmala.

The hadith gives sound evidence of recitation and pronunciation: it tells us how the words were lengthened. It leaves both the setting and verse membership unstated, so neither can be settled from this description alone.^⁠[63]

Evidence Four: Abū Hurayrah’s prayer §

Nuʿaym al-Mujmir narrates that he prayed behind Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه. Abū Hurayrah recited the Basmala and then al-Fātiḥah. After the prayer, he said that his prayer most closely resembled the prayer of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Unlike the previous two hadiths, this event occurred inside the prayer. A different question remains. The Arabic wording does not say:

• جَهَر (jahara), “he recited it aloud,” or
• سَمِع (samiʿa), “he heard it.”

Nuʿaym’s hearing of the Basmala is inferred from his ability to describe the prayer, but the wording itself does not state it.

The isnād has also received different assessments. Ibn Khuzayma, al-Ḥākim, al-Dāraquṭnī, al-Bayhaqī, and Ibn Ḥajar accepted the hadith. Al-Albānī criticized the isnād through Ibn Abī Hilāl, and al-Zaylaʿī regarded it as defective.^⁠[64]

The hadith supports reciting the Basmala in prayer. Its isnād and its precise wording must still be assessed separately from the question of verse membership.

Evidence Five: The explicit hadith §

The fifth hadith says:

إِذَا قَرَأْتُمُ الحَمْدَ فَاقْرَؤُوا بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

“When you recite al-ḥamd, recite ‘In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.’”^⁠[65]

The hadith continues by stating directly that the Basmala is one of al-Fātiḥah’s verses.^⁠[66]

This is the only one of the five evidences that expressly states the second position. Its force depends on whose statement is securely transmitted.

Two forms are preserved:

1. A مَرْفُوع (marfūʿ) hadith, attributed to the Prophet ﷺ.
2. A مَوْقُوف (mawqūf) athar, stopping at Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه as his own statement.

Al-Albānī authenticates the marfūʿ isnād. On that assessment, the words provide direct Prophetic support for counting the Basmala as a verse of al-Fātiḥah. Ibn Ḥajar considers the mawqūf form sounder. On that assessment, the explicit statement remains Abū Hurayrah’s judgment rather than a direct statement from the Prophet ﷺ. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān does not accept the marfūʿ isnād.^⁠[67]

The second position therefore possesses an explicit membership text. The decisive hadith question is whether that text is established as marfūʿ or more securely as mawqūf.

The first two positions concern whether the Basmala is Qurʾān only at 27:30 or also a verse of al-Fātiḥah. The remaining two accept that it was revealed at the heads of multiple sūrahs, then differ over whether it became part of those sūrahs.

Position Three: It Belongs to Every Sūrah Except al-Barāʾah §

What the position claims §

The third position holds that the Basmala is a verse, or part of a verse, at the beginning of every sūrah except al-Barāʾah.

This position is transmitted from al-Shāfiʿī, and al-Thaʿlabī is among those who prefer it.^⁠[68]

Its evidence §

Its reasoning combines the Basmala’s placement in the written Qurʾānic copies with several hadiths and descriptions of recitation.

1. Its placement in the written Qurʾānic copies

   The Basmala is written before every sūrah except al-Barāʾah. Supporters understand that repeated placement to mean that it belongs to each sūrah.

2. The revelation of Sūrat al-Kawthar

   The Prophet ﷺ said that a sūrah had just been revealed to him and then recited:

   بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ إِنَّا أَعْطَيْنَاكَ الْكَوْثَرَ

   “In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. We have surely granted you al-Kawthar.”^⁠[69]

   The hadith directly establishes that the Basmala was sent down and recited with the sūrah. It does not itself count the Basmala among al-Kawthar’s three verses.^⁠[70]

3. Umm Salamah’s description of al-Fātiḥah

   Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها described the Prophet ﷺ beginning al-Fātiḥah with the Basmala and separating his recitation verse by verse.^⁠[71]

4. Anas’s description of the Basmala

   Anas رضي الله عنه described the Prophet ﷺ lengthening the pronunciation of Bismillāh, al-Raḥmān, and al-Raḥīm.^⁠[72]

5. The hadith about sūrah boundaries

   Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما reports:

   كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا يَعْرِفُ فَصْلَ السُّورَةِ حَتَّى تَنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

   “The Prophet ﷺ would not know where a sūrah ended until ‘In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful’ was sent down to him.”^⁠[73]

   Yāsīn grades this isnād as meeting the conditions of al-Bukhārī and Muslim.^⁠[74]

What that evidence establishes §

These evidences establish several connected facts. The Basmala was revealed, recited, written before the sūrahs, and used to mark sūrah boundaries.

Position Three adds one further step: because the Basmala was revealed and placed with each sūrah, it became a constituent verse, or part of a verse, of that sūrah. The evidence supports that reading, but it does not state constituent membership as directly as it states revelation and separation. Position Four accepts the established facts and does not take that additional step.

Position Four: An Independent Verse Separating the Sūrahs §

What the position claims §

The fourth position holds that the Basmala is an independent verse of the Qurʾān. It was sent down at the heads of the sūrahs to separate them, but it is not a constituent verse of any one of them.

Its holders and preference §

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ presents this as the Ḥanafī position. Al-Manār and al-Ṣābūnī present it in the same way.^⁠[75]

Its evidence §

Nine arguments for this position are summarized here. Some state revelation, placement, or separation directly. Others support the position without deciding constituent membership on their own.

Written placement and revelation

1. The Companions wrote the Basmala into the Qurʾānic copies.

   Its presence in the muṣḥaf establishes its Qurʾānic standing and its written placement. Its repeated location between the sūrahs supports its function as a separator. Written placement alone does not decide whether it belongs to the sūrah that follows.

2. Sūrat al-Kawthar was revealed with the Basmala.

   The hadith directly establishes that the Basmala was revealed and recited with the sūrah. It supports the recurrence of the Basmala’s Qurʾānic status at a sūrah opening, while leaving constituent membership unstated.

3. The Prophet ﷺ recognized sūrah boundaries when the Basmala was revealed.

   Ibn ʿAbbās’s hadith directly gives the Basmala a separating function: its revelation identifies where one sūrah ends and the next begins. This is the clearest direct evidence for separation.

Verse counts and prayer hadiths

4. Sūrat al-Mulk is described as containing thirty verses.

   This argument tries to use the established verse count to place the Basmala inside or outside the sūrah. The number does not decide membership unless one already knows whether the prefixed Basmala is included in the count.

5. The hadith qudsi describing Allah’s answers during al-Fātiḥah begins with “All praise belongs to Allah.”

   In the hadith qudsi, Allah responds to the verses of al-Fātiḥah beginning with:

   ﴿الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ٢﴾

   “All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all worlds.”^⁠[76] (1:2)

   The dialogue gives no separate response to the Basmala. This supports an inference that the Basmala is not counted among al-Fātiḥah’s constituent verses, but the hadith does not state that conclusion expressly.

6. Hadiths state that the Basmala was not recited audibly in prayer.

   This is compatible with the Basmala being an independent Qurʾānic verse that is not counted as part of al-Fātiḥah. Audible or quiet recitation does not itself decide whether the Basmala is Qurʾān or whether it belongs to the sūrah.

Repeated wording and structural placement

7. The same four words are repeated unchanged before many sūrahs.

   Their uniform wording supports one repeated function at the sūrah boundaries rather than a different constituent role within each sūrah. The pattern is supporting evidence, not an express statement of membership.

8. The Basmala has the length and form of an independent verse.

   Its wording can stand as a complete Qurʾānic unit. This supports its independence, though form alone cannot establish that it belongs to none of the sūrahs.

9. Its placement is uniform.

   It appears consistently at the boundary before every sūrah except al-Barāʾah. The pattern directly establishes uniform placement and supports a uniform separating function.^⁠[77]

Which arguments do not decide membership by themselves? §

Two of the nine arguments require special caution because they are sometimes treated as conclusive, although neither decides membership on its own.

1. The thirty verses of Sūrat al-Mulk §

The hadith describes Sūrat al-Mulk as having thirty verses.^⁠[78] To use that number to settle the Basmala’s membership, however, one must already know whether the Basmala is included in the count.

The number alone therefore cannot decide whether the phrase stands inside or outside the sūrah.^⁠[79]

2. Allah’s answers during al-Fātiḥah in the hadith qudsi §

The hadith qudsi begins its dialogue with:

﴿الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ٢﴾

“All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all worlds.”^⁠[80] (1:2)

It gives no exchange for the Basmala. A jurist may infer from this silence that the Basmala is not one of al-Fātiḥah’s verses.

The hadith itself, however, does not explain why the dialogue begins with al-ḥamdu li-llāh. The conclusion may be correct, but it remains an inference from the hadith rather than an express statement within it.^⁠[81]

An Early Statement About the Basmala §

Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما said:

آيَةٌ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ أَغْفَلَهَا النَّاسُ

“A verse from the Book of Allah that people have neglected.”^⁠[82]

This athar supports the positions that recognize the Basmala as Qurʾān beyond its occurrence in Sūrat al-Naml. It does not decide whether the Basmala belongs to al-Fātiḥah, belongs to every sūrah, or stands independently between the sūrahs.

Yāsīn reports Ibn Ḥajar’s grading of the athar as good, while preserving Ibn Ḥajar’s reservation concerning Layth b. Abī Sulaym in its isnād.^⁠[83]

What Must Not Be Confused §

Five questions must be kept distinct:

1. Is the Basmala Qurʾān at the sūrah openings, as well as within 27:30?
2. Was it sent down together with a particular sūrah?
3. Was it written before that sūrah in the Qurʾānic copies?
4. Does it mark where one sūrah ends and another begins?
5. Does it count as one of that sūrah’s own verses?

These are five distinct propositions. Establishing one does not automatically establish the others. Keeping them separate is central to understanding the fourth position.^⁠[84]

What the Difference of Views Is Really About §

Ibn ʿĀshūr narrows the central question further. Everyone agrees that the Basmala is Qurʾān because it appears within Qurʾān 27:30. The point requiring judgment is:

تَكَرُّرِ قُرْآنِيَّتِهَا

“The recurrence of its Qurʾānic status.”

The question is whether its Qurʾānic status occurs only within 27:30 or recurs when the same words are revealed at the heads of the sūrahs. Ibn ʿĀshūr credits this formulation to Ibn Rushd the grandson.^⁠[85]

Reciting the Basmala before al-Fātiḥah does not decide whether it is one of al-Fātiḥah’s verses. Ibn al-Jazarī states:

لَا تَعَلُّقَ لِلْقِرَاءَةِ بِذَلِكَ

“Recitation has no bearing on that question.”^⁠[86]

A person may therefore recite the Basmala before al-Fātiḥah while holding that it is an independent verse rather than part of the sūrah.

The Kufan system numbers the Basmala as al-Fātiḥah 1:1. This is a recognized convention of verse counting. It does not, by itself, settle the question of constituent membership.

Conclusion §

Perhaps the strongest view is the fourth position: at the sūrah openings, the Basmala is an independent Qurʾānic verse revealed to separate the sūrahs.^⁠[87] The four judgments can now be stated without collapsing their different evidentiary steps:

1. Position Four: revelation and separation are direct. The sūrah-boundary hadith states that the Basmala was sent down so that the Prophet ﷺ recognized where one sūrah ended and another began. The written copies preserve it in that repeated boundary position. These evidences state revelation and separation directly. Taken together with the remaining arguments, they support the conclusion that the Basmala is an independent verse rather than a constituent verse of the sūrah that follows.

2. Position Three: constituent membership is an additional inference. This position shares the evidence for revelation, recitation, and placement. It then reasons that being revealed and placed with a sūrah makes the Basmala part of that sūrah. The evidence establishes the shared premises more explicitly than it establishes this further conclusion.

3. Position Two: the explicit membership hadith depends on whether it is marfūʿ or mawqūf. The hadith directly calls the Basmala one of al-Fātiḥah’s verses. If its marfūʿ form is sound, it supplies direct Prophetic support for membership. If the mawqūf form is sounder, the explicit words remain the judgment of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه.^⁠[88] The other evidences establish recitation before al-Fātiḥah more clearly than membership within it.

4. Position One: not hearing does not prove non-recitation. A listener’s failure to hear the Basmala remains compatible with the Prophet ﷺ reciting it quietly. The evidence therefore does not provide proof that is both sound and explicit for denying its Qurʾānic status at the sūrah openings.^⁠[89]

And Allah knows best.

2. Why Is There No Basmala Before al-Barāʾah? §

The Basmala does not appear between Sūrat al-Anfāl and Sūrat al-Barāʾah. By scholarly agreement, it is neither written there in the Qurʾānic copies nor recited at that boundary.^⁠[90]

The absence itself is settled. Explaining why the Basmala is absent requires a further judgment about the evidence offered for that explanation.

The Hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās’s Question to ʿUthmān §

Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما asked ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه why al-Anfāl and al-Barāʾah had been placed together without the Basmala between them.

In this hadith, ʿUthmān connects the decision with the similarity of the two sūrahs’ subjects. He also says that the Prophet ﷺ died:

وَلَمْ يُبَيِّنْ لَنَا أَنَّهَا مِنْهَا

“Without making clear to us that it was part of it.”^⁠[91]

On that account, ʿUthmān placed the two together and did not write the Basmala between them.^⁠[92]

The scholars assessed this hadith as follows:

The historical explanation therefore depends on which assessment of the hadith is followed. Scholars who accept it can rely on ʿUthmān’s explanation; those who find its isnād or text unsound cannot establish the history through it.

A more limited explanation seems preferable: the Basmala was not revealed with Sūrat al-Barāʾah, so it was not written at its beginning. The reason rests on the preservation of the Qurʾān. Had the Basmala been revealed with this sūrah, it would have been preserved and conveyed with the rest of the revelation, in fulfilment of Allah’s promise to preserve the Qurʾān (15:9). Its absence from the Qurʾān received by the community therefore supports the conclusion that it was not revealed at this opening.^⁠[95]

Other explanations may suggest a wisdom in its absence. A possible wisdom, however, does not by itself establish how the historical decision was made.

Conclusion §

No Basmala is placed at this boundary. The hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās’s question offers an account of how the two sūrahs were placed together, but its reliability receives different scholarly assessments. The conclusion above does not depend on establishing that account. It concerns what was revealed with al-Barāʾah, while leaving the possible wisdoms of the omission as a separate matter.^⁠[96]

This conclusion concerns al-Anfāl and al-Barāʾah. It does not decide whether the Basmala belongs to al-Fātiḥah, which is a separate question. And Allah knows best.

3. What Does the Opening Bāʾ Mean? §

The Basmala begins with the attached letter:

بِ

bi

English translations usually render it as “in,” “with,” or “by.” The Arabic grammarians gave the letter several technical classifications.

The Technical Terms at a Glance §

These terms overlap, but they do not all explain the same thing. Some describe how the letter connects the words. Others identify the particular relationship between the action and Allah’s name.

How the Authorities Classify It §

Adhesion and Implication §

Al-Zajjāj explains the sentence as:

بَدَأْتُ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ

“I began in the name of Allah.”^⁠[107]

The action is understood from the situation. A reader means, “I read in the name of Allah.” A person beginning a meal means, “I eat in the name of Allah.”

Al-Thaʿlabī uses the more technical wording:

هَذِهِ الْبَاءُ زَائِدَةٌ، وَهِيَ تُسَمَّى بَاءَ التَّضْمِينِ، وَبَاءَ الْإِلْصَاقِ

“This bāʾ is additional, and it is called the bāʾ of implication and the bāʾ of adhesion.”^⁠[108]

Here زَائِدَة (zāʾida), “additional,” is a grammatical term. It does not mean that the letter is meaningless or disposable. The letter joins the phrase to an understood action, while the construction implies an omitted “say” or “begin.”

Ibn ʿĀshūr places the same basic relationship under بَاءُ الْمُلَابَسَةِ, the bāʾ of investiture or close association. He transmits Sībawayh’s principle:

الْإِلْصَاقُ لَا يُفَارِقُ الْبَاءَ وَإِلَيْهِ تَرْجِعُ تَصَارِيفُ مَعَانِيهَا

“Adhesion never leaves the bāʾ, and the variations of its meanings all return to it.”^⁠[109]

On these analyses, the letter binds the action to Allah’s name.

Accompaniment and Circumstance §

Al-Zarkashī records:

وَلِلْمُصَاحَبَةِ بِمَنْزِلَةِ مَعَ وَتُسَمَّى بَاءَ الْحَالِ

“It can also express accompaniment, like the word maʿa, ‘together with’. In this use, it is called the bāʾ of circumstance.”^⁠[110]

On this reading, the Basmala means: “I begin while mentioning Allah’s name.” Mentioning His name accompanies the beginning of the action. The letter describes this accompanying act, rather than identifying the help sought to perform the action.

Ibn ʿĀshūr treats الْمُلَابَسَة (mulābasa, close association), الْمُصَاحَبَة (muṣāḥaba, accompaniment), and الْإِلْصَاق (ilṣāq, attachment) as different descriptions of the same underlying connection.^⁠[111]

Seeking Help §

Al-Zarkashī explains بَاءُ الِاسْتِعَانَةِ through the example:

كَتَبْتُ بِالْقَلَمِ

“I wrote using a pen.”^⁠[112]

Here the letter identifies what is used to perform the action. Applied to the Basmala, the meaning is: “I begin, seeking Allah’s help.” The emphasis is on the servant’s need for Allah’s help in doing what he is about to do.

Ibn ʿĀdil states this directly:

أَقْرَأُ مُسْتَعِينًا بِاللَّهِ

“I recite while seeking Allah’s help.”^⁠[113]

Al-Ālūsī gives the clearest preference:

أَنَّ الِاسْتِعَانَةَ أَوْلَى بَلْ يَكَادُ أَنْ تَكُونَ مُتَعَيِّنَةً

“Seeking help is the better explanation. Indeed, it is almost the only explanation that fits.”^⁠[114]

He gives three reasons:

1. It expresses reverence for Allah, humility before Him, and recognition that we are His servants.
2. It acknowledges that the servant has no power or strength independent of Allah.
3. It agrees with:

   ﴿وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ﴾

   “And we seek help from You alone.” (1:5)

Why “In the Name of Allah” Rather Than “By Allah”? §

Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī reports four answers without adopting one himself.^⁠[115]

1. Seeking blessing: the speaker seeks blessing through mentioning Allah’s name.
2. Avoiding an oath: “By Allah” normally introduces an oath, while the Basmala does not.
3. The relationship between the name and the One named: the intended remembrance does not separate Allah’s name from Allah.
4. Purifying the heart: the heart is emptied of other attachments so that Allah’s name reaches it.

Conclusion §

The terms become easier to follow when we ask what each explains. بَاءُ الْإِلْصَاقِ identifies the basic attachment of the action to Allah’s name. بَاءُ التَّضْمِينِ concerns the unspoken completion, such as “say” or “begin.” Accompaniment and circumstance, expressed through بَاءُ الْمُصَاحَبَةِ, بَاءُ الْحَالِ, and بَاءُ الْمُلَابَسَةِ, describe the action beginning with the mention of Allah’s name.

The explanation through بَاءُ الِاسْتِعَانَةِ makes the servant’s dependence explicit: help is sought for the very act being begun. Al-Ālūsī strongly prefers this meaning. Blessing and an auspicious beginning belong with the phrase’s use, but do not form additional grammatical classifications.

The opening letter connects the action to Allah’s name. On the explanation through seeking help, that connection expresses the servant’s need for Him.

And Allah knows best.

4. What Is the Omitted Governor? §

The opening بِ is an inseparable preposition, technically called حَرْف جَرّ (ḥarf jarr). It governs the following noun اسْمِ, making that noun majrūr, with the kasra ending seen in ismi, and it connects the entire phrase to another part of the sentence. This second function is essential here. When someone says, “In the house,” the listener naturally asks, “What happened in the house?” Likewise, بِسْمِ اللَّهِ, “in the name of Allah,” prompts the grammatical question: “What do I do in the name of Allah?”

The Basmala leaves that completion unstated. Grammarians call the missing completion its omitted governor, meaning the word to which the prepositional phrase is grammatically attached. The process of identifying the unstated word is called تَقْدِير (taqdīr), an estimate that explains how the construction is completed. It does not add a word to the Basmala as recited.

Recovering the omitted governor raises four related questions.

Four Questions at a Glance §

1. Is the Omitted Word a Noun or a Verb? §

The first question concerns the word’s grammatical type:

• The Baṣran grammarians generally estimated an اسْم (ism), a noun.
• The Kufan grammarians generally estimated a فِعْل (fiʿl), a verb.^⁠[116]

Four approaches appear in the grammatical sources.

Position One: A noun is omitted §

Al-ʿUkbarī proposes:

ابْتِدَائِي بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ كَائِنٌ

“My beginning in the name of Allah is established.”

On this analysis, ابْتِدَائِي, “my beginning,” is the مُبْتَدَأ (mubtadaʾ), the subject being described. كَائِنٌ, “established” or “occurring,” is the خَبَر (khabar), the predicate that completes what is said about that subject.

Al-Kharrāṭ gives the closely related estimate:

ابْتِدَائِي كَائِنٌ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ

“My beginning is established in the name of Allah.”

Here, بِسْمِ اللَّهِ is attached to the predicate of the omitted subject.^⁠[117] In functional terms, the phrase explains how the speaker’s beginning is established. Both nominal analyses describe the beginning rather than state the action through a verb.

Position Two: A verb is omitted §

The verbal estimate supplies a فِعْل (fiʿl). It may be expressed in the past or present tense:

ابْتَدَأْتُ

“I began.”

or:

أَبْدَأُ

“I begin.”^⁠[118]

The complete sense would therefore be: “I begin in the name of Allah.” The verb supplies the action to which the prepositional phrase is attached.

Position Three: Both estimates are grammatically possible §

Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib presents the Baṣran estimate ابْتِدَائِي ثَابِتٌ, “my beginning is established,” alongside the Kufan ابْتَدَأْتُ, “I began,” without selecting one over the other.^⁠[119]

Maḥmūd Ṣāfī follows a similar method. He places the nominal estimate in his main analysis and records the Kufan verbal estimate in his notes.^⁠[120]

The two estimates use different grammatical forms, but they lead to the same essential relationship. The noun describes the speaker’s beginning as occurring in Allah’s name; the verb states that the speaker begins in Allah’s name.

Position Four: A noun expresses a wider truth §

Ibn ʿĀdil prefers a nominal estimate for a different reason. He understands the phrase to mean:^⁠[121]

“In the name of Allah is the beginning of everything.”

This is broader than saying, “In the name of Allah I begin.” The latter describes the speaker’s action. Ibn ʿĀdil’s formulation declares that every true beginning proceeds under Allah’s name and authority. That remains true:

سَوَاء قَالَه قَائِل، أَو لم يقلهُ

“Whether or not any speaker says it.”

2. Does the Omitted Word Come Before or After the Basmala? §

If the omitted word is a verb, the next question concerns التَّقْدِيمُ وَالتَّأْخِير (al-taqdīm wa-l-taʾkhīr), placing one part before another or postponing it. The estimated verb may come mentally before بِسْمِ اللَّهِ or after it.

The verb comes before §

In the ordinary Arabic order, the estimate is:

أَبْدَأُ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ

“I begin in the name of Allah.”

The verb states the action first. The prepositional phrase then explains how that action is undertaken.

The verb comes after §

The verb may instead be understood as postposed, or muʾakhkhar:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ أَبْدَأُ

“In the name of Allah I begin.”

Al-Zamakhsharī, as transmitted by al-Zarkashī, explains this order by the greater importance of Allah’s name.^⁠[122] The estimated verb comes later so that the spoken phrase begins with the divine name.

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī associates this order with specialization. The worshipper begins specifically in Allah’s name, in contrast to the pagans who opened their actions by naming something other than Allah.^⁠[123] On this reading, the order suggests: “It is in Allah’s name that I begin.”

The verb comes before, without a meaning of restriction §

Ibn ʿĀshūr rejects the claim that the Basmala is meant to convey such restriction. He writes:

إِذْ لَا قَصْدَ هُنَا لِإِفَادَةِ الْبَسْمَلَةِ الْحَصْرَ

“There is no intention here that the Basmala convey restriction.”

He therefore regards the postposed estimate as unacceptable over-refinement.^⁠[124]

Both arrangements connect the action to Allah’s name. The narrower question is whether mentally placing the verb after the Basmala should itself be used to establish specialization. Al-Samīn’s analysis draws that implication from the order; Ibn ʿĀshūr does not.

3. Is the Omitted Verb General or Specific to the Act? §

Once an omitted word is allowed, its degree of specificity must be decided. A general taqdīr says only that a beginning takes place. It may supply a verb such as:

ابْتَدَأْتُ

“I began.”

or a noun such as:

ابْتِدَائِي

“My beginning.”

Both expressions identify a beginning without naming what begins.

Al-Suyūṭī explains that grammarians commonly use these general estimates. Scholars of bayān, the science of clear expression, instead recover the particular act from the occasion.^⁠[125] At the beginning of recitation, the estimate becomes:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ أَقْرَأُ

“In the name of Allah I recite.”

A person beginning a meal understands:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ آكُلُ

“In the name of Allah I eat.”

The inference proceeds from what the occasion already shows. If the person is reciting, the visible act identifies “I recite” as the precise completion. If the person is eating, the meal identifies “I eat.” The act-specific verb is therefore recovered from the situation rather than chosen without a guide.

Nothing has been added to the words being recited. The Basmala remains unchanged; the surrounding action supplies the particular verb that its grammar leaves unstated.

4. Is It a Statement or a Command? §

The fourth question concerns the force of the completed sentence. The omitted word may produce a خَبَر (khabar), a statement in the speaker’s voice, or an أَمْر (amr), a command addressed to the speaker.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ allows both:

1. A declarative statement: أَبْدَأُ, “I begin.”
2. An imperative command: ابْدَؤُوا, “Begin.”

For him, the sequence at the opening of al-Fātiḥah favors the command, “Begin in the name of Allah,” while the declarative meaning remains possible.^⁠[126]

Al-Samīn records the same difference through earlier authorities:

• Al-Farrāʾ estimates اقْرَأْ أَنْتَ, “You, recite,” making it a command.
• Al-Zajjāj estimates أَقْرَأُ أَنَا, “I recite,” or أَبْتَدِئُ, “I begin,” making it the worshipper’s statement.^⁠[127]

The alternatives place the same recited words within different unspoken sentences. In the imperative analysis, the Basmala accompanies an instruction to begin. In the declarative analysis, it accompanies the servant’s statement of how he begins. Neither supplies a different formula to recite.

The Preferred Estimate §

The preferred taqdīr attaches the Basmala to a فِعْل مَحْذُوف (fiʿl maḥdhūf), an omitted verb. That verb is specific to the act being performed and is understood after the phrase.^⁠[128]

If the act is recitation, the intended meaning is:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ أَقْرَأُ

“In the name of Allah I recite.”

If the act is eating, the meaning is:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ آكُلُ

“In the name of Allah I eat.”

The reasoning unfolds in three steps:

1. The occasion identifies the action. For someone reciting, the understood verb is “I recite”; for someone eating, it is “I eat.” The visible act therefore supplies a more precise completion than the general “I begin.”
2. The verb is placed after the Basmala. In the reconstructed sentence, “In the name of Allah I recite,” Allah’s name precedes the servant’s action. This order gives His name priority.
3. The result joins precision to appropriate order. The act-specific verb explains exactly what the speaker is doing, while its postposed position keeps Allah’s name first.

This preference does not require the further claim that postposition proves restriction. Ibn ʿĀshūr goes further in the other direction: because no restriction is intended here, he rejects the postposed estimate itself as over-refinement and accepts the ordinary prior estimate.^⁠[129]

Other Arabic constructions are not invalid. A noun, a word placed before the Basmala, or a general estimate may still be grammatically possible. The preferred analysis also does not give us one English verb to insert everywhere: the appropriate verb changes with the action.

Gem 5: Why Is the Action Left Unsaid? §

The preceding estimates explain what the missing word could be. A further question follows naturally: if the action can be identified, what is gained by leaving it unspoken?

Ibn al-Qayyim gives three reasons in Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid.^⁠[130]

First, nothing is placed before Allah’s name. A stated verb would bring its subject with it: “I begin in the name of Allah.” With both left unstated, the phrase opens immediately with the divine name. Ibn al-Qayyim compares this with اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ, “Allah is greater.” There too, something is left open: Allah is greater than everything.

Second, the omission gives the phrase breadth. No one verb has a better claim to be permanently attached to it than another. The reciter recites, the eater eats, the traveler departs, and the speaker speaks. Because no single action is built into the wording, the same phrase can accompany these different lawful actions.

Third, the situation already identifies the action. Hearing the Basmala as someone begins to recite makes recitation the understood completion. Seeing a person say it before a meal makes eating the understood completion. An added verb would state what the occasion already shows.

The three reasons work together. Leaving the verb unspoken allows Allah’s name to come first. It keeps the phrase broad enough for many lawful actions. At the same time, each actual occasion supplies a precise meaning, so that breadth does not make the Basmala vague in use.

Conclusion §

Several grammatical estimates are possible. The missing element may be understood as an اسْم (ism) or a فِعْل (fiʿl), placed before or after the Basmala, expressed generally or supplied from the particular act, and read as either a statement or a command.

The preferred estimate is a postposed, act-specific فِعْل مَحْذُوف (fiʿl maḥdhūf). The surrounding action identifies the verb, and its omission allows Allah’s name to remain first.^⁠[131] Ibn ʿĀshūr prefers the ordinary prior estimate and rejects the postposed estimate itself, since no restriction is intended. These are judgments about the best grammatical reconstruction, not about the validity of the Basmala itself.

And Allah knows best.

5. Should the Basmala Be Recited Aloud or Quietly in Prayer? §

Whether the Basmala belongs to al-Fātiḥah and whether it should be heard in prayer are two different questions. A scholar may hold that the Basmala should be recited while still concluding that it should be said quietly.

Three Positions at a Glance §

A person praying behind an imām can hear what he recites aloud. If the Basmala is not heard, the listener still needs to distinguish two possibilities: the imām may have recited it quietly, or he may have left it unsaid. The hadith wordings help us examine that distinction.

The Preferred Position §

Quiet recitation is the regular Sunna. This preference draws on the hadiths of Anas, ʿĀʾishah, and Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنهم together with the hadith qudsi concerning al-Fātiḥah, in which Allah answers His servant’s recitation.^⁠[133]

The āthār of some Companions reciting it aloud remain part of the evidence, and the prayer is valid under either practice. An imām may also raise his voice occasionally to teach the congregation, meet a particular need, serve an overriding benefit, or preserve unity when different practices could unsettle the congregation.^⁠[134] The preference concerns regular practice; it leaves room for these occasions and does not turn audible recitation into a forbidden act.

Four Hadith Wordings That Must Be Distinguished §

Some discussions treat several hadith wordings as though they all said, “The Prophet ﷺ recited the Basmala quietly.” Their Arabic wordings do not all say that. Four expressions occur, and each establishes something different.

A listener’s “I did not hear it” leaves quiet recitation possible. An explicit denial of audible recitation concerns the volume; it still does not establish that the phrase was omitted altogether. That distinction is lost if both are paraphrased as “they did not recite it.”

The third wording presents the converse difficulty: it says that the Basmala was not mentioned, without the qualifying word “aloud.” Reading it alongside the other hadith wordings is an interpretive step, not permission to insert that word into the quotation. The fourth wording directly affirms quiet recitation, but its separate isnād must be assessed on its own; it cannot replace the wording of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

Conclusion §

يُسَنُّ الْإِسْرَارُ بِالْبَسْمَلَةِ فِي الصَّلَاةِ مُطْلَقًا

“It is a Sunna to recite the Basmala quietly in prayer without restriction.”^⁠[139]

This describes the regular Sunna. Audible recitation remains valid, and may be used occasionally for teaching, a need, an overriding benefit, or congregational unity. The preference must also be read with the evidence in view: not hearing the Basmala does not, by itself, prove that it was left unsaid.

And Allah knows best.

6. How Do al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm Differ? §

Both names come from the root ر-ح-م, the root of mercy. Both describe Allah, and the Basmala places them beside one another:

الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm

“The Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.”

The two names cannot simply be treated as interchangeable. Their forms differ, their Qurʾānic uses differ, and their order in the Basmala is deliberate. Scholars offered six explanations of the distinction.^⁠[140]

Six Explanations at a Glance §

These accounts do not all have equal support. Some describe the morphology of the words, some describe their usage, and others attempt to explain the full theological relationship between them.

1. The Form of al-Raḥmān Is Fuller §

The pattern فَعْلَان often presents a quality as full and overflowing.

• غَضْبَان (ghaḍbān) is not merely annoyed, but filled with anger.
• عَطْشَان (ʿaṭshān) is not merely thirsty, but parched with thirst.

In the same way, the form رَحْمَٰن conveys the abundance and fullness of mercy. This explains why al-Raḥmān is morphologically the fuller of the two forms. It does not mean that al-Raḥīm signifies a deficient or lesser mercy.

2. Al-Raḥmān Is Exclusive to Allah §

The Qurʾān uses رَحِيم of the Prophet ﷺ:

﴿بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ﴾

“Toward the believers, he is compassionate and merciful.” (9:128)

By contrast, الرَّحْمَٰن is reserved as a divine name.

This distinction was not produced only by later lexicographers. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī called al-Raḥmān:

اسْمٌ مَمْنُوعٌ

“A name withheld.”

Yāsīn grades the isnād of this athar to al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī as sound.^⁠[141]

The exclusivity of al-Raḥmān is therefore one of the clearest differences between the two names.

What the Arabic Lexicons Establish §

The lexicographers help establish the root, the two forms, and the special use of al-Raḥmān. They do not all choose among the broader theological explanations.

Ibn Manẓūr §

Ibn Manẓūr begins the root with:

الرِّقَّةُ وَالتَّعَطُّفُ

“Tenderness and turning toward another with compassion.”

He identifies فَعْلَان as a pattern of abundance and comprehensiveness, records that al-Raḥmān is restricted to Allah, and notes that raḥīm may describe a creature. He then preserves several explanations of the difference without selecting one.^⁠[142]

His entry is therefore a record of the inherited accounts, not a verdict among them.

Al-Rāghib §

Al-Rāghib compares the two patterns to نَدْمَان (nadmān) and نَدِيم (nadīm). The comparison shows that the relationship between فَعْلَان and فَعِيل is recognized elsewhere in Arabic.

For divine mercy, he adopts a particular explanation: the intended meaning is beneficence, without the emotional disturbance associated with mercy in creatures.^⁠[143] This is his theological account of the word, alongside his comparison of its forms.

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī §

Al-Samīn records the inherited explanations and rejects one historical claim. Some had alleged that the two names were joined only because Musaylima had taken the name al-Raḥmān for himself. The Basmala predates Musaylima, so that explanation cannot account for its wording.^⁠[144]

Al-Zamakhsharī §

In this entry of Asās al-Balāgha, al-Zamakhsharī gives the pair a single gloss without distinguishing the names:

هُوَ الرَّحْمَٰنُ الرَّحِيمُ: الوَاسِعُ الرَّحْمَةِ

“He is al-Raḥmān, al-Raḥīm: the One whose mercy is vast.”^⁠[145]

The lexical evidence gives the discussion its starting points: the shared root of mercy, the fullness and abundance expressed by al-Raḥmān, and that name’s exclusive use for Allah, while raḥīm can describe another. To choose among the fuller explanations of the pair, we must also consider how the Qurʾān uses the names.

The Preferred Distinction §

Ibn al-Qayyim prefers the fourth account:

• Al-Raḥmān names the attribute of mercy as it belongs to Allah.
• Al-Raḥīm describes that mercy reaching its recipient.

He ranks this explanation above an account he transmits from al-Suhaylī, according to which the two names announce mercy that is immediate and deferred, particular and general.^⁠[146]

Ibn al-Qayyim supports his preference from Qurʾānic usage. The Qurʾān connects raḥīm directly to those who receive Allah’s mercy:

﴿وَكَانَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَحِيمًا﴾

“And He is ever merciful to the believers.” (33:43)

and:

﴿إِنَّهُ بِهِمْ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ﴾

“Indeed, He is compassionate and merciful to them.” (9:117)

The Qurʾān does not use Raḥmān in the same construction. Ibn al-Qayyim states:

وَلَمْ يَجِئْ قَطُّ رَحْمَٰنُ بِهِمْ

“‘Raḥmān toward them’ has never once occurred.”^⁠[147]

This difference in usage supports the conclusion that al-Raḥmān names the fullness of the attribute, while al-Raḥīm emphasizes its relation to its recipients.

This is the preferred explanation.^⁠[148]

The Limit of the General-and-Special Explanation §

The third account says that al-Raḥmān refers to mercy for all creation, while al-Raḥīm refers specifically to mercy for the believers. This captures an important truth, but it cannot be imposed as an absolute rule.

The Qurʾān says:

﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِالنَّاسِ لَرَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ﴾

“Indeed, Allah is compassionate and merciful to the people.” (2:143, 22:65)

Here, raḥīm is related to the people, not only to the believers.^⁠[149]

A hadith supplies a further reason not to make the distinction absolute. The Prophet ﷺ said that if the believer knew the punishment Allah possesses, no one would hope for His Garden, and if the disbeliever knew the mercy Allah possesses, no one would despair of it.^⁠[150]

The disbeliever is included in the discussion of Allah’s mercy. The general-and-special distinction may therefore describe a frequent relationship, but it is too rigid if treated as an exceptionless rule.

What Mercy Is Being Named? §

The Prophet ﷺ said that Allah made mercy into one hundred portions. He kept ninety-nine portions with Himself and sent one portion down to the earth. From that one portion, creatures show mercy to one another, even to the point that a mare lifts her hoof away from her foal for fear of harming it.^⁠[151]

The hadith brings the vast subject of mercy close through a small movement: a mare lifting her hoof clear of her foal. All the mercy creatures show one another belongs to one portion; ninety-nine remain with Allah.

Another hadith turns to a mother and child. The Prophet ﷺ saw a woman among captives searching for her child. When she found him, she embraced him and pressed him to herself. The Prophet ﷺ asked whether she would throw her child into a fire. The Companions answered that she would not. He then said:

لَلَّهُ أَرْحَمُ بِعِبَادِهِ مِنْ هَذِهِ بِوَلَدِهَا

“Allah is more merciful to His servants than this woman is to her child.”^⁠[152]

Allah also says in the hadith qudsi:

إِنَّ رَحْمَتِي سَبَقَتْ غَضَبِي

“My mercy has preceded My wrath.”^⁠[153]

These hadiths do not promise a particular reward for saying the Basmala. They show the abundance of Allah’s mercy, its precedence over His wrath, and the mercy He has placed among creatures. Yet the mercy visible in creatures also raises a question. When the Basmala names Allah as al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm, what does it affirm about mercy as a divine attribute?

What Do the Two Names Affirm About Allah? §

The shared concern comes first. Allah is merciful, and nothing in His mercy can be understood as pain, weakness, need, or emotional disturbance. The question is how the names affirm mercy while keeping that truth clear.

The Two Main Approaches §

Al-Harrās states the first approach. The two names affirm a real attribute of mercy belonging to Allah in the manner that befits Him. Mercy should not be reduced to one of its necessary results, such as the will to do good.^⁠[154]

Al-Shirbīnī states the second approach:

إِرَادَةُ إِيصَالِ الْفَضْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ أَوْ نَفْسُ إِيصَالِ ذَلِكَ

“The will to convey bounty and beneficence, or the conveying of that itself.”^⁠[155]

Ibn ʿUthaymīn identifies this interpretive approach with the Ashʿarīs and Māturīdīs:

فَفَسَّرُوا الرَّحِيمَ بِالْمُنْعِمِ، أَوْ مُرِيدِ الْإِنْعَامِ

“They therefore explained al-Raḥīm as the Bestower, or as the One who wills to bestow.”^⁠[156]

The two approaches therefore agree that creaturely weakness must not be attributed to Allah. They differ over what follows. One locates the meaning of divine mercy in willing or bestowing good. The other affirms mercy itself as a real attribute and distinguishes it from the will, action, and effects that proceed from it.

Al-Ghazālī’s Explanation §

Al-Ghazālī begins with his account of mercy in a creature. A person sees someone in need. Painful tenderness arises in the heart, and that tenderness moves the person to help. Three things are joined in this experience: the tenderness felt by the merciful person, the will to meet another’s need, and the help that reaches the one shown mercy.

In al-Ghazālī’s account, the painful disturbance is a creaturely condition, and Allah is far above being overtaken by it. The will to do good and the good actually conveyed to the needy person express the perfection sought through mercy. Al-Ghazālī therefore places complete mercy in willing good for the needy and pouring that good upon them, without making painful tenderness part of Allah’s mercy.^⁠[157]

He then considers whether the absence of painful tenderness would make mercy less perfect. His answer is:

فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ كَمَالٌ وَلَيْسَ بِنُقْصَانٍ

“Know that this is a perfection and not a deficiency.”^⁠[158]

His reason turns on the recipient. If a person helps another merely to escape the pain produced by witnessing that need, the helper’s own relief has entered the purpose of the act. Perfect mercy seeks the good of the one shown mercy for that person’s sake. It wills and bestows good out of care for the recipient, without needing relief from an inner pain. Al-Ghazālī is therefore not denying that Allah is merciful. He is explaining divine mercy without the painful weakness that may accompany mercy in creatures.

The Answer from Ibn Taymiyyah §

Ibn Taymiyyah’s first reply concerns the analogy with will. Interpreting mercy as will does not escape the original difficulty. Human mercy involves tenderness, while human will involves inclination. If creaturely inclination does not prevent Allah’s will from being affirmed in a manner unlike a creature’s will, creaturely tenderness does not prevent His mercy from being affirmed in a manner unlike a creature’s mercy.^⁠[159]

The same principle applies to knowledge, power, hearing, sight, and speech. In creatures, each is joined to limitation and need. Those creaturely limits do not define the attribute when it is affirmed for Allah. Mercy can therefore be affirmed as a real divine attribute in the manner that befits Him, without transferring to Him the painful conditions found in created beings.^⁠[160]

His second reply concerns the difference between an attribute and its effects. Bestowal, beneficence, and the removal of harm indicate mercy; they are things mercy brings about. In the same way, the particular outcome of an act indicates will, but the outcome is not itself the attribute of will. If will is affirmed as an attribute beyond the act it produces, the effects of mercy do not provide a consistent reason to reduce mercy to those effects alone.^⁠[161]

The first reply asks why divine mercy cannot be affirmed on the same basis as divine will. The second asks why the good produced by mercy should be treated as though it were the attribute itself.

Ibn ʿUthaymīn’s Explanation at the Basmala §

Ibn ʿUthaymīn presents the objection in its own terms: mercy involves softness, submission, tenderness, and inclination, none of which befits Allah.

He answers in two stages.

1. The proposed connection with weakness is not universal. A powerful ruler can show mercy without submission, weakness, or brokenness. Mercy in a creature does not always contain every condition named in the objection.
2. A creature’s limitations do not define the Creator’s mercy. Even if softness, submission, or painful tenderness accompanied created mercy, it would not follow that Allah’s mercy contains them. His mercy befits His greatness, majesty, and sovereignty and contains no deficiency.^⁠[162]

The two answers address different steps: first, whether mercy necessarily involves weakness at all; second, whether a creature’s limitations can be carried over to the Creator. Ibn ʿUthaymīn also returns to the comparison with will. The rational basis used to affirm a real will for Allah is no stronger than the basis for affirming mercy.^⁠[163]

The Attribute Is Not the Same as Its Effect §

Ibn al-Qayyim states that mercy is an attribute of the Lord, and an attribute subsists in the one it describes.^⁠[164] He reaches this conclusion while discussing the grammar of:

﴿إِنَّ رَحْمَتَ اللَّهِ قَرِيبٌ مِنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ﴾

“Indeed, the mercy of Allah is near to those who do good.” (7:56)

The distinction becomes especially clear when mercy produces an effect that is not immediately pleasant. Mercy may require that a person receive what truly benefits him:

وَإِنْ كَرِهَتْهَا نَفْسُهُ، وَشَقَّتْ عَلَيْهَا

“Even if his soul dislikes it and finds it difficult.”^⁠[165]

A person may be shown mercy through discipline, hardship, or protection from something he desires. The immediate experience can be painful while the action remains merciful. Mercy is therefore not the same as pleasantness in the recipient, and the attribute cannot be defined simply as a pleasant effect.

This distinction also clarifies the two names. Al-Raḥmān names mercy as an attribute belonging to Allah in its fullness. Al-Raḥīm names that mercy in its relation to those who receive it. Ibn ʿUthaymīn adopts this explanation.^⁠[166]

Al-Saʿdī places the distinction within a broader rule:

واعلم أن من القواعد المتفق عليها بين سلف الأمة وأئمتها، الإيمان بأسماء الله وصفاته، وأحكام الصفات

“Know that among the principles agreed upon by the early generations of this community and its imams is belief in Allah’s names, His attributes, and what His attributes entail.”^⁠[167]

The expression أحكام الصفات (aḥkām al-ṣifāt) concerns what follows from the attributes, including their effects. A name signifies an attribute, and the attribute has entailments. These three levels belong together, but they are not interchangeable:

Al-Saʿdī’s rule therefore extends the discussion beyond mercy. Belief in a divine name includes affirming the attribute it expresses and what that attribute entails.^⁠[168]

Conclusion §

The evidence supports a ranked conclusion.

1. Both names derive from one real attribute of mercy.
2. Al-Raḥmān is the fuller morphological form and is exclusive to Allah.
3. Al-Raḥīm is also used in relation to those who receive mercy and may describe a creature in a suitable sense.
4. The preferred distinction is that al-Raḥmān names the attribute in its fullness, while al-Raḥīm emphasizes that mercy reaching its recipients.
5. The general-and-special distinction is useful but not absolute, because the Qurʾān also describes Allah as raḥīm toward people generally.
6. Allah’s mercy is a real attribute befitting His majesty. It does not resemble creaturely emotion, weakness, or distress, and it must not be confused with either the will that accompanies it or the effects that proceed from it.

The two names do not describe two mercies. They reveal two aspects of the same divine mercy: its perfect fullness in Allah and its reaching those shown mercy.

The One whose help is sought is named through mercy twice. Dependence and hope meet in the same opening.

And Allah knows best.

7. How the Commentators Read the Basmala §

The same phrase brings different questions to the commentators’ attention. A grammarian asks what the opening letter connects; a jurist asks what follows from its being recited; a reader listens to the junction between its last word and the next verse.

Al-Zajjāj (d. 311 AH / 923–24 CE) §

Al-Zajjāj begins with the grammatical connection created by the opening bāʾ. He classifies it as a letter of adhesion and understands the complete sentence as:

بَدَأْتُ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ

“I began in the name of Allah.”^⁠[169]

The verb may be omitted because the action being performed makes it clear. When a person begins reciting, the recitation supplies the missing action.

Al-Zajjāj also explains that اسْم (ism), “name,” derives from س-م-و, elevation, rather than و-س-م, marking. His evidence comes from the plural and diminutive forms, which restore the final radical expected from س-م-و.^⁠[170]

On the derivation of the divine name اللَّه, however, al-Zajjāj declines a lengthy discussion. He leaves that question unexplored here; his silence does not identify a preferred derivation.^⁠[171]

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370 AH / 981 CE) §

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ approaches the phrase as a jurist. Before asking what the omitted word is, he asks what kind of sentence it produces.

Supplying أَبْدَأُ, “I begin,” gives a statement of what the servant does. Supplying ابْدَؤُوا, “Begin,” gives an instruction that the servant obeys. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ allows both meanings, but finds that the sequence at the opening of al-Fātiḥah favors the command: “Begin in the name of Allah.”^⁠[172] The unspoken completion thus changes the sentence’s force without changing its recited words.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ also presents the Ḥanafī position on verse status: the Basmala is an independent Qurʾānic verse revealed to separate the sūrahs, but it is not a constituent verse of the sūrah that follows it.^⁠[173]

Al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427 AH / 1035–36 CE) §

Al-Thaʿlabī preserves early explanations that later commentators repeatedly transmit.

He states that the omitted word is either:

قُلْ

“Say.”

or:

ابْدَأْ

“Begin.”

Both are commands rather than first-person statements. On this analysis, the worshipper says the Basmala in obedience to an understood instruction.^⁠[174]

Al-Thaʿlabī also explains why the alif of اسْم is omitted in the familiar written form بِسْمِ اللَّهِ. He transmits from Abū al-Haytham Khālid b. Yazīd that frequent use led to its omission in writing, while the alif remains written in:

﴿اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ﴾

“Recite in the name of your Lord.” (96:1)⁠^⁠[175]

The spelling difference does not mean that the word itself has changed. It concerns the established written form of the Basmala.

Al-Thaʿlabī also defends identifying the name with the One named in this use. He records the different explanations of this relationship as well as the reasoning for identifying the name with the One named.^⁠[176]

Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 437 AH / 1045–46 CE) §

Makkī concentrates on difficult grammatical and recitational junctions. In the Basmala, the difficult point comes when its final word meets the opening of al-Fātiḥah.

A reciter may stop after الرَّحِيمِ and then begin الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ, or connect the two while retaining the kasra of the final word, which remains majrūr. Makkī also records an Arabic form with the final mīm opened: الرَّحِيمَ الْحَمْدُ. At this third form, his account marks a boundary. It has been heard in Arabic, but:

لَا يُقْرَأُ بِهَذَا

“This is not recited.”^⁠[177]

A grammatically attested form is not automatically a transmitted Qurʾānic reading. Makkī preserves the linguistic form while refusing to grant it recitational status.

He also accepts both the nominal and verbal estimates of the omitted governor without forcing a preference between them. When discussing the derivation of اسْم, he acknowledges the semantic attraction of deriving it from “marking,” but rejects that derivation because the word’s morphology supports س-م-و instead.^⁠[178]

Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī (d. 465 AH / 1072 CE) §

Al-Qushayrī approaches the Basmala through إِشَارَة (ishāra), spiritual allusion. An allusion draws devotional significance from the wording. It does not replace the established grammatical or legal meaning and cannot decide questions of verse status, syntax, or recitation.

He treats the opening بِ as a letter of implication and extends its significance to the dependence of creation upon Allah. By Allah, created things came into being, and to Him they return. He then adds:

وَبِهِ جَحَدَ مَنْ أَلْحَدَ

“And by Him the one who turned away denied.”^⁠[179]

The point is that even the denier possesses no independent existence or power outside Allah’s creation and decree. This is a spiritual development of the letter’s significance, not an additional grammatical classification of the bāʾ.

Al-Qushayrī also refuses to treat the Basmala’s appearance before the sūrahs as empty repetition. He undertakes to offer at each occurrence:

كَلِمَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُكَرَّرَةٍ، وَإِشَارَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُعَادَةٍ

“Words that are not repeated and allusions that are not brought back again.”^⁠[180]

He keeps that undertaking. At the beginning of Sūrat Yūsuf, he explains the order of the three divine names. The name اللَّه comes before the two mercy names because the servant reaches knowledge of Allah’s divinity through mercy in this world. The one who reaches Him is sustained by His kindness, while the one who stops short is held back by His forsaking.^⁠[181]

Al-Wāḥidī (d. 468 AH / 1075–76 CE) §

Al-Wāḥidī’s contribution is precision in small matters that affect the whole phrase.

First, he records three classifications of the opening bāʾ:

1. حَرْفُ إِلْصَاقٍ, a letter of adhesion.
2. حَرْفُ اسْتِعَانَةٍ, a letter of seeking help.
3. حَرْفُ إِضَافَةٍ, a letter of annexation or relation.

He accepts all three rather than forcing them into competition.^⁠[182] They describe related aspects of the connection between the believer’s action and Allah’s name.

Second, he notes that the initial hamza of اسْم is هَمْزَةُ وَصْلٍ (hamzat waṣl), a connecting hamza. It falls in pronunciation after the preceding bāʾ. This is a rule of pronunciation, not a change in the identity of the word.^⁠[183]

Third, he explains that اسْم derives from elevation by examining its inflected and diminutive forms. The derivation must follow the word’s actual morphology, not merely the picture that seems most attractive from its meaning.^⁠[184]

What Develops Across These Early Accounts §

Al-Zajjāj and al-Wāḥidī return the reader to the word’s forms: morphology helps establish derivation, and pronunciation explains what is heard. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ and al-Thaʿlabī show how an omitted command can shape the meaning, with al-Thaʿlabī also preserving the explanations of the written alif and the relationship between the name and the One named.

Two further boundaries emerge beside this grammatical work. Makkī distinguishes a possible Arabic construction from an authorized Qurʾānic reading. Al-Qushayrī’s spiritual allusions occupy a different interpretive category from legal and grammatical proof. The accounts can therefore be read together without treating every kind of insight as evidence for every kind of question.

Al-Zarkashī (d. 794 AH / 1392 CE) §

Al-Zarkashī does not write a continuous commentary on the Basmala. He classifies its features under several branches of Qurʾānic language and rhetoric. This gives him a different role from the commentators who explain the phrase word by word.

He treats the Basmala in four places.

1. The omission of the verb

   The Basmala is his standing example of a prepositional phrase whose governor has been omitted. The action being performed identifies the missing verb.^⁠[185]

2. Fronting for importance

   He transmits al-Zamakhsharī’s explanation that the omitted verb is placed after the phrase so that Allah’s name comes first.^⁠[186]

3. Implication joined with concision

   Al-Zarkashī records a treatment from al-Bāqillānī’s Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān. The phrase teaches the believer to begin affairs in Allah’s name, magnifying Him and seeking blessing. This is material transmitted from al-Bāqillānī, not al-Zarkashī’s independent formulation.^⁠[187]

4. An attribute used for praise

   He presents the two mercy names after اللَّه as descriptions of praise.^⁠[188] He also records another view: they make Allah known by describing attributes He truly possesses.^⁠[189]

Al-Zarkashī further calls seeking help the better-known analysis of the opening bāʾ, while also recording accompaniment and circumstance elsewhere in his classification.^⁠[190]

His value lies in separating several functions that might otherwise be confused. Ellipsis, fronting, implication, praise, description, and seeking help are related features, but they are not identical explanations.

Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833 AH / 1429 CE) §

Ibn al-Jazarī’s concern is not primarily grammar or theology. His chapter in al-Nashr establishes how the Basmala is transmitted by the reciters and where the limits of recitational evidence lie.

He finds the attribution to Warsh through al-Azraq unsound: it claims that he omitted the Basmala at the beginning of al-Fātiḥah:

لَا يَصِحُّ ذَلِكَ عَنْ وَرْشٍ، بَلِ الْمُتَوَاتِرُ عَنْهُ خِلَافُهُ

“That is not sound from Warsh. Rather, what is transmitted from him through mass transmission is the opposite.”^⁠[191]

This rejected attribution must not be presented as an irregular reading. Ibn al-Jazarī denies that it is soundly transmitted from Warsh at all.

His second boundary is equally important. After recording five juristic positions concerning whether the Basmala is counted as a verse, he states:

لَا تَعَلُّقَ لِلْقِرَاءَةِ بِذَلِكَ

“Recitation has no bearing on that question.”^⁠[192]

A reciter’s practice may establish whether the Basmala is said at a particular boundary. It does not, by itself, establish whether the phrase is a constituent verse of the sūrah. Ibn al-Jazarī therefore states both what his discipline can prove and what it cannot.

Al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH / 1505–06 CE) §

Al-Suyūṭī builds upon al-Zarkashī’s classifications but adds two distinctions.

First, he separates the estimates made by grammarians from those made by specialists in بَيَان (bayān), clear expression.

Grammarians commonly supply a general beginning:

ابْتَدَأْتُ

“I began.”

or:

ابْتِدَائِي

“My beginning.”

The specialists in bayān recover the particular act:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ أَقْرَأُ

“In the name of Allah I recite.”

or:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ آكُلُ

“In the name of Allah I eat.”^⁠[193]

The difference is not between correct and incorrect Arabic. The grammarian identifies a construction that works generally, while the rhetorician asks which action the situation makes present.

Second, al-Suyūṭī applies إِيجَازُ الْقِصَرِ (ījāz al-qiṣar), brevity produced through compact wording, to Sulaymān’s letter in 27:30–31. The letter gathers the address, the identification of the sender, and the demand into very few words.^⁠[194]

That classification belongs to the complete letter, not to the four words of the Basmala considered alone.

Al-Ālūsī (d. 1270 AH / 1854 CE) §

Al-Ālūsī discusses grammar and spiritual allusion on the same page, but he does not confuse their evidentiary roles.

He transmits an interpretation from the scholar he calls الشَّيْخُ الْأَكْبَرُ (al-shaykh al-akbar), “the Greatest Shaykh.” On that reading, the phrase functions as:

خَبَرُ مُبْتَدَأٍ مُضْمَرٍ هُوَ ابْتِدَاءُ الْعَالَمِ وَظُهُورُهُ

“The predicate of an omitted subject, namely the beginning of the world and its appearance.”

Al-Ālūsī expressly classifies this as:

مِنْ بَابِ الْإِشَارَةِ

“From the category of allusion.”

He explains the rule governing such material:

فَلَا يُنْظَرُ فِيهِ إِلَى الظَّاهِرِ وَلَا يَتَقَيَّدُ بِالْقَوَاعِدِ وَلَا أَرَى الِاعْتِرَاضَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْإِنْصَافِ

“The outward sense is not considered in it, and it is not confined by the rules. I do not consider objecting to it to be fair.”^⁠[195]

An allusive reading is therefore not presented as the grammatical analysis of the phrase. It occupies a different interpretive category.

Al-Ālūsī also surveys claims that advancing بِسْمِ اللَّهِ conveys different kinds of restriction. He is unconvinced by all of them:

وَفِي الْقَلْبِ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

“There is something in the heart against every one of them.”^⁠[196]

He nevertheless strongly prefers interpreting the bāʾ as seeking help because that meaning expresses submission, dependence, and servanthood.^⁠[197]

A related meaning appears in Ibn ʿĀdil: the beginning of everything is in Allah’s name. The reasoning needs to be distinguished. Ibn ʿĀdil explains it grammatically, while al-Ālūsī presents the account of the world’s beginning as spiritual allusion. Similar conclusions can belong to different kinds of interpretation.^⁠[198]

Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1354 AH / 1935 CE) §

Rashīd Riḍā distinguishes the divine name from the One named and relates that distinction to remembrance by the tongue and the heart.^⁠[199] The fuller discussion appears below under “Is the Name the Same as the One Named?”

Al-Ṣābūnī adopts the same distinction.^⁠[200]

Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1386 AH / 1966 CE) §

Sayyid Quṭb develops the same movement from spoken phrase to lived awareness.

He connects the Basmala with the first revealed command:

﴿اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ﴾

“Recite in the name of your Lord.” (96:1)

Beginning in Allah’s name is therefore not confined to recitation. It establishes an Islamic manner of beginning every action. Quṭb relates this to Allah being the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward. Because all existence begins with Him and depends upon Him, the believer begins every movement and action in His name.

His most distinctive devotional insight concerns the two mercy names. Al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm do more than add a description after the divine name. They define how the servant understands the relationship between the Creator and creation. It is a relationship marked by mercy, care, reassurance, and peace, and it naturally awakens gratitude and praise in the believer.

Quṭb also describes the clarity of Islamic belief itself as an act of mercy. Recognizing one Lord who creates, governs, and cares for the world rescues the human being from confusion, superstition, and fear. Divine mercy therefore appears not only in gifts received, but also in the clarity through which a person understands Allah, creation, and his own place within it.^⁠[201]

Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir Ibn ʿĀshūr (d. 1393 AH / 1973 CE) §

Ibn ʿĀshūr examines how the wording works and which conclusions it can support.

He makes three distinctive contributions.

1. He defines the question of verse status §

Everyone agrees that the Basmala is Qurʾān at 27:30. The further question concerns:

تَكَرُّرِ قُرْآنِيَّتِهَا

“The recurrence of its Qurʾānic status.”

The question is how many times and in how many locations the phrase possesses Qurʾānic status. Ibn ʿĀshūr credits this precise formulation to Ibn Rushd the grandson.^⁠[202]

2. He rejects restriction through fronting §

Ibn ʿĀshūr does not accept that estimating the verb after the Basmala proves restriction. He calls the postposed estimate:

تَعَمُّقٌ غَيْرُ مَقْبُولٍ

“An over-refinement that is not accepted.”^⁠[203]

This identifies the precise point on which the explanations differ. Al-Zamakhsharī explains why the divine name is advanced, while Ibn ʿĀshūr denies that the order should be pressed into a meaning of restriction.

3. He explains the practical value of the omission §

Because the governing action remains unstated:

صَلُوحِيَّةُ الْبَسْمَلَةِ لِيَبْتَدِئَ بِهَا كُلُّ شَارِعٍ فِي فِعْلٍ فَلَا يَلْجَأُ إِلَى مُخَالَفَةِ لَفْظِ الْقُرْآنِ عِنْدَ اقْتِبَاسِهِ

“The Basmala is suitable for every person beginning an action, so that he need not alter the wording of the Qurʾān when quoting it.”^⁠[204]

The unchanged phrase fits every lawful undertaking because the action itself supplies what has been omitted.

Sulaymān al-Lāḥim (Contemporary) §

Al-Lāḥim brings the discussion back to the wording a Muslim says and the occasion on which it is said. His treatment distinguishes phrases, hadith wordings, legal questions, and levels of evidence that must be considered separately.

His treatment assigns the complete Basmala to two settings and then records fourteen further occasions in which the shorter بِسْمِ اللَّهِ, “in the name of Allah,” or a general mention of Allah’s name is used.^⁠[205] This prevents the complete four-word phrase from being inserted into every hadith that merely commands naming Allah.

These distinctions lead to the following conclusions, developed in the preceding sections:

1. A verb placed after the phrase and specific to the act best explains the omitted governor.^⁠[206]
2. The Basmala is best understood as an independent Qurʾānic verse revealed to separate the sūrahs.^⁠[207]
3. Quiet recitation is the regular Sunna in prayer; audible recitation remains valid.^⁠[208]
4. The more limited explanation seems preferable: the Basmala was not revealed with al-Barāʾah. Other explanations may suggest a wisdom without establishing the history.^⁠[209]
5. Seeking Allah’s help belongs with hope in His mercy. The servant asks help from the One who alone can give it and who is more merciful to His servants than a mother to her child.^⁠[210]

What Develops Across the Later Accounts §

The later accounts place more disciplines beside the grammar. Al-Zarkashī separates the phrase’s linguistic and rhetorical functions; al-Suyūṭī distinguishes an estimate that works generally from one that names the act before us. Ibn al-Jazarī brings a different test: what the reciters transmit, and what their practice can establish about the phrase’s use.

The movement inward is equally varied. Rashīd Riḍā and al-Ṣābūnī connect spoken naming with awareness of the One named. Quṭb places the believer’s actions within dependence and mercy. Al-Ālūsī makes room for spiritual allusion while keeping it distinct from outward grammatical analysis.

Ibn ʿĀshūr returns overstated questions to their limits and explains why the omitted act makes the phrase widely usable. Al-Lāḥim’s distinctions between wordings, occasions, and evidence bring the discussion back to practice: which phrase is taught, where it is said, and what a hadith can support. The four words remain brief enough to accompany an ordinary beginning, while directing the believer toward Allah’s help and mercy.

And Allah knows best.

8. Iʿrāb: Grammatical Structure and the Derivation of Ism§

Where Does اسْم Ism Come From? §

The word اسْم ism, “name,” has been traced to two different roots:

“Marking” readily explains what a name does: it distinguishes its bearer. To establish where the word comes from, however, we must ask another question. Which proposed root accounts for the forms the word actually takes? Here the evidence favors “elevation.”

The Evidence for س-م-و §

The plural is أَسْمَاء asmāʾ, “names,” and the diminutive is سُمَيّ sumayy, “a little name.” Their formation points back to a final wāw, as expected from س-م-و. That radical does not have to remain a visible wāw in the finished form. The alternative root و-س-م would instead predict a diminutive such as وُسَيْم wusaym, retaining the root’s initial wāw.

The discussion collected in Lisān al-ʿArab supports derivation from elevation and transmits this rejection from al-Tahdhīb:

وَمَنْ قَالَ إِنَّ اسْمًا مَأْخُوذٌ مِنْ وَسَمْتُ فَهُوَ غَلَطٌ

“Whoever says that ism is derived from wasamtu, ‘I marked,’ is mistaken.”^⁠[211]

Al-Rāghib gives the same derivation and supports it with the same morphological evidence.^⁠[212] Ibn Fāris also derives the word from elevation, although he introduces the explanation with the cautious expression وَيُقَالُ, “it is said.”^⁠[213]

The same test governs the grammarians’ judgments. Al-Zajjāj asks whether the proposed root explains the plural and diminutive.^⁠[214] Al-ʿUkbarī and Makkī grant that “marking” suits the meaning of a name, but reject it as a derivation because it fails that morphological test.^{⁠[215]⁠[216]}

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī reaches the same judgment when discussing the root و-س-م itself. He calls the proposed derivation:

فَاسِدٌ مِنْ جِهَةِ الِاشْتِقَاقِ

“Unsound from the standpoint of derivation.”

He also records a separate proposal from Thaʿlab, who connected the word with سَمَّيْتُ sammaytu, “I named,” and treated its final radical as a yāʾ.^⁠[217]

What و-س-م Actually Means §

The root و-س-م does carry the meaning of a visible trace or distinguishing sign (Ibn Fāris).^⁠[218] This explains why the Kufan proposal seemed plausible. A name functions like a mark because it distinguishes the person or thing being named.

That similarity of meaning, however, is not enough to establish a derivation. A proposed root must also explain how the word changes across its plural, diminutive, and other inflected forms. The forms أَسْمَاء and سُمَيّ do not behave as words derived from و-س-م would be expected to behave.

Conclusion §

The preferred derivation is from س-م-و, “elevation.” It is supported by the plural, the diminutive, and the restoration of the word’s final radical. The lexicons discussed above support it, though some transmit earlier authorities’ arguments and Ibn Fāris introduces it cautiously.

The derivation from و-س-م remains a historically reported Kufan position. It captures something true about what a name does, but it does not carry equal morphological evidence.

Is the Name the Same as the One Named? §

Ibn al-Qayyim begins by distinguishing three things:

Ordinary Arabic gives each of these a different function. Ibn al-Qayyim illustrates the distinction through familiar expressions:

A name can also take a grammatical ending or another change in word form. Those changes belong to the word, not to the person it identifies.^⁠[219]

The Objection: Would Allah’s Names Then Be Created? §

Ibn al-Qayyim presents the strongest objection to this distinction:

Allah alone is the Creator, and everything other than Him is created. If His names are other than Him, must they not also be created? Would that not mean that He did not eternally possess His names and attributes?

His answer is that the expression “other than Allah” can be used in two different senses. His answer depends on distinguishing those meanings.

For example, knowledge describes an attribute, while Allah names the One who possesses it. Distinguishing those meanings does not mean that Allah exists without knowledge or that His knowledge exists apart from Him.

The name Allah identifies the Lord who possesses all His perfect attributes. He has always possessed His knowledge, power, life, hearing, sight, and speech. His attributes are not created additions to Him.

Ibn al-Qayyim applies this to the divine names in the Qurʾān. They form part of Allah’s speech, and His speech is uncreated. He therefore rejects both the claim that these names are created things separate from Allah and the claim that the name is simply identical to the divine essence.^⁠[220]

Why Mention the Lord’s Name? §

The distinction becomes practical in the commands to remember or glorify the Lord’s name. Ibn al-Qayyim explains that the tongue speaks the name while the heart remembers Allah Himself. Naming Him gives that remembrance words; it does not make the word, rather than Allah, the object of remembrance or glorification.

Ibn al-Qayyim quotes his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah’s concise explanation:

المعنى سبح ناطقا باسم ربك

“It means: glorify your Lord while speaking His name.”^⁠[221]

This brings the discussion back to the Basmala. The tongue speaks Allah’s name, while the heart turns to Allah Himself. The name directs the believer to the One being remembered.

And Allah knows best.

Complete Iʿrāb of the Basmala §

The opening بِ (bi) makes اسْمِ (ismi) مَجْرُور (majrūr), marked here by the final kasra. The following words also take a kasra, but their grammatical roles differ. The table follows those connections one word at a time:

بِ Bi §

The letter بِ is attached to the word after it. It is a حَرْف جَرّ (ḥarf jarr): it makes the following noun majrūr. In this phrase, we hear the result in the final i of ismi.

Together, بِ and اسْمِ form جَارّ وَمَجْرُور (jārr wa-majrūr), a particle and the noun it governs. This phrase must connect to an action or governing expression, but that completion is not spoken in the Basmala. Depending on the act being performed, the complete sense may be understood as “In the name of Allah I recite,” “In the name of Allah I write,” or “In the name of Allah I begin.”

The omitted governor has been analysed in several ways:

• It may be a فِعْل (fiʿl), a verb such as “I begin,” or a مَصْدَر (maṣdar), an action named as a noun, such as “my beginning.”
• It may be understood before or after the phrase.
• It may express a general beginning or name the particular act being performed.
• It may function as a statement, such as “I begin,” or as an instruction, such as “Begin.”

Each analysis supplies a way to understand the unspoken completion. The recited words stay the same.

اسْمِ Ismi §

The word اسْمِ is a singular noun. It is majrūr because it follows بِ; the visible kasra beneath its final letter marks its جَرّ (jarr).

It is also مُضَاف muḍāf, “the first term of an annexation.” The word that follows it identifies whose name is intended.

The initial hamza of اسْم is هَمْزَة وَصْل hamzat waṣl, “a connecting hamza.” It is pronounced when the word begins an utterance but falls away when the word is connected to what precedes it. It is therefore not pronounced after the bāʾ. In the familiar written form of the Basmala, its alif is also omitted from the script.^⁠[222]

اللَّهِ Allāhi §

The name اللَّهِ is the definite proper name of Allah. It is مُضَاف إِلَيْه (muḍāf ilayh), the word completing the relation “the name of Allah.” It is therefore majrūr, marked by a visible kasra.

Together, the two words form the construct اسْمِ اللَّهِ ismi llāh, “the name of Allah.”

The grammar identifies اللَّه as the second term of this construction. It does not determine whether the divine name is derived or, if it is derived, which proposed derivation is correct. That is a separate lexical question.

الرَّحْمَٰنِ and الرَّحِيمِ §

The names الرَّحْمَٰنِ al-Raḥmāni and الرَّحِيمِ al-Raḥīmi follow اللَّهِ. Both are definite and majrūr, following the divine name in definiteness and jarr.

They are most commonly understood as نَعْت naʿt, “adjectival descriptions.” Other grammatical accounts treat them as بَدَل (badal), substitutes for the preceding name, or as أَعْلَام بِالْغَلَبَة (aʿlām bi-l-ghalaba), names that have become established through predominant usage.^⁠[223]

Ibn al-Qayyim explains why الرَّحْمَٰن can function both as a name and as a description. As a description, it follows and describes the divine name before it. As a name belonging exclusively to Allah, it can also occur independently in the Qurʾān.

This distinguishes it from names such as:

• الْعَلِيم al-ʿAlīm, “the All-Knowing”
• الْقَدِير al-Qadīr, “the All-Powerful”
• السَّمِيع al-Samīʿ, “the All-Hearing”
• الْبَصِير al-Baṣīr, “the All-Seeing”

These names do not occur independently in the same manner.^⁠[224]

Grammarians also discuss قَطْع (qaṭʿ), treating a description as a separate expression instead of making it follow the preceding word. Outside the form actually recited, the description could be مَنْصُوب (manṣūb) after an understood أَعْنِي, “I mean,” or مَرْفُوع (marfūʿ) after an understood هُوَ, “He is.” The first supplies a verb and its object; the second supplies a subject and its description. These demonstrate what Arabic grammar permits. They are not transmitted variants of the Basmala.^⁠[225]

Joining the Basmala to الْحَمْدُ §

When the Basmala is joined in ordinary recitation to الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ al-ḥamdu lillāh, “all praise belongs to Allah,” the final mīm of الرَّحِيمِ keeps its kasra. If the reciter stops after the Basmala, the two expressions remain separate.

Arabic grammarians also report the form:

الرَّحِيمَ الْحَمْدُ

al-raḥīma l-ḥamdu

Here the final mīm is opened with a fatḥa. The authorities who preserve this form expressly deny that it is a Qurʾānic recitation. Makkī says:

لَا يُقْرَأُ بِهَذَا

“It is not recited in this manner.”

Al-Samīn reports the same limitation from Ibn ʿAṭiyya.^⁠[226] The form is neither canonical nor technically irregular. It is an Arabic grammatical form for which no transmitted Qurʾānic reading has been established.

Conclusion §

The recited phrase has a stable structure. The bāʾ makes اسْمِ majrūr. The relation اسْمِ اللَّهِ, “the name of Allah,” makes اللَّهِ muḍāf ilayh, also majrūr. The two mercy names then follow as descriptions of Allah, with the same kasra.

The main question left open by the spoken words concerns their unspoken completion: what action or governing expression do we understand? The several answers explain the same recited phrase. Other grammatical possibilities remain demonstrations of syntax; they do not authorize another wording for recitation.

9. Ṣarf: Roots and Word Formation§

How a Complete Phrase Became One Word §

The title Basmala is not itself part of the Qurʾānic phrase. It is a later word formed from the phrase بِسْمِ اللَّهِ bismi llāh, “in the name of Allah.”

Arabic sometimes forms a single word from a phrase that people use frequently. The process is called النَّحْت al-naḥt, literally “carving.” Several words are carved down and combined into one new word.

From the Basmala, Arabic formed:

The lexicons preserve ordinary expressions such as:

قَدْ أَكْثَرْتَ مِنَ البَسْمَلَةِ

“You have said the Basmala many times.”^⁠[227]

Arabic formed other words in the same way:

• حَوْقَلَ ḥawqala was formed from لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ, “There is no power and no strength except through Allah.”
• سَبْحَلَ sabḥala was formed from subḥān Allāh, “Glory be to Allah.”
• حَيْعَلَ ḥayʿala was formed from ḥayya ʿalā, “Come to.”
• حَمْدَلَ ḥamdala was formed from al-ḥamdu lillāh, “All praise belongs to Allah.”
• هَلَّلَ hallala was formed from lā ilāha illā Allāh, “None deserves worship except Allah.”

The verb basmala was established early enough to appear in poetry:

لَقَدْ بَسْمَلَتْ لَيْلَى غَدَاةَ لَقِيتُهَا

أَلَا حَبَّذَا ذَاكَ الْحَبِيبُ الْمُبَسْمِلُ

“Laylā said bismi llāh on the morning I met her. How fine is that beloved who says the Basmala!”

Ibn ʿĀshūr cites this complete line and places basmala among the established examples of النَّحْت. He also notes that its اسْم فَاعِل (ism fāʿil), مُبَسْمِل, “one who says the Basmala,” is attested. No اسْم مَفْعُول (ism mafʿūl), the form identifying what receives the action, is known from this verb.^⁠[228]

The Root of اسْم §

The morphology of اسْم ism, “name,” was established in the preceding discussion. Its preferred root is س-م-و, which carries the sense of elevation. The proposed derivation from و-س-م, “marking,” is meaningful as an image but does not account for the word’s plural and diminutive forms.^{⁠[229]⁠[230]⁠[231]⁠[232]}

The Root Shared by the Two Mercy-Names §

Both الرَّحْمَٰن al-Raḥmān and الرَّحِيم al-Raḥīm come from the root ر-ح-م.

Ibn Fāris traces this root to one field of meaning:

الرِّقَّة وَالعَطْف وَالرَّأْفَة

“Tenderness, turning toward another, and kindness.”

Mercy, compassion, and the Arabic word for kinship all develop within this field.^⁠[233]

The two names share a root but follow different patterns:

The first pattern presents mercy in its fullness. The second has been connected, in different scholarly explanations, with permanence, repeated mercy, or mercy reaching those who receive it.^{⁠[234]⁠[235]}

Al-Rāghib compares the two patterns with نَدْمَان nadmān and نَدِيم nadīm. His comparison establishes a structural relationship between the patterns فَعْلَان and فَعِيل. It does not, by itself, settle the exact theological distinction between the two divine names.^⁠[236]

Morphology therefore explains why the two names cannot simply be treated as interchangeable. It does not prove every interpretation proposed for the difference between them.

The Name اللَّه §

The Basmala begins with the Name اللَّه. To understand why this Name comes first, three questions must be kept distinct:

1. What does the Name mean?
2. Is it derived from another Arabic word, or is it underived?
3. If it carries a derived meaning, can it still be Allah’s exclusive proper name?

These questions belong to one line of inquiry, but they are not the same question. The meaning of a name, the history of its word-form, and its function as a proper name each require their own evidence.

What the Name Means §

The preferred explanation connects اللَّه Allāh with إِلَه ilāh, “one who is worshipped.”^⁠[237]

The grammatical form helps explain the meaning. The word إِلَه follows the pattern فِعَال fiʿāl. Here the pattern carries a passive sense. Just as بِنَاء bināʾ means “that which is built” and فِرَاش firāsh means “that which is spread,” an إِلَه is a مَأْلُوه maʾlūh, “one who is taken as a god and worshipped” (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^⁠[238]

The worship signified by the Name joins مَحَبَّة maḥabba, love, with تَعْظِيم taʿẓīm, magnification and reverence. The worshipper loves the One before whom he submits.^⁠[239]

This explanation is preferred over the proposal that the root primarily refers to bewilderment.^⁠[240] Al-Harrās records both meanings and gives preference to worship: an ilāh is a maʾlūh, the one worshipped.

The Qurʾān also supports this meaning:

﴿وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ﴾

“And He is Allah in the heavens and on the earth.” (6:3)

Ibn ʿUthaymīn reads the phrase as saying that He is the One worshipped in the heavens and on the earth. On this reading, the verse does not merely use the proper Name. It also shows the meaning carried by that Name.^⁠[241]

The present word-form is explained as الإِلَه al-ilāh, “the God,” with the hamza dropped and the first lām joined into the second (al-Ḥakamī).^⁠[242]

Why This Name Comes First §

The testimony of faith says:

لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ

“None deserves worship except Allah.”

It does not say, “There is no lord except Allah.” Ibn Taymiyyah explains the difference through purpose. Human beings were created and commanded to worship Allah alone, and the Name اللَّه points directly to the One who deserves that worship.^⁠[243]

The same order appears in the Basmala. It begins with the Name of the One worshipped, then follows it with two names of mercy. That order gathers the worshipper’s act, the One for whom the act is done, and the mercy through which the servant hopes for help.

Why does Allah alone deserve the greatest love and fullest submission? Ibn Taymiyyah answers through the attributes of divinity. Allah’s perfect knowledge, power, mercy, wisdom, and every other divine perfection make Him worthy of worship. Mercy is therefore not an unrelated quality added after the Name. It belongs within the reason He alone is loved and obeyed as God.^⁠[244]

Ibn al-Qayyim draws another connection. If Allah is الْمَأْلُوه الْمَعْبُود al-maʾlūh al-maʿbūd, “the One worshipped,” His servants need to know how He is to be worshipped. They cannot know that through themselves; they need revelation and messengers. The divine name al-Raḥmān answers that need: Allah’s mercy means that He does not leave His servants without guidance. The Name of worship raises the need, and the name of mercy explains why that need is answered.^⁠[245]

Allah, the God of Abraham §

Some Christian polemics claim that Allah is a different god from the God of Abraham, a deity peculiar to Islam. A more extravagant version identifies Him as a moon god. The Qurʾān, the history of Arabic, and Christian and Jewish writings contradict these allegations. Allah is the Creator whom Ibrāhīm worshipped. The moon is one of His creations.

The allegation often begins with a real difference and draws a false conclusion from it. Muslims reject the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Therefore, it is said, they must worship someone other than the God Christians worship. But a disagreement about God does not by itself produce two gods. Jews also reject the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Does that make the God of the Hebrew Bible a different being from the God Christians speak of?

The distinction is straightforward: whom people mean and what they believe about Him are two different questions. A false statement about Abraham is still a statement about Abraham. Its falsehood does not create another man. In the same way, the Qurʾān identifies the Creator as the God of Abraham while rejecting false beliefs about Him. The identity is affirmed; the error is corrected.

The Qurʾānic answer §

When Yaʿqūb (Jacob) approached death, he asked his sons what they would worship after him. Their answer names the God of the prophetic family:

﴿نَعْبُدُ إِلَهَكَ وَإِلَهَ آبَائِكَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِلَهًا وَاحِدًا وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ﴾

“We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Ibrāhīm, Ismāʿīl, and Isḥāq, one God; and to Him we submit.” (2:133)

This is an explicit identification. The God of Ibrāhīm is the God of Ismāʿīl (Ishmael), Isḥāq (Isaac), and Yaʿqūb (Jacob). Muḥammad ﷺ calls people to worship this same Creator. The allegation of a foreign Arabian deity contradicts the Qurʾān's own account of whom he calls people to worship.

The instruction concerning the People of the Book is equally direct:

﴿وَإِلَهُنَا وَإِلَهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ﴾

“Our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit.” (29:46)

Al-Ṭabarī explains the first clause as referring to the One worshipped, and the second as submission through obedience to His commands and prohibitions.^⁠[246] The verse joins recognition of the One God to the duty of obeying Him.

The Qurʾān then addresses the central Christian error. It condemns identifying Allah with the Messiah and gives the Messiah's own call:

﴿يَابَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ﴾

“O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” (5:72)

The Messiah has a Lord and commands others to worship Him. The Qurʾān condemns as unbelief both identifying Allah with the Messiah and saying that Allah is one of three (5:72–73). Its answer to these beliefs is to call people back to the Lord whom the Messiah himself worshipped.

The argument is clear: the Christians' error concerns what they say about the Creator and whom they associate with Him. Correcting that error does not introduce a new Creator. Islam calls to the God of the prophets and to worshipping Him alone.

The name in Arabic §

Allāh is the Arabic name for God. An Arabic-speaking Christian uses it in speaking about God, just as a Muslim writing in English uses God. Neither word belongs exclusively to one religious community.

Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic are related languages. Their words for deity also show that relationship: Arabic ilāh, Hebrew ʾĕlōah, and Aramaic ʾĕlāh are cognates, words with a shared linguistic ancestry. The Arabic form Allāh can be explained through Arabic development without requiring a formal borrowing from Syriac, although contact between the languages may have influenced usage.^⁠[247]

These relationships place the Arabic vocabulary within the wider Semitic world. Its history can also be followed through objects that survive: inscriptions cut into stone, Christian scripture copied in Arabic, and a Jewish Torah translation written in Hebrew letters. These texts preserve the name in Christian and Jewish use.

Before Islam: inscriptions in stone §

The early inscriptions require one distinction at the outset. Al-ilāh means “the God”; Allāh is the familiar divine name. Several inscriptions discussed here write ʾl-ʾlh, read al-ilāh. Keeping their actual wording makes the history clearer. The classical explanations of the relationship between the two forms follow in the discussion of derivation.

Dūmat al-Jandal, 548–549 CE. About twenty kilometres north-west of al-Jawf, the ancient Dūmat al-Jandal, an Arabic inscription survives on a sandstone boulder in a small wadi. Laïla Nehmé published it in 2017 under the designation DaJ144PAr1. It contains dkr ʾl-ʾlh, which she reads as a prayer asking God to remember the person named in the text. The prayer interpretation is probable; the expression al-ilāh is clear.^⁠[248]

Its date is carved into the stone: year 443 of the era of the Roman province of Arabia, corresponding to 548–549 CE. The month is missing, so the date spans parts of two modern calendar years. This places the inscription decades before the Qurʾān's revelation.^⁠[249]

A cross-shaped sign follows the date. Nehmé identifies it as most probably a Christian cross, making Christian authorship likely. On that reading, a Christian in north-west Arabia was invoking al-ilāh before Islam. The divine expression was already part of the religious language of the region.^⁠[250]

Zabad: an invocation at a Christian shrine. At Zabad, also called Zebed, in northern Syria, Greek, Syriac, and Arabic inscriptions appear on the lintel of a shrine dedicated to the Christian martyr Sergius. The Arabic invokes al-ilāh to remember the people named there; its damaged opening verb is partly restored.^⁠[251]

The Greek and Syriac components bear the date 512 CE. The Arabic may have been added later and has no independently certain date. Zabad provides another Christian setting for the expression al-ilāh, while Dūmah provides the firmer date for an Arabic invocation.^⁠[252]

Umm al-Jimāl: “servant of the God.” An undated inscription from Umm al-Jimāl in Jordan, known as LPArab 1, adds a personal name to the evidence. Nehmé's 2017 reassessment proposes reading its opening as ʾnh ʿbdʾlʾlh: “I am ʿAbd al-Ilāh.” The name means “servant of the God.” Ahmad Al-Jallad reproduces the ʿbd ʾl-ʾlh reading in his 2021 study of Arabic letter forms, discussing the inscription among examples of sixth-century script.^⁠[253]

This later reading replaces an older interpretation of the opening as a prayer. The expression appears in a person's name, and the name alone does not identify his religion. The inscription nevertheless records al-ilāh in early Arabic naming. Its estimated period comes from its lettering; the engraved date of 548–549 belongs to Dūmah.

Ḥarrān, 568 CE: Christians building and writing in Arabic. South of Damascus, the Greek-Arabic inscription at Ḥarrān records the construction of a martyrion, a shrine commemorating a Christian martyr. Its provincial-era year 463 is conventionally given as 568 CE. The Arabic describes the building; it contains no invocation of Allāh.^⁠[254] Its place in this history is as a dated example of Christians using Arabic before Islam.

These stones reveal a world in which Christians wrote Arabic and used al-ilāh in religious settings. Christian and Jewish manuscripts then carry the evidence forward, with the familiar spelling Allāh written plainly in their scriptures.

Christian and Jewish witnesses across the centuries §

Around 781: Timothy I before the caliph. The Christian patriarch Timothy I describes an audience with the Abbasid caliph al-Mahdī. In his account, Timothy praises Muḥammad ﷺ for turning people away from idols towards the one God and compares this with Ibrāhīm's rejection of idolatry.^⁠[255]

Their exchange becomes pointed when al-Mahdī presses him about tawheed. Timothy defends the Trinity; the caliph challenges how three can be one! Both the praise and the theological difference appear in Timothy's own account.^⁠[256] A Christian patriarch recognized Muḥammad's ﷺ call to the God of Abraham while defending the very doctrine that the Muslim ruler rejected. Their exchange concerns the nature of the one God and how He is to be worshipped.

867: the name in Christian scripture. The Pauline section of Sinai Arabic 151 preserves a colophon, the closing statement recording a manuscript's completion. It names Bishr ibn al-Sirrī, describes his translation from Syriac into Arabic, and gives the place and date: Damascus, Ramaḍān 253 AH / 867 CE. Its closing praise names the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.^⁠[257]

In Hebrews 2:9, on original folio 165r, the text reads بنعمة الله, “by the grace of God.”^⁠[258] Here Allāh appears in a Christian translation of a Christian scripture, alongside an explicitly Christian confession. The assertion that this is an exclusively Muslim name fails before the manuscript itself.

The tenth century: Saadia's Torah translation. Saadia Gaon (882–942) was a Jewish rabbi, theologian, and head of the Sura academy.^⁠[259] His Arabic translation of the Torah, known as the Tafsīr, uses אללה, Allāh, for the Creator in Genesis 1:1.^⁠[260]

The script is Hebrew; the language is Arabic. This combination is called Judeo-Arabic. The letters spell the familiar name Allāh in the opening account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. The name that some polemics present as alien to the biblical God is the name a major Jewish scholar used to translate the Torah's first verse.

The twelfth century: Maimonides rejects the idolatry charge. Maimonides, the Jewish jurist and philosopher who worked in Egypt and died in 1204, addressed Muslim worship directly.^⁠[261] In his response to Obadiah, he writes that Muslims, whom he calls the Ishmaelites, “are not idolaters at all.”^⁠[262]

He also answers an objection from earlier pagan associations. The question is whom the worshippers now intend. Their hearts, he explains, are directed to heaven, rather than to an idol. He affirms their confession of God's unity.^⁠[263] His answer rejects the inference that a pagan association in the past makes Muslim worship idolatrous in the present.

1965: the Catholic Church's explicit statement. The Second Vatican Council's declaration Nostra Aetate, issued on 28 October 1965, describes Muslims as worshipping the Creator of heaven and earth. The same section states that they do not acknowledge Jesus as God.^⁠[264]

The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, says of Muslims: “together with us they adore the one, merciful God.”^⁠[265] It identifies Muslim worship as directed to the one God worshipped by Christians.

Volf and the objection from the Trinity §

The Protestant theologian Miroslav Volf, professor of theology at Yale, reaches the same conclusion in Allah: A Christian Response (2011). In an interview about the book, he explains that Muslims and Christians following their faiths' established teachings mean the same God: “The referent is the same.” Their beliefs about Him differ profoundly.^⁠[266]

His comparison with Judaism brings the problem into focus. Jews reject the Trinity. They also reject the divinity of Jesus. Yet Volf affirms that Jews and Christians worship the same God. Why, then, should Muslim rejection of these beliefs require a different conclusion?^⁠[267]

The objection must use the same rule in both cases. If rejecting the Trinity means worshipping a different God, the rule excludes Jews along with Muslims. If Jews can reject the Trinity and still mean the God of Abraham, Muslim rejection of it cannot be enough to prove that Muslims mean someone else. A further reason would be needed. Repeating the difference over the Trinity leaves this problem unanswered.

One response is that the Trinity is central to Christianity, so denying it changes the identity of the God being discussed. Its central place in Christianity is precisely why the Jewish comparison matters. Jews deny that same central belief. Calling the belief essential does not explain why its rejection should have one consequence for Jews and another for Muslims.

Nor is the Islamic identification vague. The Qurʾān names the God of Ibrāhīm (Abraham), Ismāʿīl (Ishmael), Isḥāq (Issac), and Yaʿqūb (Jacob); identifies Him as the Creator; and calls Him the Lord whom the Messiah worshipped. These descriptions identify the One being discussed. The remaining objection concerns what the Qurʾān teaches about Him. That theological question cannot be settled by relabelling Him a foreign god.

Volf himself defends the Trinity and interprets Qurʾānic criticism as rejecting a mistaken understanding of Christian belief.^⁠[268] The Qurʾān's judgment, however, condemns identifying Allah with the Messiah and saying that Allah is one of three (5:72–73). Islam calls Christians to abandon these beliefs and worship the Lord of Messiah's alone. The correction concerns belief and worship directed towards the God already named, the God of Abraham.

Pagan usage and the moon-deity allegation §

Another objection points to pre-Islamic idolaters who spoke of Allah. But idolaters can acknowledge the Creator while associating others with Him. Their use of His name does not turn Him into an idol. This is the very error the Qurʾān exposes:

﴿وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ مَنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ فَأَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ٨٧﴾

“If you ask them who created them, they will certainly say, ‘Allah.’ How, then, are they turned away?” (43:87)

They knew who created them. Their error was to turn from the worship owed to Him alone. The Qurʾān uses their acknowledgment against them: recognition of the Creator should lead to abandoning His supposed partners. Pagan misuse of His name is a reason to correct the worship, not to invent a different Creator.

The moon-god allegation is still more plainly contradicted:

﴿لَا تَسْجُدُوا لِلشَّمْسِ وَلَا لِلْقَمَرِ وَاسْجُدُوا لِلَّهِ الَّذِي خَلَقَهُنَّ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ إِيَّاهُ تَعْبُدُونَ﴾

“Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, if it is Him that you worship.” (41:37)

The moon is created; Allah is its Creator. The verse forbids prostration to the moon and commands worship of the One who made it. Calling this moon worship reverses what the text says.

An appeal to ancient lunar cults does not repair the allegation. Evidence that a people worshipped the moon establishes their lunar worship. To identify that deity with Allah requires evidence connecting the two. A pagan use of a divine word or a resemblance between religious symbols provides no such identification.

The name with which the believer begins §

The Basmala begins with the name of the God of Abraham, the Creator whom the prophets called their peoples to worship. Christian and Jewish use of Allāh refutes the claim that the word names a deity peculiar to Islam. Differences over the Trinity do not erase that history, and pagan use does not turn the Creator into one of His creatures.

For the believer, saying bismi Llāh joins recognition to dependence: the One who created us is the One whose help and blessing we seek. His name calls for worship of Him alone.^⁠[269] The Basmala brings that acknowledgment into the act about to begin.

And Allah knows best.

Is the Name Derived? §

The question of derivation now becomes precise. Is اللَّه connected in wording and meaning to another Arabic word, especially إِلَه, “one who is worshipped”? Or is it an original proper name that is not derived from another word?

Positions at a Glance §

The table identifies the positions. Their reasoning turns on what the word derived is being asked to mean.

The Argument for an Underived Name §

Ibn al-Qayyim transmits the central objection from al-Suhaylī and his teacher Abū Bakr b. al-ʿArabī. To derive one word from another can suggest that some earlier material existed first and that the later name was formed from it. Allah’s name is without a beginning, they reason, so it cannot be a later product made from prior material.^⁠[270]

Al-Suhaylī carefully qualifies what he means:

ولا نقول: إن اللفظ قديم، ولكنه متقدم على كل لفظ وعبارة

“We do not say that the word is eternal, but that it comes before every word and expression.”^⁠[271]

He affirms the Name’s priority over other expressions without calling the spoken or written word itself eternal.

Other authorities reach the underived position from the character of the Name as a proper name. Al-Ghazālī judges the proposed derivations:

تَعَسُّفٌ وَتَكَلُّفٌ

“Forced and strained.”^⁠[272]

Al-Rāzī also prefers the underived position. Ibn Kathīr records that preference while questioning the argument used to support it.^⁠[273] Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī likewise treats اللَّه as an original proper name, though he still surveys the derivations connected with worship, elevation, bewilderment, rest, concealment, and seeking refuge.^⁠[274]

The force of this approach is clear: a name used for Allah alone should not be treated as though it were manufactured from something that preceded it. The answer therefore depends on whether derivation must carry that implication.

The Answer §

Ibn al-Qayyim separates two meanings that had been placed under one word.

1. اشْتِقَاق مَادِّيّ ishtiqāq māddī is derivation from material that already existed.
2. اشْتِقَاق تَلَازُم ishtiqāq talāzum is the necessary connection between a name and the attribute it signifies.

The first meaning would make the Name a later product from earlier material. The second says something different: the Name carries a meaning and necessarily points to an attribute.

The other divine names make the distinction easier to see. الْعَلِيم al-ʿAlīm signifies knowledge; الْقَدِير al-Qadīr signifies power; الْغَفُور al-Ghafūr signifies forgiveness; السَّمِيع al-Samīʿ and الْبَصِير al-Baṣīr signify hearing and sight. Their relation to Arabic مَصَادِر (maṣādir), nouns naming actions or qualities does not mean that Allah’s names were produced later from pre-existing words. It means that each Name signifies a true attribute. On Ibn al-Qayyim’s account, the derivation of Allāh likewise concerns the necessary meaning of divinity and being worshipped.^⁠[275]

This answer is adopted by Sulaymān b. ʿAbd Allāh, al-Saffārīnī, and Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā.^⁠[276] Al-Harrās states directly, “The correct view is that it is derived,”^⁠[277] and Ibn ʿUthaymīn calls derivation “the preponderant view.”^⁠[278] Al-Ḥakamī calls derivation from alaha the strongest proposed account.^⁠[279] Their preference concerns a connection of meaning. It does not require an earlier material from which the Name was made.

The Reconciliation §

Ibn ʿĀshūr shows why derived and proper name need not be opposites. The generic noun إِلَه refers to one who is worshipped. From that word came اللَّه, the exclusive proper name of the one true God. The Name may therefore carry the derived meaning of divinity while referring to Allah alone.^⁠[280]

Ibn Barrī makes the difference visible in actual use. The form الإِلَه may be applied to Allah or to something falsely worshipped. Once the hamza is dropped, اللَّه is used of none but Him.^⁠[281] Derivation explains the meaning; exclusive usage explains how the word functions as a proper name.

Conclusion §

The preferred position is that اللَّه is derived in meaning from إِلَه, “the one worshipped,” while remaining Allah’s exclusive proper name. The derivation does not mean that the Name was produced from pre-existing material. It means that the Name necessarily signifies divine worthiness to be worshipped.

This gives the opening phrase its force. The servant places an action under the Name of the One whom hearts worship, love, magnify, and seek in hardship:

تَأْلَهُهُ الْقُلُوبُ وَتَرْغَبُ إلَيْهِ وَتَفْزَعُ إلَيْهِ عِنْدَ الشَّدَائِدِ

“He is the One whom hearts worship, toward whom they yearn, and to whom they flee in hardship” (Ibn Taymiyyah).⁠^⁠[282]

Ibn al-Qayyim gathers the same response into love, magnification, submission, and turning to Allah in every need and calamity.^⁠[283] The Basmala therefore begins with the Name of the One worshipped, then places mercy beside it twice.

And Allah knows best.

Why Do We Refer to Allah as “He”? §

Allah is neither male nor female. The distinction between the sexes belongs to His creation, and human gender identities do not describe Him. Yet the Qurʾān refers to Allah with هُوَ, huwa, conventionally translated “He.” How can a masculine pronoun refer to One who is not male?^[1]

The Qurʾān itself places that pronoun beside the declaration that nothing resembles Allah:

﴿لَيۡسَ كَمِثۡلِهِۦ شَيۡءٞۖ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلۡبَصِيرُ﴾

“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (42:11)

The verse affirms His hearing and sight while denying that anything is like Him. We therefore affirm what Allah has revealed about Himself without likening His attributes to those of created beings.^[2]

Grammatical gender and biological sex §

Arabic classifies nouns as مُذَكَّر, mudhakkar, masculine, or مُؤَنَّث, muʾannath, feminine. For words identifying men and women, grammatical gender ordinarily corresponds to biological sex. But Arabic also assigns grammatical gender to things that have no sex. شَمْس, shams, “sun,” is feminine; قَمَر, qamar, “moon,” is masculine. These classifications govern how other words agree with them. They do not make the sun female or the moon male.

Two words for the same object can even have different grammatical genders. دَار, dār, “house,” is feminine, whereas مَنْزِل, manzil, “dwelling,” is masculine. The building remains the same. What changes is the word used for it and the agreement that word requires.^[3]

The same distinction helps us understand هُوَ, huwa. It is a masculine pronoun, but it does not always identify a male being. Arabic has no separate neuter third-person singular pronoun alongside huwa, “he,” and هِيَ, hiya, “she.” When huwa refers to Allah, its grammatical form carries no attribution of male sex.

Why not substitute “She”? §

Someone may ask: “If Allah is not male, why should we keep saying ‘He’? Would using ‘She’ help people stop imagining that God is a man?”

The concern should be answered directly: Allah is not a man, and “He” does not mean that He is. But knowing that Allah is neither male nor female does not, by itself, tell us which pronoun to use. For that, Muslims follow the language of revelation. Allah refers to Himself with huwa, and we have already seen why that reference does not imply maleness.^[4]

Using “She” would introduce a feminine reference in place of the one revelation teaches. An intention to correct a misunderstanding does not establish that this replacement is right. The correction is to explain what “He” means when it refers to Allah. Where a particular English sentence could be misunderstood, the writer can also repeat “Allah” or “God.”

Naming Allah and explaining what we mean §

Calling upon Allah as al-Raḥmān, “the Entirely Merciful,” uses a name established in revelation. Saying “Allah is neither male nor female” serves a different purpose: it explains that a distinction found among creatures does not apply to their Creator.

This is why scholars distinguish Allah’s names from بَابُ الْإِخْبَار, bāb al-ikhbār, explanatory statements about Him. His names are received through revelation, a principle called tawqīf. A truthful explanation, however, need not be a new divine name or reproduce a sentence from revelation word for word.^[5]

The pronoun “He” is a word used to refer to Allah. We do not treat it as one of His most beautiful names to explain why Muslims retain it. Its use follows the Qurʾān’s reference to Him.

Why some nouns concerning Allah are feminine §

Several Arabic nouns naming attributes are grammatically feminine: رَحْمَة, raḥma, mercy; قُدْرَة, qudra, power; and حِكْمَة, ḥikma, wisdom. Other attribute-nouns, including عِلْم, ʿilm, knowledge, are masculine.

These nouns follow the grammar of Arabic. A feminine noun for an attribute does not make that attribute female, just as a masculine noun does not make it male.

The term الذَّات, al-dhāt, “the Essence,” requires the same care. Scholars use it to speak about the reality or essence of the one being discussed. The noun is grammatically feminine, so an adjective or pronoun referring back to it may also be feminine. When the discussion concerns Allah, that agreement does not attribute female sex to Him.^[6]

The word to which the pronoun refers matters. Feminine agreement with al-dhāt or raḥma is therefore different from choosing “She” as the ordinary way of referring to Allah. Allah’s mercy and majesty are not female and male components within Him.

What about “It” or “non-binary”? §

English “It” should not become the ordinary pronoun for Allah. Referring to Him as “It” can suggest an impersonal object or force. That fails to communicate adequately the living Lord who knows, hears, commands and forgives. The established reference “He,” understood without male sex, remains appropriate.^[7]

“Non-binary” needs a different explanation. In contemporary discussions of human gender, it describes an identity outside an exclusively male or female classification. Allah does not have a human gender identity.

Some contemporary writers have used the word more broadly, intending only that Allah is neither male nor female. That intended meaning differs from assigning Him a human identity. Nevertheless, the phrase “Allah is non-binary” can easily be understood in the latter sense. Saying directly that Allah is neither male nor female, and that human gender identities do not apply to Him, communicates the intended belief more clearly.^[8]

Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ will develop the connected questions of Allah’s unique oneness, His freedom from begetting and being begotten, and the absence of any equal to Him.

And Allah knows best.

Is اللَّه the Greatest Name of Allah? §

A new question begins here. Calling اللَّه the greatest of the divine names is one judgment; identifying the name intended in a particular Prophetic hadith is another. A scholar may affirm the first because of what the Name means while leaving the second unresolved. Since the expression اسْمُ اللَّهِ الْأَعْظَم ism Allāh al-aʿẓam, “the greatest Name of Allah,” occurs in both discussions, the evidence for them must remain distinct.

The Two Questions at a Glance §

Question One: Is اللَّه the Greatest Divine Name? §

The fullest argument joins two qualities of the Name. Neither is merely a count of how often it occurs.

1. It Gathers the Divine Attributes §

The Name اللَّه indicates the divine Essence together with all the attributes of divinity. Other beautiful names direct attention to particular attributes. الْعَلِيم al-ʿAlīm points to knowledge, and الْقَدِير al-Qadīr points to power. The Name اللَّه gathers the complete meaning of divinity without excluding any divine perfection.

This comprehensiveness matters because the one called upon as اللَّه is not approached through one attribute alone. The Name belongs to the One whose knowledge, power, mercy, wisdom, life, and every perfection all belong to Him.

2. It Belongs Exclusively to Allah §

No created being is called اللَّه, either literally or figuratively. The other beautiful names are identified by being annexed to it, as in “the names of Allah,” while it does not need to be identified through them.

For these two reasons, comprehensiveness and exclusivity, al-Ghazālī holds that اللَّه is the greatest of the ninety-nine names.^⁠[284] Ibn Ḥajar later records the same reasoning among the fourteen positions he collected: the Name has never been applied to another, and it is the root to which the other beautiful names are annexed.^⁠[285]

The view was not confined to these two scholars. It is attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa through Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, with al-Ṭaḥāwī supporting it. Ibn Amīr Ḥājj describes it as the position of:

كَثِيرٌ مِنَ الْعُلَمَاءِ وَأَكْثَرُ الْعَارِفِينَ

“Many scholars and most of those who possess knowledge of Allah.”^⁠[286]

Ibn al-Najjār calls it the position of:

أَكْثَرِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ

“Most of the people of knowledge.”^⁠[287]

Al-Shirbīnī describes it as the position of:

الْمُحَقِّقِينَ

“The verifying scholars.”^⁠[288]

These descriptions establish that the position was widely held. They do not establish consensus, and the reasons for the position still need to be assessed on their own terms.

Comparing the Hadiths §

Al-Ashqar offers another line of reasoning for the same conclusion. Comparing the texts about the greatest Name, he reasons that اللَّه is the one name present in all of them.^⁠[289] If one word ran through every relevant hadith, that shared word would be a natural candidate.

Al-Tamīmī answers that the premise is not literally correct. One hadith locates the greatest Name in two verses, one of which is:

﴿وَإِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الرَّحْمَٰنُ الرَّحِيمُ١٦٣﴾

“Your God is one God. None deserves worship except Him, the Universally Merciful, the Especially Merciful.” (2:163)

The proper name اللَّه does not occur in this verse. The word إِلَه ilāh, “god,” is related to it but is not the same word.^⁠[290] The derivational relationship explained above cannot turn two related forms into one occurrence.

Of al-Tamīmī’s three further objections, the strongest is practical. If the greatest Name intended by the hadiths were simply اللَّه, almost every supplication would already contain it through such common forms as Allāhumma. The hadiths’ special direction toward a significant divine name or invocation would then require further explanation.^⁠[291]

Al-Ashqar also reports that the Name occurs 2,697 times in the Qurʾān according to the count in al-Muʿjam al-Mufahras. The count includes occurrences with prefixed particles as well as the Name standing independently.^⁠[292] Frequency confirms the Name’s centrality. It does not identify the Name intended by a particular Prophetic hadith.

Al-Ghazālī himself preserves this boundary. After preferring اللَّه as the greatest of the ninety-nine names, he leaves the name intended by the Prophetic hadiths open. It may lie outside the ninety-nine, or it may be among them while remaining unspecified.^⁠[293]

Conclusion on the First Question §

There is a strong case for calling اللَّه the greatest of the divine names because it is exclusive to Him and gathers the meanings of divinity. This conclusion concerns the standing of the Name itself. It does not prove that اللَّه is the particular name intended by every hadith concerning اسْمُ اللَّهِ الْأَعْظَم.

Question Two: Which Name Is Intended in the Prophetic Hadiths? §

Four principal texts form the basis of the discussion: hadiths and an athar accompanied by a separate marfūʿ isnād. They do not all isolate one word. Some present a complete supplication; others point to verses or sūrahs. Their wordings and their asānīd must therefore be considered before drawing one identification from them.

The Four Texts at a Glance §

Hadith One: Oneness and Absolute Self-Sufficiency §

In the hadith of Buraydah رضي الله عنه, the Prophet ﷺ heard a man begin his supplication:

اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ أَنِّي أَشْهَدُ أَنَّكَ أَنْتَ اللَّهُ، لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا أَنْتَ، الْأَحَدُ الصَّمَدُ

“O Allah, I ask You while bearing witness that You are Allah. None deserves worship except You, the One, the Absolutely Self-Sufficient.”^⁠[294]

The Prophet ﷺ told him that he had asked Allah by the Name through which, when Allah is asked, He gives, and when He is called upon, He answers.^⁠[295] One lafẓ, or wording, says simply “the Name,” while another explicitly says:

بِاسْمِهِ الْأَعْظَمِ

“By His greatest Name.”^⁠[296]

Al-Tirmidhī grades the hadith حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ ḥasan gharīb: good, with singularity in its isnād. Al-Albānī grades its isnād sound and names Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Ḥākim, and al-Dhahabī among those supporting its authentication.^⁠[297]

The hadith explicitly connects the greatest Name with the supplication. It does not state which single word within that complete affirmation is intended.

Hadith Two: The Bestower, the Possessor of Majesty, the Living, the Self-Subsisting §

In the hadith of Anas رضي الله عنه, a man calls upon Allah with the words:

اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ بِأَنَّ لَكَ الْحَمْدُ، لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا أَنْتَ الْمَنَّانُ، بَدِيعُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ، يَا ذَا الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ، يَا حَيُّ يَا قَيُّومُ

“O Allah, I ask You because all praise belongs to You. None deserves worship except You, the Bestower, Originator of the heavens and the earth. O Possessor of Majesty and Honor, O Living, O Self-Subsisting.”^⁠[298]

The Prophet ﷺ says that he has called upon Allah by His mighty Name.^⁠[299] Again, several names and affirmations occur together.

Al-Tirmidhī calls his isnād غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ, identifying this particular isnād as singular, while noting that the hadith has other asānīd. Al-Albānī grades the hadith sound when its asānīd are considered together.^⁠[300] That overall grade does not establish that each individual isnād is sound.

Hadith Three: Two Verses §

The hadith of Asmāʾ bt. Yazīd رضي الله عنها places the greatest Name in 2:163 and the opening of Āl ʿImrān.

The printed text of al-Tirmidhī grades the hadith حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ, “good and sound.” Ibn Ḥajar notes manuscript variation: one copy reads ḥasan and another ṣaḥīḥ. He also records the objection that its isnād contains Shahr b. Ḥawshab. Al-Albānī grades the hadith ḥasan, “good,” while describing this isnād by itself as weak.^⁠[301]

The two assessments have different objects. A hadith may be judged good in light of supporting evidence even when the individual isnād under discussion is weak. Preserving both judgments prevents an overall grade from becoming a claim that every isnād is sound.

The Athar and Marfūʿ Hadith Naming Three Sūrahs §

A fourth text locates the greatest Name in al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, and Ṭā-Hā.

In the wording preserved in the collection, the statement belongs to al-Qāsim rather than directly to the Prophet ﷺ. In that form it is an athar, a statement from al-Qāsim. A separate marfūʿ isnād, carried through Ghaylān b. Anas from Abū Umāmah رضي الله عنه, is also reported. Al-Albānī calls its isnād ḥasan, “good.”^⁠[302]

This account points to three sūrahs rather than naming one word. The interpreter must still ask what those locations share.

Why the Scholars Reached So Many Answers §

The variety of answers begins in the form of the evidence. One hadith presents oneness and absolute self-sufficiency. Another joins the Bestower, the Possessor of Majesty and Honor, the Living, and the Self-Subsisting. A third names two verses, and a fourth points to three sūrahs. Moving from those complete settings to one isolated name requires an additional inference.

The evidence also varies in the strength of its asānīd and in how explicitly it identifies the Name. A hadith may be sound without explicitly isolating the Name; a statement may stop at a Companion or Successor rather than reach the Prophet ﷺ; an individual isnād may be weak while the hadith is strengthened by other asānīd. Different answers can therefore arise from selecting different shared words, combinations, or complete affirmations, and from giving different weight to their evidence.

Ibn Ḥajar says:

وَجُمْلَةُ مَا وَقَفْتُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَرْبَعَةَ عَشَرَ قَوْلًا

“The total number of positions I found concerning it is fourteen.”^⁠[303]

Later collections grew beyond Ibn Ḥajar’s fourteen. Al-Tamīmī reports that al-Suyūṭī devoted a treatise to the subject and reached twenty positions, while al-Shawkānī estimated about forty without listing them. Al-Tamīmī’s own survey lists sixty.^⁠[304]

The growth of the list does not mean that the evidence grew in the same proportion. Al-Albānī distinguishes sound hadiths that are not explicit, statements of Companions or Successors, and one hadith he judges both sound and explicit. Some other positions, he says, rest on opinion without adequate evidence.^⁠[305]

Ibn Ḥajar’s own list includes a position based on a dream, another based on something allegedly seen written among the stars, a Successor’s inference from three sūrahs, and a hadith that Ibn Ḥajar himself weakens on the same page.^⁠[306] The number of positions is therefore a history of interpretation, not a count of equally supported conclusions.

The View That No One Name Is Greater Than the Others §

Al-Ṭabarī, al-Ashʿarī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Bāqillānī do not accept that one divine name possesses greater intrinsic excellence than the others. Some writers also ascribe this view to Mālik, but only as an inference from his dislike of repeatedly selecting one sūrah over the rest. It is not preserved as a direct statement from him (Ibn Ḥajar).^⁠[307]

This view does not rest on one response to the hadiths. Its explanations take three forms.

1. “Greatest” Means “Great” §

On this reading, الْأَعْظَم al-aʿẓam, “the greatest,” carries the meaning of الْعَظِيم al-ʿaẓīm, “the great.” All Allah’s names are great.

Al-Ṭabarī’s argument is not that the transmitted statements are weak. He says:

الْأَقْوَالُ كُلُّهَا صَحِيحَةٌ

“All the reported statements are sound.”^⁠[308]

His point is that none of the hadiths explicitly says that one name is greater than every other divine name.^⁠[309] The superlative can therefore be understood as affirming greatness without setting one name above all the rest.

2. The Greatness Refers to Added Reward §

Ibn Ḥibbān understands the reported greatness as the additional reward granted to someone who supplicates with that name, just as particular portions of the Qurʾān bring particular rewards to their reciters.^⁠[310]

Ibn Ḥibbān authenticates two of these hadiths. His explanation locates the distinction in the reward of the supplicant rather than in an intrinsic superiority of one divine name.

3. The Decisive Matter Is the Servant’s State §

A third explanation turns from an isolated word to the worshipper. Any divine name may become the greatest Name for a servant who calls upon Allah with complete absorption, with nothing present in the heart except Him. This meaning is transmitted from Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and al-Junayd.^⁠[311]

Ibn Taymiyyah records the position of al-Ṭabarī and al-Ashʿarī, but holds that some divine names may possess greater excellence than others. He compares the question to whether some parts of Allah’s speech possess greater excellence than others and agrees with those who permit such preference.^⁠[312] The difference therefore concerns the meaning of greatness, not merely the authenticity of the hadiths.

What Can Be Preferred from the Hadiths? §

A judgment about the strongest isnād is clearer than a judgment identifying one word.

Ibn Ḥajar says that the first hadith, the supplication affirming Allah’s oneness and absolute self-sufficiency, is:

أَرْجَحُ مِنْ حَيْثُ السَّنَدُ مِنْ جَمِيعِ مَا وَرَدَ فِي ذَلِكَ

“The strongest in its chain of everything transmitted on this subject.”^⁠[313]

Al-Albānī later quotes and endorses this conclusion and names al-Shawkānī with him. Among the fourteen positions, this is the one he describes as both sound and explicit.^⁠[314]

This preference identifies the strongest transmitted hadith by its isnād and its explicit connection to the greatest Name. It still does not prove that one isolated word within the complete supplication must be the Name intended.

The Case for الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّوم §

Other authorities prefer the pair:

الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّوم

“The Living, the Self-Subsisting.”

Al-Nawawī’s reason, as reported by al-Shirbīnī, begins with the three locations named in the hadiths. These two names occur together in al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, and Ṭā-Hā.^⁠[315]

Ibn ʿUthaymīn adds a reason from their meanings. He reports from the people of knowledge that the pair gathers the meanings of the beautiful names: الْحَيّ al-Ḥayy contains the attributes of perfection, while الْقَيُّوم al-Qayyūm contains the meanings of sustaining, governing, and beneficence.^⁠[316] Al-Tamīmī also reports this choice from Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, with the attribution resting on the references he supplies.^⁠[317]

The case for the pair thus joins location and meaning. It identifies words shared by the named Qurʾānic passages and explains why those words could gather the divine perfections relevant to the greatest Name.

An Answer That Moves Beyond a Single Word §

Ibn al-Qayyim directs attention to the complete supplication in the strongest hadith. The worshipper affirms Allah’s absolute oneness, the perfections contained in الصَّمَد al-Ṣamad, “the Absolutely Self-Sufficient,” and His freedom from every peer or equal. The servant does not merely pronounce these words; he consciously bears witness to their truth. On this reading, seeking Allah through sincere faith in His oneness and perfection is itself the heart of calling upon Him by His greatest Name.^⁠[318]

This explanation gives weight both to the whole affirmation and to the person making it. The accounts transmitted from Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and al-Junayd also emphasize complete devotion. Al-Ṭabarī observes that people’s states differ when they supplicate.^{⁠[319]⁠[320]} These views meet in their attention to the servant’s state, though they are not identical to Ibn al-Qayyim’s account and should not be blended into one position.

Al-Tamīmī then marks the limit of certainty. A conclusive identification would require explicit revelation. He finds no decisive hadith that conclusively identifies the greatest Name, although the hadiths taken together establish that Allah has a greatest Name. He suggests that Allah concealed its precise identification while revealing its effects and some places in which to seek it, drawing a comparison with the exact Night of Decree.^⁠[321]

Conclusion §

The conclusions must be ranked rather than blended.

1. There is a strong scholarly basis for regarding اللَّه as the greatest of the divine names. It belongs exclusively to Allah and gathers the meanings of divinity.
2. This does not establish that اللَّه alone is the name intended by every Prophetic hadith about the greatest Name. Al-Ghazālī himself affirms the first conclusion while leaving the second open.
3. The strongest hadith by isnād is the supplication affirming Allah as الْأَحَدُ الصَّمَدُ, “the One, the Absolutely Self-Sufficient.” This is Ibn Ḥajar’s preference, endorsed by al-Albānī and al-Shawkānī. The preference concerns the hadith, not one isolated word within it.
4. الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّوم, “the Living, the Self-Subsisting,” remains a strongly supported scholarly preference. The pair occurs in the Qurʾānic locations identified by the hadiths and, in Ibn ʿUthaymīn’s explanation, gathers the meanings of perfection, sustaining, governing, and beneficence.
5. No single identification should be presented as conclusively settled. The sound hadiths emphasize complete affirmations of Allah’s oneness, perfection, life, self-subsistence, majesty, generosity, and mercy rather than supplying one uncontested isolated word.
6. The servant’s faith and presence of heart remain essential. The greatest Name is not a verbal device detached from worship, sincerity, and complete dependence upon Allah.

The discussion therefore returns naturally to the Basmala. الرَّحْمَٰن is the One whose attribute is mercy, and الرَّحِيم is the One whose mercy reaches His servants (Ibn al-Qayyim).^⁠[322] The phrase begins with the comprehensive Name اللَّه and immediately joins it to two names through which the servant knows why hope, reliance, and sincere supplication belong to Him alone.

And Allah knows best.

10. Balāgha: The Rhetoric of the Basmala §

The Basmala says much in a few words. The action is left unstated, Allah’s name comes first, and the names of mercy follow. Together, the names express praise and awaken reverence and hope.

The opening letter connects the servant’s action to Allah’s name. Scholars explain that connection as seeking Allah’s help or as beginning while mentioning His name.

The Rhetorical Features at a Glance §

1. Leaving the Action Unspoken §

The first rhetorical feature is الحَذْف al-ḥadhf, omission, specifically حَذْفُ الفِعْل ḥadhf al-fiʿl, omission of the verb.

The phrase بِسْمِ اللَّهِ, “in the name of Allah,” contains a preposition and its governed noun, but the action to which the phrase attaches is not stated.

Al-Zarkashī gives the Basmala as a standard example:

كَقَوْلِهِ: ﴿بِسْمِ الله﴾ فَإِنَّ اللَّفْظَ يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّ فِيهِ حَذْفًا

“As in His saying, ‘In the name of Allah,’ for the wording indicates that something has been omitted from it.”^⁠[323]

Al-Suyūṭī places it under the same heading:

وَمِنْهَا الشُّرُوعُ فِي الْفِعْلِ نَحْوُ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ

“Among its examples is beginning an action, as in ‘In the name of Allah.’”^⁠[324]

The occasion supplies the action: “In the name of Allah I recite,” “I eat,” or “I write.” A verb stated in the phrase would fix one of these actions in its wording. Leaving it unstated allows each new occasion to supply its own meaning, while the words remain unchanged.

Ibn ʿĀshūr draws out the practical result:

صَلُوحِيَّةُ الْبَسْمَلَةِ لِيَبْتَدِئَ بِهَا كُلُّ شَارِعٍ فِي فِعْلٍ فَلَا يَلْجَأُ إِلَى مُخَالَفَةِ لَفْظِ الْقُرْآنِ عِنْدَ اقْتِبَاسِهِ

“The Basmala is suitable for every person beginning an action, so that he need not alter the wording of the Qurʾān when quoting it.”^⁠[325]

The grammatical analyses differ over whether the omitted governor is a noun or verb and whether it belongs before or after the phrase. A verb placed after the phrase and specific to the act gives the preferred explanation.^⁠[326] The rhetorical effect does not depend upon eliminating every other grammatical possibility. It arises from leaving the action unspoken.

2. Putting Allah’s Name First §

The second feature is التَّقْدِيمُ وَالتَّأْخِير al-taqdīm wa-l-taʾkhīr, fronting and postponement.

It appears in two places:

1. Allah’s name precedes the unspoken action.
2. The proper name اللَّه precedes the two mercy names.

The more ordinary verbal order could be:

أَقْرَأُ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ

“I recite in the name of Allah.”

Al-Zamakhsharī, as transmitted by al-Zarkashī, explains why the verb may instead be understood after the phrase:

قُدِّرَ الفِعْلُ مُؤَخَّرًا لِأَنَّ اسْمَ اللَّهِ أَهَمُّ

“The verb is estimated as postponed because the name of Allah is more important.”^⁠[327]

On this analysis, the phrase begins neither with the servant nor with the servant’s action. It begins with Allah’s name.

Does the Fronting Prove Restriction? §

Putting Allah’s name first plainly gives it attention. Whether the order also proves exclusivity is a further question. Some interpreters understand it as قَصْر qaṣr, restriction or exclusivity: “It is only in Allah’s name that I begin.”

The belief expressed is sound. The question is whether the word order proves that belief. Al-Ālūsī and Ibn ʿĀshūr deny that this conclusion follows from the order alone.

After surveying three proposed kinds of restriction, al-Ālūsī says:

وَفِي الْقَلْبِ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

“There remains something in the heart against every one of them.”^⁠[328]

Ibn ʿĀshūr states more directly:

إِذْ لَا قَصْدَ هُنَا لِإِفَادَةِ الْبَسْمَلَةِ الْحَصْرَ

“There is no intention here that the Basmala convey restriction.”^⁠[329]

Al-Zamakhsharī’s account explains the ordering through priority and importance; the objections of al-Ālūsī and Ibn ʿĀshūr concern the further claim of exclusivity. That claim requires other evidence. Keeping those two claims distinct preserves the force of Allah’s name being first without asking the arrangement to prove more than it establishes.

3. Teaching Through Implication and Concision §

The third feature joins التَّضْمِين al-taḍmīn, implication, with الإِيجَاز al-ījāz, concision.

The Basmala does not explicitly say:

“Begin your affairs in Allah’s name, magnifying Him and seeking blessing through His name.”

Yet this instruction is contained within its established use.

Al-Bāqillānī, as quoted by al-Zarkashī, gives the governing principle:

وَالتَّضْمِينُ كُلُّهُ إِيجَازٌ

“All implication is concision.”

He then applies it to the Basmala:

وَذُكِرَ أَنَّ ﴿بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ﴾ مِنْ بَابِ التَّضْمِينِ لِأَنَّهُ تَضَمَّنَ تَعْلِيمَ الِاسْتِفْتَاحِ فِي الْأُمُورِ بِاسْمِهِ عَلَى جِهَةِ التَّعْظِيمِ لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى أَوِ التَّبَرُّكِ بِاسْمِهِ

“It has been stated that ‘In the name of Allah, the Universally Merciful, the Especially Merciful’ belongs to the category of implication because it contains the teaching that affairs should be opened in His name, in magnification of Allah Most High or in seeking blessing through His name.”^⁠[330]

Al-Suyūṭī transmits the same analysis in Muʿtarak al-Aqrān.^⁠[331]

Each use of the phrase puts the implied teaching into practice: this lawful action begins with the mention of Allah, reverence for Him, and a request for blessing.

Here التَّضْمِين is the rhetoricians’ term for meaning contained within concise wording. It must not be confused with the grammatical use of taḍmīn, in which one verb carries the government of another, or with a poetic device bearing the same name.

4. Following the Divine Name with Praise §

The fourth feature is الصِّفَةُ لِلْمَدْحِ وَالثَّنَاءِ al-ṣifa li-l-madḥ wa-l-thanāʾ, describing Allah in order to praise Him.

Ordinarily, an adjective may distinguish one member of a class from another. No such distinction is needed to identify Allah. On this analysis, الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ follows اللَّهِ to praise Him.

Al-Zarkashī writes:

أَحَدُهَا: لِمُجَرَّدِ الْمَدْحِ وَالثَّنَاءِ وَمِنْهُ صِفَاتُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى كَقَوْلِهِ: ﴿بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ﴾

“One purpose of a description is simply to praise. An example is the description of Allah Most High in His words: ‘In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful.’”^⁠[332]

Al-Suyūṭī repeats this in al-Itqān and Muʿtarak al-Aqrān.^⁠[333]

Al-Zarkashī also records another explanation: the descriptions make Allah known by telling us about attributes He truly possesses. Their purpose is therefore more than praise alone. The grammatical argument is that, if praise alone were intended, Arabic would more naturally treat the descriptions as a separate expression of praise, instead of making them follow the divine name as adjectives.^⁠[334]

On the praise analysis, the rhetorical effect is clear: the phrase names Allah and immediately praises Him through mercy. Before anything is said about the servant’s action, something is said about the Lord in whose name it begins.

Here is a further effect: the names combine الترهيب (al-tarhīb), warning, with الترغيب (al-targhīb), encouragement. The name اللَّه, Allah, points to His greatness and overwhelming power. The names الرَّحْمَٰن الرَّحِيم, al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm, “the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful,” point to His bounty, kindness, and bestowal of blessings. His greatness calls the servant to fear and reverence, while His mercy encourages hope.^⁠[335]

The Basmala joins these two reminders in one opening. The servant begins with reverence for Allah’s greatness and hope in His mercy.

5. Why the Three Names Come in This Order §

The fifth feature concerns the sequence:

اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

“Allah, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful.”

A rhetorical sequence sometimes moves from a weaker expression to a stronger one. If strength of expression alone determined this sequence, someone might imagine reversing the two mercy names. That reversed expression is only a hypothetical comparison. It is not a transmitted wording and must not be recited.

Ibn Abī al-Iṣbaʿ explains the actual order through three connected principles:

• صِحَّةُ التَّفْسِيرِ وَالتَّبْيِين: explaining the meaning clearly and accurately
• تَوَخِّي الْمُلَاءَمَة: choosing words that suit one another
• حُسْنُ الْجِوَار: placing each word beside one that suits it

The proper and most specific name, Allāh, comes first. The next name is placed beside it according to the principle:

الأَخَصُّ بِالأَخَصِّ

“Placing the more specific names together.”^⁠[336]

Here, “more specific” concerns how exclusively a name is used for Allah. Al-Raḥmān is reserved for Allah, while raḥīm may also describe a creature.^⁠[337] The order therefore reflects the relationship among the names, rather than simply moving from a weaker expression of mercy to a stronger one.

There is another reason for the same order. Allāh comes before al-Raḥmān because it is the greater name. Al-Raḥmān comes before al-Raḥīm because its form expresses mercy more strongly and its use is more exclusive. The principle is:

تقديمًا للأعظم والأهم

“Giving first place to what is greater and more important.”^⁠[338]

The two explanations emphasize different things. Ibn Abī al-Iṣbaʿ explains how the names fit beside one another. The other explains why the greater and more important name deserves to come first.

6. Beginning Through Allah’s Help §

Scholars explain the opening بِ (bi) in two main ways:

The first expresses the help sought for the action. The second expresses what accompanies the beginning of the action. These sentences explain the meanings; the words recited remain the Basmala.

Seeking help §

The first explanation is بَاءُ الِاسْتِعَانَة bāʾ al-istiʿāna, the bāʾ that expresses seeking help.

Al-Zarkashī illustrates this use through an ordinary example:

كَتَبْتُ بِالْقَلَمِ

“I wrote using a pen.”

Here, using identifies the tool by which the writing is done. Al-Zarkashī then includes the Basmala under this use:

وَلِلِاسْتِعَانَةِ وَهِيَ الدَّالَّةُ عَلَى آلَةِ الْفِعْلِ نَحْوُ كَتَبْتُ بِالْقَلَمِ، وَمِنْهُ فِي أَشْهَرِ الْوَجْهَيْنِ: ﴿بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ﴾

“The bāʾ also expresses seeking help. It identifies what is used to perform an action, as in ‘I wrote using a pen.’ According to the better-known of its two explanations, the Basmala is an example: ‘In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful.’”^⁠[339]

The example illustrates the grammatical relationship. Applied to the Basmala, the meaning is that the servant begins seeking Allah’s help to perform the action.

Ibn ʿĀdil expresses this directly: “I recite while seeking Allah’s help.”^⁠[340]

Accompaniment §

The second explanation is بَاءُ الْمُصَاحَبَة bāʾ al-muṣāḥaba, the bāʾ showing that one thing accompanies another. It is also called بَاءُ الْحَال bāʾ al-ḥāl, because it describes the state in which an action takes place.

Al-Zarkashī writes:

وَلِلْمُصَاحَبَةِ بِمَنْزِلَةِ مَعَ وَتُسَمَّى بَاءَ الْحَالِ

“It can also express accompaniment, like the word maʿa, ‘together with’. In this use, it is called the bāʾ of circumstance.”^⁠[341]

In the Basmala, this means that mentioning Allah’s name accompanies the beginning of the action: “I begin while mentioning Allah’s name.” This explanation describes what accompanies the act, rather than identifying the help sought to perform it.

Ibn ʿĀshūr prefers accompaniment and supports it through Sībawayh.^⁠[342] Al-Ālūsī examines and answers the arguments for accompaniment, then strongly prefers seeking help.^⁠[343] The two explanations identify different relationships expressed by the opening letter.

What seeking help acknowledges §

Seeking help also answers the claim that a person creates his own actions independently of Allah, a view held by a historical heretic group known as the القدرية (Qadariyyah). If a person independently created his own action, he would have no need to ask Allah for help in performing it. The request for help acknowledges his dependence on Allah.^⁠[344]

This argument rests on the request for help itself. It does not depend on claiming that the order of the words proves exclusivity. The servant asks Allah for help because he needs Him in the very action he is about to perform.

Conclusion §

The rhetoric of the Basmala develops in a clear sequence:

1. The action is omitted, so one phrase can accompany every lawful undertaking.
2. Allah’s name comes first, giving it priority over the servant and the servant’s act.
3. The concise wording contains an instruction, teaching the believer how to begin.
4. The divine name is followed by praise, placing mercy at the opening of the action.
5. Warning and encouragement appear together. Allah’s greatness calls for fear and reverence, while His mercy encourages hope.
6. The three names follow a deliberate order. One explanation concerns how the names fit beside one another. Another explains why the greater and more important name comes first.
7. The opening letter connects the action to Allah’s name. It is explained as seeking His help or as beginning while mentioning His name. On the explanation based on seeking help, the servant expressly acknowledges his dependence on Allah.

The action taking place supplies the meaning left unstated. The words guide the believer to begin by remembering Allah, praising Him, and seeking His help with reverence and hope.

And Allah knows best.

11. The Wording as the Reciters Transmit It §

The Basmala has no variant wording transmitted as a Qurʾānic reading. Its four words remain:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

“In the name of Allah, the Universally Merciful, the Especially Merciful.”

What differs among the reciters is where the phrase is said, where it is omitted, and how one sūrah is joined to the next.

The principal authority for these practices is Ibn al-Jazarī’s chapter:

بَابُ اخْتِلَافِهِمْ فِي الْبَسْمَلَةِ

“The chapter on their differences concerning the Basmala”

in al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr.^⁠[345]

Ibn Jinnī’s al-Muḥtasab, the standard collection of readings outside the accepted ten, records no alternative Basmala in its section on al-Fātiḥah. The noncanonical forms discussed there concern other words in the sūrah.^⁠[346]

The subject is therefore the reciters’ transmitted practices, not competing wordings of the phrase.

The Principal Situations at a Glance §

1. Between Two Sūrahs in Continuous Recitation §

Between two sūrahs in continuous recitation, the next opening may follow the Basmala, connect directly without it, or follow a brief silence without a breath. This third practice is called:

سَكْت

sakt

“A brief silence without taking a breath.”

The readers and transmitters are distributed as follows:

These rules apply between the sūrahs except at the boundary between al-Anfāl and al-Barāʾah, where the Basmala is not used.^⁠[347]

A difference in boundary practice does not produce a different wording of the Basmala. Nor does omitting it during continuous recitation mean that the same reader omits it when beginning a sūrah afresh.

2. Beginning a Sūrah Afresh §

When a reciter begins a sūrah from its opening, the Basmala is established except before al-Barāʾah.

The change of situation matters even for readers whose ṭarīq, the particular line through which their recitation is taught, omits it between sūrahs. Ibn al-Jazarī explains its use at a fresh beginning through seeking blessing, making an auspicious beginning, and conforming to the written Qurʾānic copy.^⁠[348] A rule for continuing a recitation cannot simply be carried over to starting one.

3. Beginning al-Fātiḥah §

Ibn al-Jazarī states:

لَمْ يَكُنْ بَيْنَهُمْ خِلَافٌ فِي إِثْبَاتِ الْبَسْمَلَةِ أَوَّلَ الْفَاتِحَةِ

“There was no disagreement among them over establishing the Basmala at the beginning of al-Fātiḥah.”^⁠[349]

This applies whether al-Fātiḥah is begun independently or reached after Sūrat al-Nās.

An attribution to Warsh through al-Azraq claims that he omitted the Basmala at this point. Ibn al-Jazarī rejects it directly:

لَا يَصِحُّ ذَلِكَ عَنْ وَرْشٍ، بَلِ الْمُتَوَاتِرُ عَنْهُ خِلَافُهُ

“That is not sound from Warsh. Rather, what is transmitted from him through mass transmission is the opposite.”^⁠[350]

This is not an irregular reading. It is a rejected attribution that Ibn al-Jazarī does not accept as soundly transmitted from Warsh.

Ḥamza’s Statement §

A statement is transmitted from Ḥamza that one Basmala at the beginning of al-Fātiḥah suffices for the whole Qurʾān.

Ibn al-Jazarī limits this statement to continuous recitation. It means that after beginning the complete recitation with the Basmala, Ḥamza’s recitation may connect the following sūrahs without repeating it at each boundary.

It does not mean that the Basmala should be omitted when a person begins a sūrah afresh.^⁠[351]

4. Beginning in the Middle of a Sūrah §

At a beginning inside a sūrah other than al-Barāʾah, every reader may use the Basmala or leave it. The options were taught with different regional emphases: Iraqi practice tended toward saying it, while Maghribī and Andalusian practice tended toward leaving it.

Some teachers made a further distinction between:

• using the Basmala as part of a transmitted recitational practice, and
• saying it independently to seek blessing.

An optional act of seeking blessing must not be reported as though it were itself a transmitted reading.^⁠[352]

Beginning inside al-Barāʾah raises an additional question: does the prohibition against saying the Basmala at the sūrah’s opening also extend to a beginning made in its middle? The transmitted discussion preserves that question rather than treating the opening rule as an automatic answer.

5. Four Ways of Joining Two Sūrahs §

When the Basmala is used between two sūrahs, four arrangements are discussed:

1. Stop after the outgoing sūrah, then connect the Basmala to the incoming sūrah.
   This is the preferred arrangement.

2. Connect the outgoing sūrah, the Basmala, and the incoming sūrah together.

3. Stop after the outgoing sūrah and stop again after the Basmala, then begin the incoming sūrah.

4. Connect the Basmala backward to the outgoing sūrah, then stop before beginning the incoming sūrah.

The fourth arrangement is forbidden. The Basmala belongs to the opening of what follows, not to the ending of what precedes.^⁠[353]

This boundary explains the preference clearly. The phrase may stand separately or connect forward, but it must not be made to sound like the conclusion of the previous sūrah.

6. Boundaries That Produce a Harsh Sound §

At several sūrah boundaries, joining the final words of one sūrah directly to the opening words of the next can produce an unwelcome verbal combination.

Among the examples Ibn al-Jazarī records are:

أَهْلُ الْمَغْفِرَةِ لَا

“Worthy of granting forgiveness, no.”

and:

لِلَّهِ وَيْلٌ

“To Allah, woe.”

Some transmitters use sakt or the Basmala at four such boundaries to prevent the words from sounding as though they form one disturbing statement.

The majority do not create a special rule for these locations. Ibn al-Jazarī gives the governing principle:

فَلَوْ بَسْمَلُوا لَصَادَمُوا النَّصَّ بِالِاخْتِيَارِ، وَذَلِكَ لَا يَجُوزُ

“If they were to insert the Basmala there, they would oppose the transmitted text through personal preference, and that is not permissible.”^⁠[354]

A reciter may not alter an established ṭarīq merely because another form sounds more pleasant. The performance follows the recitation taught through that ṭarīq.

7. Recitation Does Not Decide Verse Membership §

Al-Nashr records five positions concerning whether the Basmala is counted as a verse. It also preserves the views attributed to individual reciters.

Al-Musayyibī transmits from Nāfiʿ:

أَشْهَدُ أَنَّهَا آيَةٌ مِنَ السَّبْعِ الْمَثَانِي، وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ أَنْزَلَهَا

“I bear witness that it is a verse of the seven oft-repeated verses and that Allah sent it down.”^⁠[355]

After recording the different positions, Ibn al-Jazarī states the limit of recitational evidence:

لَا تَعَلُّقَ لِلْقِرَاءَةِ بِذَلِكَ

“Recitation has no bearing on that question.”^⁠[356]

A reciter’s transmitted practice establishes whether the Basmala is said at a particular beginning or boundary. It does not, by itself, establish whether the phrase is a constituent verse of the sūrah.

These are separate questions:

8. A Grammatical Form That Is Not a Reading §

Grammarians report a connected Arabic pronunciation in which the final mīm of الرَّحِيمِ is opened:

الرَّحِيمَ الْحَمْدُ

al-raḥīma l-ḥamdu

Makkī states:

لَا يُقْرَأُ بِهَذَا

“This is not recited in this manner.”

Al-Samīn likewise reports from Ibn ʿAṭiyya that the form is not established as a reading.^⁠[357]

Calling the form “irregular” would still give it a kind of recitational status that these authorities do not establish. It is neither a canonical nor an irregular reading. Its place here is as an Arabic form discussed by grammarians: grammar can explain how it works, but transmission is needed before it can be called a Qurʾānic recitation.

Conclusion §

The Basmala has one transmitted wording. The reciters differ over its use at sūrah boundaries, not over the words of the phrase itself.

The principal conclusions are:

1. The Basmala is established when a sūrah is begun afresh, except before al-Barāʾah.
2. All the reciters establish it at the beginning of al-Fātiḥah.
3. Between two sūrahs, the established ṭuruq differ among the Basmala, direct connection, and sakt.
4. When the Basmala separates two sūrahs, it may connect forward but must not be attached backward to the outgoing sūrah.
5. Personal preference may not override an established ṭarīq merely to avoid a harsh-sounding junction.
6. Recitational practice does not settle whether the Basmala is a constituent verse of a sūrah.
7. A form recorded by grammarians is not a Qurʾānic reading unless it has recitational transmission behind it.

And Allah knows best.

Notes §

1. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb fī tafsīr al-istiʿādha wa-l-basmala wa-fātiḥat al-kitāb, p. 84: لفظ البسملة المشروع هو: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "The legislated wording of the Basmala is: bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm." He reports the agreement of the reciters of the Qurʾān and the scholars on that wording, and rejects substituting one of its three divine names or saying باسمك اللهم "in Your name, O Allah" in its place. ↩︎

2. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 3; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 160, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. Jibrīl says اقرأ باسم ربك الذي خلق "Recite in the Name of your Lord who created." The hadith establishes that the first revealed passage begins with a naming. It does not contain the complete phrase. ↩︎

3. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 7; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 1773, from Ibn ʿAbbās from Abū Sufyān. The letter opens بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم من محمد عبد الله ورسوله إلى هرقل عظيم الروم "In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. From Muḥammad, the servant of Allah and His Messenger, to Heraclius, the great one of the Romans." Muslim’s wording has من محمد رسول الله "from Muḥammad the Messenger of Allah" in the sender's title. ↩︎

4. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, nos. 2731–2732, from al-Miswar b. Makhrama and Marwān, each confirming the other’s account. Suhayl said أما الرحمن فوالله ما أدري ما هو ولكن اكتب باسمك اللهم كما كنت تكتب "As for al-Raḥmān, by Allah I do not know what it is; write rather in Your name, O Allah, as you used to write." The change of wording belongs to that negotiation. ↩︎

5. Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-man baddala dīn al-Masīḥ, 2/407, answering the claim, put at 2/406, that the Prophet ﷺ confirmed the books as his opponents hold them: وقد تبين أن محمدا ﷺ لم يصدق شيئا من دينهم المبدل والمنسوخ، ولكن صدق الأنبياء قبله وما جاءوا به "it has been made clear that Muḥammad ﷺ did not confirm anything of their altered and abrogated religion, but confirmed the prophets before him and what they brought"; and he adds وأثنى على من اتبعهم لا على من خالفهم أو كذب نبيا من الأنبياء "and he praised those who followed them, not those who opposed them or denied a prophet." Ibn al-Qayyim states the same distinction at Hidāyat al-Ḥayārā, p. 242: والتوراة التي أنزلها الله على موسى بريئة من ذلك "and the Torah that Allah sent down upon Mūsā is free of that." al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 8/486, glosses the confirming at 5:48 the same way: أنزلناه بتصديق ما قبله من كتب الله التي أنزلها إلى أنبيائه "We sent it down confirming what preceded it of the books of Allah which He sent down to His prophets." On the same verse Ibn Kathīr, 3/128, glosses مهيمن "muhaymin": فهو أمين وشاهد وحاكم على كل كتاب قبله "it is trustee and witness and judge over every book before it." ↩︎

6. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 6/221, at 5:48: فهو مؤيد لبعض ما في الشرائع مقرر له "it is a supporter of some of what is in the earlier laws and an affirmer of it", of every ruling whose benefit did not vary with the variation of nations and ages, وهو بهذا الوصف مصدق، أي محقق ومقرر "and in this respect it is muṣaddiq, that is, verifying and affirming"; and, in the same sentence, وهو أيضا مبطل لبعض ما في الشرائع السالفة وناسخ لأحكام كثيرة "and it is also an invalidator of some of what is in the earlier laws, and an abrogator of many rulings", of everything whose benefits were partial and temporary. He treats the two senses of مصدق "muṣaddiq" at 7/370 to 371 as well, and neither of them is a certification of the wording as it now stands. ↩︎

7. F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1906, s.v. רַחוּם raḥûm, which it gives as an adjective meaning "compassionate", used of God, and records the two orders of the pair: רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן raḥûm wə-ḥannûn at Exodus 34:6, Psalm 86:15 and Psalm 103:8, and later חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם ḥannûn wə-raḥûm at Psalm 145:8 and elsewhere. Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English, Carta Jerusalem, 1987, s.v. the root רחם r-ḥ-m, gives the cognate set across the Semitic languages, Arabic رحم r-ḥ-m among them, and at his entry for רַחוּם raḥûm he compares the Arabic رحيم raḥīm. The comparison is of two words of one root and one sense, and it is not a statement about their forms. ↩︎

8. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, edited by E. Kautzsch and translated by A. E. Cowley, second English edition, Oxford, 1910, §84b, section VI, g, no. 26, which names the word itself: the ground-form קַטּוּל qaṭṭûl, with רַחוּם raḥûm given as an instance of it, and the class described there as largely a by-form of the קָטוּל qāṭûl class of §84a m. Both are ū forms. The ī class is the separate entry at §84b f, no. 25, and §84a l, and no form of this root is attested in it. The Arabic رَحِيم raḥīm is on فَعِيل faʿīl, as al-Ṭabarī states at Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 1/124: وأما الرحمن فهو فعلان من رحم، والرحيم فعيل منه "as for al-Raḥmān, it is faʿlān from raḥima, and al-Raḥīm is faʿīl from it." رَحُوم raḥūm is a real Arabic word, at al-Azharī, Tahdhīb al-Lugha, 5/34, and Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 12/231. ↩︎

9. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, London: Luzac, 1903, s.v. רַחֲמָן raḥmān in its Aramaic entry, alternate headword רַחֲמָנָא raḥmānā, "the Merciful, God", citing Targum Psalms 112:4 and Targum Onkelos Exodus 34:6, together with Yerushalmi Berakhot V, 9c, Yerushalmi Kiddushin I, 61b and Bavli Taanit 9b; and, for the Hebrew, s.v. רַחֲמָן raḥmān, "the Merciful, God", citing Kiddushin 81b, Bava Batra 145b and Sanhedrin 39a. Klein marks רַחֲמָנָא raḥmānā as post-Biblical and as Jewish Aramaic. At Psalm 103:8 the Aramaic Targum renders רַחוּם raḥûm by רַחֲמָנָא raḥmānā, and at Psalm 145:8 it does the same, as does Onkelos at Exodus 34:6. ↩︎

10. Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 2/498, root ر-ح-م r-ḥ-m: one root indicating الرقة والعطف والرأفة "tenderness, turning toward and kindness", within which mercy and the kinship word develop. ↩︎

11. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 1694, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf رضي الله عنه: قال الله أنا الرحمن وهي الرحم شققت لها اسما من اسمي من وصلها وصلته ومن قطعها بتته "Allah said: I am al-Raḥmān, and it is the womb; I cut out for it a name from My name. Whoever joins it, I join him, and whoever severs it, I sever him." Ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī). Also al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 2019 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number belongs to), with أنا الله وأنا الرحمن خلقت الرحم وشققت لها من اسمي "I am Allah and I am al-Raḥmān; I created the womb and cut out for it from My name." Al-Tirmidhī's own verdict on Sufyān’s isnād from al-Zuhrī is صحيح "sound". ↩︎

12. al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 1/153, the sixth نُكْتَة nukta, subtle point. ↩︎

13. Al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, 3/110. ↩︎

14. al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 2910 (ت بشار taḥqīq Bashshār, the printing edited by Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, the edition this number and page belong to), 5/33, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd رضي الله عنه in the chapters on the merits of the Qurʾān, under باب ما جاء فيمن قرأ حرفا من القرآن ماله من الأجر "chapter on what has come concerning one who recites a letter of the Qurʾān and what reward he has": مَنْ قَرَأَ حَرْفًا مِنْ كِتَابِ اللهِ فَلَهُ بِهِ حَسَنَةٌ، وَالْحَسَنَةُ بِعَشْرِ أَمْثَالِهَا، لَا أَقُولُ (الم) حَرْفٌ، وَلَكِنْ أَلِفٌ حَرْفٌ، وَلَامٌ حَرْفٌ، وَمِيمٌ حَرْفٌ "whoever recites a letter of the Book of Allah has one good deed for it, and the good deed is ten of its like. I do not say alif lām mīm is one letter, but alif is a letter, lām is a letter and mīm is a letter." Al-Tirmidhī notes that the hadith is also related from Ibn Masʿūd through a second isnād, رَفَعَهُ بَعْضُهُمْ وَوَقَفَهُ بَعْضُهُمْ عَنِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ "some raised it and some stopped it at Ibn Masʿūd", and closes it هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ "this is a good, sound and singly transmitted ḥadīth from this route", which is al-Tirmidhī's own verdict. ↩︎

15. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 6491, 8/103, under باب من هم بحسنة أو بسيئة "chapter on one who resolves on a good deed or on a bad one"; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 131, 1/118, under باب إذا هم العبد بحسنة كتبت وإذا هم بسيئة لم تكتب "chapter: when the servant resolves on a good deed it is written, and when he resolves on a bad one it is not"; from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما a ḥadīth qudsī: إِنَّ اللهَ كَتَبَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَالسَّيِّئَاتِ، ثُمَّ بَيَّنَ ذَلِكَ، فَمَنْ هَمَّ بِحَسَنَةٍ فَلَمْ يَعْمَلْهَا كَتَبَهَا اللهُ لَهُ عِنْدَهُ حَسَنَةً كَامِلَةً، فَإِنْ هُوَ هَمَّ بِهَا فَعَمِلَهَا كَتَبَهَا اللهُ لَهُ عِنْدَهُ عَشْرَ حَسَنَاتٍ إِلَى سَبْعِمِائَةِ ضِعْفٍ، إِلَى أَضْعَافٍ كَثِيرَةٍ "Allah wrote down the good deeds and the bad deeds, then made that plain: whoever resolves on a good deed and does not do it, Allah writes it with Him as one whole good deed; and if he resolves on it and does it, Allah writes it with Him as ten good deeds, up to seven hundred times over, up to many times more." The passage continues with the parallel for a bad deed. Muslim's wording differs in its particles and not in its numbers. ↩︎

16. Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 1/121, in his treatment of the Basmala. He reports that al-Rāzī cited, among hadiths on the merit of the Basmala, one from Abū Hurayra promising the man who names Allah before going to his wife بعدد أنفاسه وأنفاس ذريته حسنات "good deeds by the number of his breaths and the breaths of his descendants", and he answers وهذا لا أصل له، ولا رأيته في شيء من الكتب المعتمد عليها ولا غيرها "and this has no basis, and I have not seen it in any of the books relied upon, nor in any other." The verdict is on that one hadith, and the attribution to al-Rāzī is Ibn Kathīr's own. ↩︎

17. Al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 172, benefit 11, referring to al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/17–18. ↩︎

18. al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 1/156, the twenty-fourth نُكْتَة nukta, closing his treatment of the Basmala: وَأَيْضًا السُّنَّةُ أَنْ يُقَالَ عِنْدَ الذَّبْحِ «بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ، وَاللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ» وَلَا يُقَالُ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ» "and also, the sunna is that at the slaughter one says bismi llāh, wa-llāhu akbar, and one does not say bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm", لِأَنَّ وَقْتَ الْقِتَالِ وَالْقَتْلِ لَا يَلِيقُ بِهِ ذِكْرُ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ "because the time of fighting and killing is not fitting for the mention of al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm", and then فَلَمَّا وَفَّقَكَ لِذِكْرِ هَذِهِ الْكَلِمَةِ فِي كُلِّ يَوْمٍ سَبْعَ عَشْرَةَ مَرَّةً فِي الصَّلَوَاتِ الْمَفْرُوضَةِ دَلَّ ذَلِكَ عَلَى أَنَّهُ مَا خَلَقَكَ لِلْقَتْلِ وَالْعَذَابِ، وَإِنَّمَا خَلَقَكَ لِلرَّحْمَةِ وَالْفَضْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ "Since He granted you the saying of this phrase seventeen times every day in the obligatory prayers, that shows you that He did not create you for killing and punishment. He created you only for mercy, bounty and kindness." ↩︎

19. See note 18 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

20. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 161–162: تشرع البسملة وهي قول: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "the Basmala is prescribed, and it is saying bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm", for Qurʾān openings and for written and spoken compositions; then pp. 162–169: وتشرع التسمية وهي قول: بسم الله "and the tasmiya is prescribed, and it is saying bismillāh", for fourteen further settings. ↩︎

21. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 5376, from ʿUmar b. Abī Salama رضي الله عنه: سم الله "name Allah." For repairing a forgotten naming, Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 3767, and al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 1965 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number and page belong to), 3/613 (body), from ʿĀʾishah: بِسْمِ اللهِ في أوَّلِه وآخِرِه "in the name of Allah at its beginning and its end", ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī). For Satan's share in food over which Allah is not named, Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2017. The editor of that printing, Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, grades the ḥadīth حديث صحيح لغيره "a sound ḥadīth by corroboration", in his note at 3/613. ↩︎

22. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 129–131: أجمع أهل العلم على مشروعية التسمية، واستحبابها "the people of knowledge are agreed on its being prescribed and recommended", outside the prayer, after seeking refuge, at the start of every sūrah except al-Barāʾah; and pp. 132–136 for the three positions on reciting it in prayer. ↩︎

23. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 788, from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما: كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يعرف فصل السورة حتى تنزل عليه بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "The Prophet ﷺ would not know the division of a sūrah until bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm was sent down to him." Ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī); al-Shawkānī also calls the isnād sound. The hadith supports the separating function and does not settle membership in a sūrah. ↩︎

24. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/259 to 1/261, assigning separation with the Basmala, connection, and سكت sakt, a brief silence taken without a breath, to the named readers and transmitters. ↩︎

25. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 161, on books, letters, sermons, admonitions, lessons and scholarly questions, citing 27:29–30 and the letter to Heraclius; repeated at p. 299. ↩︎

26. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 162, permitting it with praiseworthy poetry and rejecting it with blameworthy content, the stated limit being reverence for Allah, His names and His attributes. He cites al-Qurṭubī there. He gives no hadith from the Prophet ﷺ for this setting. ↩︎

27. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 101; Ibn Māja, al-Sunan, no. 399: لا وضوء لمن لم يذكر اسم الله عليه "there is no ablution for one who does not mention the name of Allah over it." Ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī) for the hadith in Abū Dāwūd; a parallel isnād from Saʿīd b. Zayd is graded a good isnād by Aḥmad Shākir, while Ibn al-Mulaqqin notes narrators of unknown standing in it and Ibn ʿUthaymīn holds that every isnād has a point requiring critical assessment. The negation is read either as denying validity or as denying completeness. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 162. ↩︎

28. Ibn Māja, al-Sunan, no. 771, from Fāṭima رضي الله عنها: بسم الله، والسلام على رسول الله، اللهم اغفر لي ذنوبي، وافتح لي أبواب رحمتك "In the name of Allah, and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. O Allah, forgive me my sins and open for me the gates of Your mercy", with أبواب فضلك "the gates of Your bounty" on leaving. Al-Albānī authenticated the wording through supporting asānīd and later withdrew his authentication of the addition asking for forgiveness. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 713, and Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 465, give the stronger mosque wordings, and both have the mercy and bounty prayer without بسم الله "in the name of Allah". ↩︎

29. The short naming at the stirrup appears in the hadith from ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 2602, 3/34, in the chapter on what a man says when he mounts: فَلَمَّا وَضَعَ رِجْلَهُ فِي الرِّكَابِ قَالَ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ»، فَلَمَّا اسْتَوَى عَلَى ظَهْرِهَا قَالَ: «الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ "when he put his foot in the stirrup he said, in the name of Allah; and when he had settled on its back he said, praise be to Allah", followed by 43:13–14, then praise three times, اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ "Allah is greater" three times, and a request for forgiveness, ʿAlī closing رَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ فَعَلَ كَمَا فَعَلْتُ "I saw the Prophet ﷺ do as I have done". Ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī). al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3749 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number and page belong to), 6/67–68, gives the same hadith with بِسْمِ اللهِ "in the name of Allah" said three times, and closes it هذا حديثٌ حَسَنٌ صحيحٌ "this is a good and sound ḥadīth", which is al-Tirmidhī's own verdict. Three asānīd for the same sequence stand in the Musnad of Aḥmad, all from ʿAlī b. Rabīʿa: no. 753, 2/148; no. 930, 2/248; and no. 1056, 2/314. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ grades each of the three حسن لغيره "good by corroboration" at the foot of its page. The Ṣaḥīḥayn's mounting text is a different hadith. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 1342, 2/978, from Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما has اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ "Allah is greater" three times, then 43:13–14 and the travel prayer, and no naming of Allah at the stirrup at all. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 715, 3/1223, has ارْكَبْ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ "mount, in the name of Allah" said to Jābir رضي الله عنه about one particular animal, and it is not a wording for the rider. ↩︎

30. 6:118–121; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, nos. 5483 and 5484. The expression is mention of the name of Allah. Whether omission is excused when forgotten, and what deliberate omission does, are questions of law on which the schools hold different positions. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 164–165. ↩︎

31. 5:4; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, nos. 5496 and 5509, from ʿAdī b. Ḥātim رضي الله عنه with a parallel from Abū Thaʿlaba; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, nos. 1929 to 1931. The direct consequence is lawfulness under the other conditions stated in the hadiths. ↩︎

32. See note 21 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

33. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2018, from Jābir رضي الله عنه. When Allah is mentioned at the entry to the house and again at the food, Satan says لا مبيت لكم ولا عشاء "there is no lodging for you and no supper." This is a separate effect from the naming at the meal. ↩︎

34. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 141, 1/40, and no. 6388, 8/82–83; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 1434, 2/1058, from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما. The complete prayer quoted in the application follows al-Bukhārī’s wording at no. 141, said by a man when he comes to his wife. If a child is decreed between them, لَمْ يَضُرَّهُ "it will not harm him". The hadith stands in both Ṣaḥīḥs. al-Bukhārī preserves three wordings of the promise: no. 141 has the bare لَمْ يَضُرَّهُ "it will not harm him", no. 3271, 4/122, has لَمْ يَضُرُّهُ الشَّيْطَانُ "Satan will not harm him", and no. 6388 has لَمْ يَضُرَّهُ شَيْطَانٌ أَبَدًا "no devil will ever harm him", which is Muslim's wording as well. Muslim's chapter heading names the occasion, بَاب مَا يُسْتَحَبُّ أَنْ يَقُولَهُ عَنْدَ الْجِمَاعِ "chapter on what it is recommended to say at intercourse", and al-Bukhārī's is بَابُ التَّسْمِيَةِ عَلَى كُلِّ حَالٍ وَعِنْدَ الْوِقَاعِ "chapter: naming Allah in every state, and at intercourse". The orthography also differs among these wordings: nos. 141 and 6388 print بِاسْمِ with the alif written and no. 3271 prints بِسْمِ without it, both "in the name of". Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, 2/249, gives a fourth wording of the conditional clause. The promise was never taken in a general sense. ↩︎

35. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 5095, from Anas رضي الله عنه: بسم الله توكلت على الله، لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله "In the name of Allah; I place my trust in Allah; there is no power and no strength except by Allah." He is told هديت وكفيت ووقيت "you have been guided, sufficed and protected", and the devils withdraw from him. Ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī). The parallel at al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3724 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number and page belong to), 6/49, gives the same hadith, with كُفِيتَ وَوُقِيتَ، وَتنحَّى عَنْهُ الشَّيْطانُ "you have been sufficed and protected, and the devil turns aside from him" in place of the three verbs, and closes it هذا حديثٌ حَسَنٌ غريبٌ لا نَعْرِفهُ إلا من هذا الوَجْهِ "this is a good and singly transmitted ḥadīth; we know it only from this route", which is al-Tirmidhī's own verdict. The editor of that printing, Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, grades it in his note at 6/49 حديث حسن بشواهده، وهذا إسناد رجاله ثقات، إلا أن ابن جريج مدلس، وقد عنعنه "a good ḥadīth by its corroborating routes; the men of this chain are trustworthy, except that Ibn Jurayj conceals his sources, and he related it with ʿan." The two verdicts stand together and do not conflict, because the variation al-Arnaʾūṭ records in that note concerns different printings of al-Tirmidhī, not incompatible grades from the two scholars, and he discloses it himself. ↩︎

36. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 5088, 4/323, from ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān رضي الله عنه in the chapter on what a man says when he rises in the morning, gives the formula and the promise in full: بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي لَا يَضُرُّ مَعَ اسْمِهِ شَيْءٌ، فِي الْأَرْضِ، وَلَا فِي السَّمَاءِ، وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ، ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ، لَمْ تُصِبْهُ فَجْأَةُ بَلَاءٍ، حَتَّى يُصْبِحَ، وَمَنْ قَالَهَا حِينَ يُصْبِحُ ثَلَاثُ مَرَّاتٍ، لَمْ تُصِبْهُ فَجْأَةُ بَلَاءٍ حَتَّى يُمْسِيَ "Whoever says, 'In the name of Allah, with whose name nothing on earth or in heaven can cause harm, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing,' three times, no sudden affliction will strike him until morning; and whoever says it in the morning three times, no sudden affliction will strike him until evening." al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3685 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number and page belong to), 6/17–18, gives it and closes it هذا حديثٌ حَسَنٌ صحيحٌ غريبٌ "this is a good, sound and singly transmitted ḥadīth", which is al-Tirmidhī's own verdict. Ibn Māja, al-Sunan, no. 3869, 2/1273, frames it فِي صَبَاحِ كُلِّ يَوْمٍ، وَمَسَاءِ كُلِّ لَيْلَةٍ "in the morning of every day and the evening of every night"; the ṣaḥīḥ verdict appended there is al-Albānī's. Aḥmad, al-Musnad, no. 474, 1/515, gives the promise in the plain positive, لَمْ يَضُرَّهُ شَيْءٌ فِي ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ، أَوْ فِي تِلْكَ اللَّيْلَةِ "nothing will harm him on that day, or on that night", with Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ's verdict إسناده حسن من أجل ابن أبي الزناد واسمه عبد الرحمن "its chain is ḥasan, on account of Ibn Abī al-Zinād, whose name is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān". al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Māja give the apodosis as فَيَضُرَّهُ شَيْءٌ literally "and then something harms him", a known crux carrying an elided negative. al-Nasāʾī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, no. 10106, 9/137, relates the hadith through ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī al-Zinād and then writes عبد الرحمن بن أبي الزناد ضعيف، ويزيد بن فراس مجهول، لا نعرفه "ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī al-Zinād is weak, and Yazīd b. Firās is unknown; we do not know him", Yazīd b. Firās occurring in a separate isnād recorded by al-Nasāʾī. ↩︎

37. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 6320: باسمك ربي وضعت جنبي وبك أرفعه "In Your name, my Lord, I lay down my side, and by You I raise it up", followed by a request for mercy if the soul is held and for protection if it is released. See also al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 6314, from Ḥudhayfa رضي الله عنه: باسمك اللهم أموت وأحيا "In Your name, O Allah, I die and I live"; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2714; and Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 5054, ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī), which asks for forgiveness, the expulsion of Satan, release from liability, and the highest assembly. ↩︎

38. al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 612 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number belongs to); Ibn Māja, al-Sunan, no. 297: بسم الله "in the name of Allah", as a screen between the eyes of the jinn and the private parts of the children of Ādam. The isnād in Ibn Māja is graded weak; al-Albānī authenticates the hadith through its supporting asānīd. The separate sound prayer of refuge said on the same occasion has no بسم الله "in the name of Allah" in its standard wording. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 167. ↩︎

39. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 4982, ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī); also authenticated by al-Ḥākim with al-Dhahabī agreeing. Saying تعس الشيطان "may Satan be brought low" makes him swell and claim that his own power caused the fall; saying بسم الله "in the name of Allah" makes him shrink until he is like a fly. ↩︎

40. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 4/1728, chapter on placing the hand on the site of pain while supplicating, from ʿUthmān b. Abī al-ʿĀṣ رضي الله عنه. The hand is placed on the painful place, بسم الله "in the name of Allah" is said three times, and then seven times أعوذ بالله وقدرته من شر ما أجد وأحاذر "I seek refuge in Allah and in His power from the evil of what I find and what I fear." ↩︎

41. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2186, from Abū Saʿīd رضي الله عنه. Jibrīl came to the Prophet ﷺ, asked whether he was suffering, and said باسم الله أرقيك، من كل شيء يؤذيك، من شر كل نفس أو عين حاسد، الله يشفيك. باسم الله أرقيك: “In the name of Allah I recite over you, from everything that harms you, from the evil of every soul or envious eye; may Allah heal you; in the name of Allah I recite over you.” Also cited by Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/71. ↩︎

42. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 3213; al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 1067 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number belongs to); Ibn Māja, al-Sunan, no. 1550, from Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما: بسم الله وعلى سنة رسول الله "In the name of Allah and upon the way of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ." Ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī); al-Tirmidhī calls it حسن غريب "good and singly transmitted". Variants give ملة "the religion of" in place of سنة "the way of", and وبالله "and by Allah". ↩︎

43. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 3280; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2012, from Jābir رضي الله عنه. The instruction is اذكر اسم الله "mention the name of Allah" at each act. Satan does not open a shut door. The complete hadith sets the practice at night and gives a separate practical reason for putting out lamps. ↩︎

44. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 10/396, in the chapter headed ذكر الإسم المفرد بدعة "remembrance by the isolated name is an innovation": وَأَمَّا ذِكْرُ الِاسْمِ الْمُفْرَدِ فَبِدْعَةٌ لَمْ يُشْرَعْ وَلَيْسَ هُوَ بِكَلَامِ يُعْقَلُ وَلَا فِيهِ إيمَانٌ "as for remembrance by the isolated name, it is an innovation that was never prescribed; it is not intelligible speech and there is no faith in it." He is answering those who ranked اللَّه اللَّه "Allah, Allah" and هُوَ هُوَ "He, He" above لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ "there is no god but Allah". The same page has وَالذِّكْرُ بِالِاسْمِ الْمُفْرَدِ مُظْهَرًا وَمُضْمَرًا بِدْعَةٌ فِي الشَّرْعِ وَخَطَأٌ فِي الْقَوْلِ وَاللُّغَةِ فَإِنَّ الِاسْمَ الْمُجَرَّدَ لَيْسَ هُوَ كَلَامًا لَا إيمَانًا وَلَا كُفْرًا "remembrance by the isolated name, expressed as a noun or a pronoun, is an innovation in the religion and an error in speech and in language, because a bare name is not speech at all, neither faith nor unbelief." ↩︎

45. See note 35 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

46. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, 1/40, the chapter heading standing before no. 141: باب التسمية على كل حال وعند الوقاع "chapter: naming Allah in every state, and at intercourse." The chapter stands in كتاب الوضوء "the book of ablution" and not in the book of marriage, which is the collector's own placement. ↩︎

47. See note 34 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

48. See note 34 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

49. al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj, 10/5, on Muslim no. 1434, under باب ما يستحب أن يقوله عند الجماع "chapter on what it is recommended to say at intercourse", reporting from al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ: قال القاضي قيل المراد بأنه لا يضره أنه لا يصرعه شيطان وقيل لا يطعن فيه الشيطان عند ولادته بخلاف غيره قال ولم يحمله أحد على العموم في جميع الضرر والوسوسة والإغواء هذا كلام القاضي "the Qāḍī said: it has been said that what is meant by it will not harm him is that no devil will throw him down; and it has been said that Satan will not stab him at his birth, unlike others. He said: and no one has taken it in a general sense covering all harm and whispering and leading astray. This is the Qāḍī's statement." Everything between قال القاضي "the Qāḍī said" and هذا كلام القاضي "this is the Qāḍī's statement" is al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ's, reported by al-Nawawī; the two قيل "it has been said" clauses inside it are positions al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ is himself reporting, and only the final clause is his own voice. al-Nawawī adds nothing of his own to it. Muslim's fuller wording لم يضره شيطان أبدا "no devil will ever harm him" is quoted in al-Nawawī’s discussion at 10/5. ↩︎

50. Sulaymān al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 169, quoting from Aḥmad, al-Musnad, 1/359, the wording كل كلام، أو أمر ذي بال، لا يفتح بذكر الله عز وجل فهو أبتر، أو قال أقطع "every speech, or matter of consequence, that is not opened with the remembrance of Allah, mighty and majestic is He, is maimed, or he said, cut off", and giving his own verdict on it: فهو حديث ضعيف "so it is a weak ḥadīth", referring for it to al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, no. 1, and Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, no. 4222. Al-Albānī's ruling at Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, 1/29, is on the wording that names the whole Basmala, and reads وهذا سند ضعيف جدا "and this chain is very weak", the defect being Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿImrān, known as Ibn al-Jundī. That wording reaches print through al-Rahāwī's al-Arbaʿīn, from which al-Suyūṭī carries it into al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, no. 9702; the verdict ضعيف "weak" printed beside it there is al-Albānī's, added by a later editor. The wording with praise, or with the remembrance of Allah, in place of the Basmala, at Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 4840, Ibn Mājah no. 1894 and Aḥmad no. 8712, has been assessed in opposite directions: al-Dāraquṭnī holds the mursal form correct and the connected asānīd weak, and al-Albānī weakens it, while al-Nawawī, al-Adhkār, p. 149, grades it ḥasan and calls the connected isnād sound, حسن روي موصولا ومرسلا، ورواية الموصول إسنادها جيد "good; it has been related both connected and disconnected, and the chain of the connected transmission is fine"; Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, Sharḥ al-Arbaʿīn, p. 14, calls it ṣaḥīḥ; and Ibn Bāz, Majmūʿ al-Shurūḥ al-Fiqhiyya, 33/288, calls it حسنًا لغيره, good through supporting asānīd. ↩︎

51. See note 30 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

52. See note 21 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

53. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 93–102: الرحمن الرحيم: اسمان ... مشتقان من الرحمة "al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm: two names … both derived from mercy." He presents فعلان faʿlān as fuller than فعيل faʿīl, prefers the distinction between the attribute in itself and the mercy reaching its recipient, and preserves the accounts by divine exclusivity, by general and believer-specific scope, and by intensity. He notes 2:143 and 22:65 as a difficulty for a rigid general-and-special formula. ↩︎

54. Ibn al-Qayyim, Madārij al-Sālikīn, 1/53, in the فصل faṣl, section, headed دلالة على توحيد الأسماء والصفات "an indication of the oneness of the names and attributes": ولو لم تكن أسماؤه ذوات معان وأوصاف لكانت جامدة كالأعلام المحضة، التي لم توضع لمسماها باعتبار معنى قام به، فكانت كلها سواء، ولم يكن فرق بين مدلولاتها "were His names not possessed of meanings and descriptions, they would be inert, like bare proper names that are not assigned to what they name in view of any meaning subsisting in it; and then they would all be alike, and there would be no difference between what they signify", and فإن من جعل معنى اسم القدير هو معنى اسم السميع البصير، ومعنى اسم التواب هو معنى اسم المنتقم، ومعنى اسم المعطي هو معنى اسم المانع فقد كابر العقل واللغة والفطرة "for whoever makes the meaning of the name al-Qadīr the meaning of the name al-Samīʿ al-Baṣīr, and the meaning of the name al-Tawwāb the meaning of the name al-Muntaqim, and the meaning of the name al-Muʿṭī the meaning of the name al-Māniʿ, has defied reason, and language, and the way a person is made." The edition cited is the دار الكتاب العربي printing, Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī. ↩︎

55. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 103: أجمعوا على أنها بعض آية من سورة النمل "They are agreed that it is part of a verse of Sūrat al-Naml." ↩︎

56. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 106–109, on the second position and its evidence. ↩︎

57. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 103–105, on the first position, its attribution to Mālik and others, and his answer to its evidence. ↩︎

58. See note 57 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

59. See note 56 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

60. See note 56 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

61. Yāsīn, الصحيح المسبور 1/71, quoting Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, on Umm Salama’s hadith as Abū Dāwūd gives it: وهو حديث حسن وسنده صحيح "it is a good ḥadīth and its chain is sound." The verdict is Ibn al-Jazarī's, reported by Yāsīn, and it stands in the البسملة section that precedes the sūrah in his book, under كيفية قراءتها "how it is recited". Al-Ḥākim's authentication with al-Dhahabī silent stands at 1/71 also. ↩︎

62. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 4001, from Umm Salama رضي الله عنها: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم * الحمد لله رب العالمين * الرحمن الرحيم * ملك يوم الدين يقطع قراءته آية آية "bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm, al-ḥamdu li-llāhi rabbi l-ʿālamīn, al-raḥmāni l-raḥīm, māliki yawmi l-dīn, breaking his recitation verse by verse." Ṣaḥīḥ (al-Albānī); al-Dāraquṭnī calls the isnād sound and its men trustworthy. The hadith does not place the recitation in prayer and does not state that it was audible. ↩︎

63. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 5046, from Anas رضي الله عنه: كانت مدا ثم قرأ بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم يمد ببسم الله ويمد بالرحمن ويمد بالرحيم "It was drawn out. Then he recited bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm, drawing out bismillāh, drawing out al-raḥmān, and drawing out al-raḥīm." The hadith establishes measured elongation. It does not locate the recitation in the prayer. ↩︎

64. al-Nasāʾī, al-Sunan, no. 905, on the authority of Nuʿaym al-Mujmir, who prayed behind Abū Hurayra رضي الله عنه and heard him recite the Basmala and then al-Fātiḥah, after which Abū Hurayra said his prayer most resembled the Messenger's ﷺ. Ibn Khuzayma, al-Ḥākim, al-Dāraquṭnī, al-Bayhaqī and Ibn Ḥajar accept it; al-Albānī faults the isnād through Ibn Abī Hilāl and al-Zaylaʿī calls it defective. The wording contains neither جهر "he said aloud" nor سمع "he heard". ↩︎

65. The wording is إذا قرأتم الحمد لله فاقرؤوا بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم إنها أم القرآن وأم الكتاب والسبع المثاني وبسم الله الرحمن الرحيم إحدى آياتها "when you recite al-ḥamdu li-llāh, recite bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm, for it is the mother of the Qurʾān, the mother of the Book and the seven oft-repeated, and bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm is one of its verses." Al-Albānī, al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah, no. 1183, 3/179–180, discusses the hadith from Abū Hurayra رضي الله عنه and names al-Dāraquṭnī, p. 118, al-Bayhaqī, 2/45, and al-Daylamī, 1/1/70, as the collectors who bring it, and grades it وهذا إسناد صحيح مرفوعا وموقوفا "and this chain is sound both as a raised report and as a stopped one", the marfūʿ isnād being the one he authenticates. Ibn Ḥajar holds والموقوف أصح "the stopped form is sounder", and Ibn al-Qaṭṭān did not accept the isnād as sound. ↩︎

66. See note 65 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

67. See note 65 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

68. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 110–114, on the third position. For al-Kawthar, Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 400, from Anas: أنزلت علي آنفا سورة "a sūrah has just been sent down to me", followed by the Basmala and the sūrah. The hadith shows the Basmala recited as the lead-in and does not itself count it among the three verses. For the sūrah-boundary report from Ibn ʿAbbās, Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/73, brings it from Abū Dāwūd under نزولها “its sending down” and grades its isnād والإسناد على شرط الشيخين “upon the conditions of the two shaykhs.” ↩︎

69. See note 68 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

70. See note 68 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

71. See note 62 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

72. See note 63 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

73. See note 68 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

74. Yāsīn, الصحيح المسبور 1/73, from Abū Dāwūd, under the heading نزولها "its sending down" in the البسملة section that precedes the sūrah in his book: والإسناد على شرط الشيخين "and the chain is upon the conditions of the two shaykhs." The verdict is Yāsīn’s own. At 1/70 he also states, وثبت عن النبي ﷺ أنه كان يقطع قراءته آية آية ومنها البسملة "and it is established from the Prophet ﷺ that he used to break his recitation verse by verse, the Basmala among those verses", said of the hadith of Umm Salama. He also reports Ibn Kathīr's authentication, al-Ḥākim's with al-Dhahabī's أما هذا فثابت "as for this, it is established", and al-Haythamī on the asānīd in al-Bazzār. ↩︎

75. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 114–124: آية مستقلة من القرآن، وليست من السور "an independent verse of the Qurʾān, and not part of the sūrahs", with twelve lines of argument. al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/5, sets out the same position for the Ḥanafīs. ↩︎

76. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 395, from Abū Hurayra رضي الله عنه: قسمت الصلاة بيني وبين عبدي نصفين ولعبدي ما سأل "I have divided the prayer between Myself and My servant into two halves, and My servant shall have what he asks." The exchange begins at الحمد لله رب العالمين "all praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds", with no response given for the Basmala. ↩︎

77. See note 75 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

78. al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3111 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number belongs to): إن سورة من القرآن ثلاثون آية شفعت لرجل حتى غفر له وهي سورة تبارك الذي بيده الملك "There is a sūrah of the Qurʾān of thirty verses which interceded for a man until he was forgiven, and it is tabāraka lladhī bi-yadihi l-mulk." Al-Tirmidhī: حديث حسن "a good report"; also at Ibn Māja, al-Sunan, no. 3786, and graded good by al-Albānī. The hadith does not say whether a prefixed Basmala is inside the thirty. ↩︎

79. See note 78 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

80. See note 76 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

81. See note 76 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

82. Yāsīn, الصحيح المسبور al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/72, reporting from Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām, فضائل القرآن Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān, "the merits of the Qurʾān", in the البسملة section that precedes the sūrah in his book, quoting Ibn Ḥajar, who graded it good and then wrote وليث هو ابن أبي سليم فيه مقال لكن الأثر يعتضد بما تقدم "and Layth is Ibn Abī Sulaym, in whom there is criticism, but the report is strengthened by what has gone before." Ibn Kathīr's إسناده جيد "its chain is fine" is quoted at 1/72. ↩︎

83. See note 82 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

84. al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/5; al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 114–124. Both keep being Qurʾān, being sent down with a sūrah, being written before it, separating, and being a constituent verse of it as distinct propositions. ↩︎

85. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 1/138: بِمَعْنَى أَنَّ الِاخْتِلَافَ بَيْنَهُمْ لَيْسَ فِي كَوْنِهَا قُرْآنًا، وَلَكِنَّهُ فِي تَكَرُّرِ قُرْآنِيَّتِهَا كَمَا أَشَارَ إِلَيْهِ ابْنُ رُشْدٍ الْحَفِيدُ فِي «الْبِدَايَةِ» "in the sense that the disagreement between them is not over its being Qurʾān, but over the repetition of its Qurʾānicity, as Ibn Rushd the grandson indicated in al-Bidāya." The attribution to Ibn Rushd is Ibn ʿĀshūr's own. ↩︎

86. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/270: لا تعلق للقراءة بذلك "recitation has no bearing on that", said of the question whether the Basmala is a verse of each sūrah, after which he records five positions on counting. ↩︎

87. See note 75 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

88. See note 65 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

89. See note 57 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

90. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 125–128: أجمع المسلمون على ترك الفصل بالبسملة "the Muslims are agreed on leaving off the separation by the Basmala", between al-Anfāl and al-Barāʾah. ↩︎

91. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 786, and al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3340 (ط الرسالة ṭabʿat al-Risāla, the printing edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ for دار الرسالة العالمية Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, the edition this number and page belong to), from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما asking ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه ولم تكتبوا بينهما سطر بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "and you did not write between them the line bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm", with the answer فقبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يبين لنا أنها منها "the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was taken and he had not made clear to us that it is part of it." Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 787, supplies a second isnād and a separately identified disconnected account. al-Tirmidhī's own verdict, at 5/320 (body), is حسن "good", and not حسن صحيح "good and sound"; both asānīd in Abū Dāwūd are graded weak by al-Albānī. Ibn Kathīr, Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān, p. 143, says the hadith is in al-Tirmidhī and elsewhere بإسناد جيد قوي "with a fine and strong chain"; Ibn Ḥajar, Muwāfaqat al-Khubr al-Khabar, 1/45, gives it his own isnād and then says هذا حديث حسن "this is a good ḥadīth", holding its men to be the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ apart from Yazīd al-Fārisī, of whom Abū Ḥātim said لا بأس به "there is no harm in him"; and Aḥmad Shākir, at his own Musnad no. 499, 1/378, foot, says إسناده ضعيف جدا "its chain is very weak". In his editorial note to Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya edition, 5/320, n. 1, Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ writes: إسناده ضعيف ومتنه منكر، يزيد الفارسي هذا لم يرو عنه هذا الحديث غير عوف بن أبي جميلة، وهو في عداد المجهولين "its chain is weak and its text is objectionable; this Yazīd al-Fārisī, no one related this hadith from him except ʿAwf b. Abī Jamīla, and he is counted among those who are unknown." Al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, no. 2911, 4/7, judges it هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين، ولم يخرجاه "this is a sound ḥadīth on the conditions of the two shaykhs, and they did not bring it out." ↩︎

92. See note 91 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

93. See note 91 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

94. See note 91 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

95. Al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 125–128, especially pp. 127–128. He adopts al-Qushayrī’s explanation, quoted through al-Qurṭubī, that Jibrīl did not bring the Basmala down with this sūrah. The supporting inference from the preservation of the Qurʾān (15:9), and the distinction between possible wisdoms and established causes, are al-Lāḥim’s. ↩︎

96. See note 95 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

97. al-Wāḥidī, al-Basīṭ, 1/433, opening his treatment of the phrase: اختلفت عبارة النحويين في تسمية هذِه الباء الجارة، فسموها مرة: حرف إلصاق، ومرة: حرف استعانة، ومرة: حرف إضافة، وكل هذا صحيح من قولهم "the grammarians' expression differs over what to call this governing bāʾ: they have called it once a letter of adhesion, once a letter of seeking help, and once a letter of annexation, and all of this is sound as they say it." He then illustrates each of the three in turn. ↩︎

98. al-Zajjāj, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān wa-Iʿrābuh, 1/39, giving the understood sense as بدأت باسم الله "I began in the name of Allah", calling the bāʾ one of الإلصاق "adhesion", and declining a long discussion of the derivation of the divine name. ↩︎

99. al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 2/277, calling it a bāʾ of implication and attachment and supplying an omitted قل "say" or ابدأ "begin". ↩︎

100. al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 1/24, transmitting a causative analysis of the bāʾ from al-Ḥarallī. ↩︎

101. Al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 4/256. ↩︎

102. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 88: الباء للاستعانة "the bāʾ is for seeking help", with an auspicious beginning and the seeking of blessing as joined meanings. ↩︎

103. Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 1/8, treating assistance and attachment as both good analyses, and accepting a verbal أبتدئ "I begin" or a nominal ابتدائي "my beginning" for the omitted governor. ↩︎

104. Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 1/119. His example is “I worked using an adze,” a woodworking tool. He also quotes Makkī’s explanation that the bāʾ takes a kasra, matching the kasra of ism, which is majrūr after it. ↩︎

105. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 1/147, quoting Sībawayh. ↩︎

106. Al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 1/50. He also connects this meaning with opening the door to Allah’s mercy and gaining the treasure of لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله: “There is no power or strength except through Allah.” ↩︎

107. See note 98 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

108. See note 99 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

109. See note 105 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

110. See note 101 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

111. See note 105 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

112. See note 101 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

113. See note 104 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

114. See note 106 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

115. Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 1/44: وقال «بسم الله» ولم يقل بالله على وجه التبرك بذكر اسمه عند قوم، وللفرق بين هذا وبين القسم عند الآخرين، ولأن الاسم هو المسمى عند العلماء، ولاستصفاء القلوب من العلائق ولاستخلاص الأسرار عن العوائق عند أهل العرفان، ليكون ورود قوله «الله» على قلب منقّى وسر مصفّى "and He said bismi llāh and did not say bi-llāh: by way of seeking blessing through the mention of His name, according to one group; and to distinguish this from an oath, according to others; and because the name is the thing named, according to the scholars; and for the purifying of hearts from attachments and the freeing of inner secrets from obstacles, according to the people of gnosis, so that His word Allāh should arrive at a heart made pure and an inmost self made clear." He asserts none of the four. Each is tagged to a party in his own wording, so he is reporting and not asserting. ↩︎

116. al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, 3/200: قدر البصريون المحذوف اسما ... وقدره الكوفيون فعلا "the Baṣrans estimated what is omitted as a noun … and the Kufans estimated it as a verb." Compare al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/45, reporting the same two estimates. ↩︎

117. al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/3, giving the Baṣran وَالتَّقْدِيرُ ابْتِدَائِي بِسْمِ اللَّهِ ; أَيْ كَائِنٌ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ "and the estimate is: my beginning is in the name of Allah, that is, being in the name of Allah"; al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/4, giving ابتدائي كائن باسم الله with the phrase attached to the predicate of an omitted subject. ↩︎

118. al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān, 1/3, giving the Kufan ابتدأت "I began" or أبدأ "I begin". ↩︎

119. Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 1/87, giving the Baṣran ابتدائي ثابت "my beginning is established" and the Kufan ابتدأت "I began"; the same two appear in his Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/64. ↩︎

120. Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/27, giving the nominal ellipsis ابتدائي "my beginning" in his own text, with the Kufan أبدأ "I begin" placed in his notes. ↩︎

121. Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 1/119: وَأَقُول: لقَائِل أَن يَقُول: بل إِضْمَار الِاسْم أولى؛ لأَنا إِذا قُلْنَا: تَقْدِير الْكَلَام: بِسم الله ابْتِدَاء كل شَيْء، كَانَ هَذَا إِخْبَارًا عَن كَونه مبدأ فِي ذَاته لجَمِيع الْحَوَادِث، ومخالفا لجَمِيع الكائنات، سَوَاء قَالَه قَائِل، أَو لم يقلهُ، وَلَا شكّ أَن هَذَا الِاحْتِمَال أولى "and I say: it is open to someone to say that estimating a noun is the better course. For if we say that the estimate of the sentence is in the name of Allah is the beginning of everything, then this is a statement that He is, in Himself, the origin of all events and distinct from all beings, whether or not any speaker says it. And there is no doubt that this possibility is the better one." The passage stands at the head of the page, closing his section on the derivation of the Basmala. ↩︎

122. Al-Zamakhsharī’s estimate, as transmitted by al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, 3/200. ↩︎

123. al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 1/22, connecting postposition to beginning the act specifically in Allah's name, against openings such as باسم اللات "in the name of al-Lāt" and باسم العزى "in the name of al-ʿUzzā". This is his own construction-level reasoning. ↩︎

124. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 1/147: إِذْ لَا قَصْدَ هُنَا لِإِفَادَةِ الْبَسْمَلَةِ الْحَصْرَ، وَدَعْوَى صَاحِبِ «الْكَشَّافِ» تَقْدِيرَهُ مُؤَخَّرًا تَعَمُّقٌ غَيْرُ مَقْبُولٍ "since there is no intention here that the Basmala convey restriction; and the claim of the author of al-Kashshāf that it be estimated postposed is an over-refinement that is not accepted." The estimate he is refusing is the one al-Zarkashī transmits at al-Burhān, 3/200. ↩︎

125. Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 3/196–197. His wording at 3/197 describes the act-specific estimate as the approach of the specialists in bayān collectively: وَعَلَى هَذَا أَهْلُ الْبَيَانِ قَاطِبَةً خِلَافًا لِقَوْلِ النُّحَاةِ, “The specialists in clear expression, one and all, take this approach, contrary to the grammarians’ statement.” ↩︎

126. al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/5, permitting a declarative أبدأ "I begin" and an imperative ابدؤوا "begin", and explaining why the sequence of al-Fātiḥah favours the imperative while both senses remain available through different omissions. ↩︎

127. al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 1/22, attributing the imperative estimate اقرأ أنت "you, recite" to al-Farrāʾ and the declarative أقرأ أنا "I recite" or أبتدئ "I begin" to al-Zajjāj. ↩︎

128. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 84–87: متعلقان بفعل محذوف "the two are attached to an omitted verb", with his preference for a postposed act-specific verb such as باسم الله أقرأ "in the name of Allah I recite" or باسم الله أذبح "in the name of Allah I slaughter". He preserves the nominal and the prior estimates as grammatically sound. ↩︎

129. See note 124 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

130. Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/25. The comparison with الله أكبر, “Allah is greater,” belongs to his first reason. ↩︎

131. See note 128 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

132. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 137–160, setting out the three positions inside the prayer and the practice of the reciters outside it. ↩︎

133. al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 137–160: يسن الإسرار بالبسملة في الصلاة مطلقا "it is a sunna to say the Basmala quietly in the prayer, without restriction." He preserves the transmitted practice of raising it, holds the prayer valid either way, and permits raising the voice on occasion for teaching, for a need, for an overriding interest, or to keep a congregation together. ↩︎

134. See note 133 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

135. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 399, from Anas رضي الله عنه: صليت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وعمر وعثمان فلم أسمع أحدا منهم يقرأ بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "I prayed with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and with Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān, and I did not hear any of them recite bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm." ↩︎

136. al-Nasāʾī, al-Sunan, no. 907: فلم أسمع أحدا منهم يجهر ببسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "and I did not hear any of them say bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm aloud." The same explicit sense is corroborated by parallel asānīd that Ibn Ḥibbān authenticates and al-ʿAynī calls sound. For the explicit denial quoted in the table, al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 150, transmits the wording from Aḥmad, al-Musnad, 3/264, and Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 497. That quotation is cited through al-Lāḥim. ↩︎

137. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 399, in another wording: فكانوا يستفتحون بالحمد لله رب العالمين لا يذكرون بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم في أول قراءة ولا في آخرها "they used to open with al-ḥamdu li-llāhi rabbi l-ʿālamīn, not mentioning bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm at the beginning of the recitation nor at the end of it." The Arabic has no word answering to "aloud". ↩︎

138. Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 498: أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يسر ببسم الله الرحمن الرحيم في الصلاة وأبو بكر وعمر "that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to say bismillāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm quietly in the prayer, and so did Abū Bakr and ʿUmar." Abū Nuʿaym notes that Suwayd alone transmits it from ʿImrān; al-Haythamī says its men are documented. It comes through a separate isnād and is not the wording of Muslim’s hadiths. ↩︎

139. See note 133 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

140. See note 53 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

141. Yāsīn, الصحيح المسبور al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/75, reporting from al-Ṭabarī, in the البسملة section that precedes the sūrah in his book, under تفسيرها "its interpretation" at الرحمن الرحيم "al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm": وعوف هو ابن أبي جميلة الأعرابي ثقة وباقي رجاله ثقات أيضاً فالإِسناد صحيح إلى الحسن البصري "and ʿAwf is Ibn Abī Jamīla al-Aʿrābī, trustworthy, and the rest of its men are trustworthy also, so the chain to al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī is sound." The verdict is Yāsīn's own. ↩︎

142. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 12/230, root ر-ح-م. The explanations he records include the same meaning expressed through different forms, greater intensity in al-Raḥmān, and general mercy followed by mercy particular to believers. ↩︎

143. al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Mufradāt Alfāẓ al-Qurʾān, p. 347, pairing the two forms structurally with ندمان "drinking companion" and نديم "boon companion", restricting الرحمن to Allah, allowing الرحيم of one whose mercy is abundant, and, when mercy is predicated of Allah, limiting the intended sense to beneficence without the creaturely feeling the word begins from. ↩︎

144. al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, ʿUmdat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 2/80, root ر-ح-م r-ḥ-m, recording intensity, exclusivity, the worldly and otherworldly distinction, synonymy, and a proposal of foreign origin, and rejecting the claim that the two names were joined only because Musaylima had used one of them, since the Basmala is older than he is. ↩︎

145. Al-Zamakhsharī, Asās al-Balāgha, 1/344, root ر-ح-م, r-ḥ-m. ↩︎

146. al-Suhaylī, quoted by Ibn al-Qayyim in Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/24, immediately before تم كلامه "his words end": وفائدة الجمع بين الصفتين الرحمن والرحيم الإنباء عن رحمة عاجلة وآجلة وخاصة وعامة "and the benefit of joining the two attributes al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm is the announcement of a mercy immediate and deferred, particular and general." The words are al-Suhaylī's and not Ibn al-Qayyim's, and so are the فعلان "faʿlān" intensity discussion and the substitution question at 1/23. ↩︎

147. Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/24, after closing a long quotation from al-Suhaylī with تم كلامه "his words end" and opening his own answer with قلت "I say": وأما الجمع بين الرحمن الرحيم ففيه معنى هو أحسن من المعنيين اللذين ذكرهما وهو أن الرحمن دال على الصفة القائمة به سبحانه والرحيم دال على تعلقها بالمرحوم فكان الأول للوصف والثاني للفعل "as for joining al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm, there is in it a sense better than the two senses he mentioned, namely that al-Raḥmān indicates the attribute subsisting in Him, glorified is He, and al-Raḥīm indicates its attaching to the one shown mercy; so the first was for the description and the second for the act", with the evidence ولم يجيء قط رحمن بهم "and Raḥmān to them has never once come" set against وكان بالمؤمنين رحيما "and He is ever Merciful to the believers" and إنه بهم رؤوف رحيم "indeed He is to them Kind and Merciful". He closes it وهذه نكتة لا تكاد تجدها في كتاب "and this is a subtlety you will scarcely find in a book." ↩︎

148. See note 53 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

149. See note 53 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

150. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2755, from Abū Hurayra رضي الله عنه: لو يعلم المؤمن ما عند الله من العقوبة ما طمع بجنته أحد، ولو يعلم الكافر ما عند الله من الرحمة، ما قنط من جنته أحد: “If the believer knew what punishment is with Allah, no one would hope for His Garden; and if the disbeliever knew what mercy is with Allah, no one would despair of His Garden.” Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/74, cites Muslim and names al-Bukhārī beside him for a longer wording. ↩︎

151. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 6000, from Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه. Parallel hadiths: Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, nos. 2752 and 2753; the latter is from Salmān رضي الله عنه. ↩︎

152. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 5999; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2754, from ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه. ↩︎

153. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 7422, a ḥadīth qudsī from Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه. The wording at al-Bukhārī no. 3194 and Muslim no. 2751 is غَلَبَتْ "has overcome" and تَغْلِبُ "overcomes"; سَبَقَتْ, "has outrun", is the wording at 7422. ↩︎

154. al-Harrās, Sharḥ al-ʿAqīda al-Wāsiṭiyya, p. 47, on الرحمن الرحيم "al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm": اسمان كريمان من أسمائه الحسنى، دالان على اتصافه تعالى بصفة الرحمة، وهي صفة حقيقية له سبحانه، على ما يليق بجلاله، ولا يجوز القول بأن المراد بها لازمها؛ كإرادة الإحسان ونحوه؛ كما يزعم المعطلة "two noble names among His beautiful names, indicating that He is described by the attribute of mercy; and it is a real attribute of His, glorified be He, in the manner that befits His majesty; and it is not permissible to say that what is meant by it is its necessary concomitant, such as the will to do good and the like, as the divesters claim." ↩︎

155. al-Shirbīnī, Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, 1/89: والرحمة لغة: رقة في القلب … فرحمة الله تعالى إرادة إيصال الفضل والإحسان أو نفس إيصال ذلك "mercy in the language is a tenderness in the heart … so Allah's mercy is the will to convey bounty and beneficence, or the conveying of that itself." The position is printed there as doctrine and not as an account of others’ views. ↩︎

156. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Qawāʿid al-Muthlā, p. 45, of those he has identified two sentences earlier as كالأشعرية والماتريدية "such as the Ashʿarīs and the Māturīdīs": مثال ذلك: أنهم أثبتوا صفة الإرادة، ونفوا صفة الرحمة … ونفوا الرحمة قالوا: لأنها تستلزم لين الراحم، ورقته للمرحوم، وهذا محال في حق الله تعالى. وأولوا الأدلة السمعية المثبتة للرحمة إلى الفعل، أو إرادة الفعل، ففسروا الرحيم بالمنعم، أو مريد الإنعام "an example of this: they affirmed the attribute of will and denied the attribute of mercy … They denied mercy, saying: because it entails softness in the merciful one and tenderness toward the one shown mercy, and this is impossible in Allah's case. And they reinterpreted the revealed proofs affirming mercy as the act, or the will to act, so they glossed al-Raḥīm as the bestower or the one who wills to bestow." ↩︎

157. al-Ghazālī, al-Maqṣad al-Asnā, pp. 62–63: وإنما الرحمة التامة إفاضة الخير على المحتاجين وإرادته لهم عناية بهم … الرحمة لا تخلو عن رقة مؤلمة تعتري الرحيم فتحركه إلى قضاء حاجة المرحوم والرب تعالى منزه عنها فلعلك تظن أن ذلك نقصان في معنى الرحمة فاعلم أن ذلك كمال وليس بنقصان "complete mercy is the outpouring of good upon the needy and the willing of it for them out of solicitude for them … Mercy is never free of a painful tenderness that comes over the merciful one and moves him to meet the need of the one shown mercy, and the Lord, exalted be He, is far above that. Perhaps you suppose this to be a deficiency in the meaning of mercy: know that it is a perfection and not a deficiency"; and the reason he gives: بل كمال الرحمة أن يكون نظره إلى المرحوم لأجل المرحوم لا لأجل الاستراحة من ألم الرقة "rather the perfection of mercy is that his regard be toward the one shown mercy for that one's sake, and not for the sake of relief from the pain of tenderness." ↩︎

158. See note 157 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

159. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 13/299: فيقال لمن أثبت شيئا ونفى آخر: لم نفيت مثلا حقيقة رحمته ومحبته وأعدت ذلك إلى إرادته؟ فإن قال: لأن المعنى المفهوم من الرحمة في حقنا هي رقة تمتنع على الله قيل له: والمعنى المفهوم من الإرادة في حقنا هي ميل يمتنع على الله. فإن قال: إرادته ليست من جنس إرادة خلقه قيل له: ورحمته ليست من جنس رحمة خلقه وكذلك محبته "it is said to one who affirms one thing and denies another: why have you denied, for instance, the reality of His mercy and His love, and referred that back to His will? If he says, because the sense understood from mercy in our case is a tenderness that is impossible for Allah, it is said to him: and the sense understood from will in our case is an inclination that is impossible for Allah. If he says, His will is not of the genus of His creatures' will, it is said to him: and His mercy is not of the genus of His creatures' mercy, and likewise His love." The reply to the effect account stands in the same passage: أن الإنعام والإحسان وكشف الضر دل أيضا على الرحمة كدلالة التخصيص على الإرادة "that bestowal, beneficence and the removal of harm likewise indicate mercy, just as particularisation indicates will"; and at 13/300: فلا يذكر حجة إلا عورض بمثلها في إثباته الإرادة زيادة على الفعل "he cannot bring an argument without its being met by its like in his own affirming of will over and above the act." ↩︎

160. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 6/117–118, in the section فصل: في بطلان القول بأن الرحمة ضعف وخور "section: on the falsity of the claim that mercy is weakness and feebleness": وأما قول القائل: "الرحمة" ضعف وخور في الطبيعة وتألم على المرحوم فهذا باطل "as for the claim that mercy is a weakness and feebleness in one's nature and a pain over the one shown mercy, this is false"; and at 6/118: ولو قدر أنها في حق المخلوقين مستلزمة لذلك لم يجب أن تكون في حق الله تعالى مستلزمة لذلك كما أن العلم والقدرة؛ والسمع والبصر والكلام فينا يستلزم من النقص والحاجة ما يجب تنزيه الله عنه "and even were it granted that in the case of creatures it entails that, it would not follow that in Allah's case it entails it, just as knowledge and power and hearing and sight and speech in us entail a deficiency and a need that Allah must be held far above." ↩︎

161. See note 159 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

162. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr al-Fātiḥa wa-l-Baqara, 1/6–7, under the heading of the Basmala itself: والرحمة التي أثبتها الله لنفسه رحمة حقيقية دل عليها السمع، والعقل … هذا وقد أنكر قوم وصف الله تعالى بالرحمة الحقيقية، وحرفوها إلى الإنعام، أو إرادة الإنعام … قالوا: "لأن الرحمة انعطاف، ولين، وخضوع، ورقة؛ وهذا لا يليق بالله عز وجل"؛ والرد عليهم من وجهين: الوجه الأول: منع أن يكون في الرحمة خضوع، وانكسار، ورقة؛ لأننا نجد من الملوك الأقوياء رحمة دون أن يكون منهم خضوع، ورقة، وانكسار. الوجه الثاني: أنه لو كان هذا من لوازم الرحمة، ومقتضياتها فإنما هي رحمة المخلوق؛ أما رحمة الخالق تبارك وتعالى فهي تليق بعظمته، وجلاله، وسلطانه؛ ولا تقتضي نقصا بوجه من الوجوه "the mercy Allah has affirmed for Himself is a real mercy, indicated by revelation and by reason … Now, a people denied describing Allah with real mercy and distorted it into bestowal, or the will to bestow … They said: because mercy is inclination, softness, submission and tenderness, and this does not befit Allah, mighty and majestic. The reply to them is on two counts. The first: we deny that mercy contains submission, brokenness and tenderness, for we find in strong kings a mercy in which there is no submission, tenderness or brokenness. The second: even if this were among mercy's entailments and requirements, it would be the creature's mercy; as for the Creator's mercy, blessed and exalted, it befits His greatness, His majesty and His sovereignty, and entails no deficiency in any respect." The sentence completed at 1/7 is: والعجب أن منكري وصف الله بالرحمة الحقيقية بحجة أن العقل لا يدل عليها … قد أثبتوا لله إرادة حقيقية بحجة عقلية أخفى من الحجة العقلية على رحمة الله "and the wonder is that those who deny describing Allah with real mercy on the argument that reason does not indicate it have affirmed a real will for Allah on a rational argument fainter than the rational argument for Allah's mercy." ↩︎

163. See note 162 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

164. Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 3/31. In explaining the masculine قريب (qarīb) in 7:56, he explains that if mercy is near to those who do good, the Lord who possesses that attribute has an even stronger claim to nearness. He calls this a seventh explanation and identifies it as his preferred account. ↩︎

165. Ibn al-Qayyim, Ighāthat al-Lahfān, 2/915. He describes the person who works for your good and protects you from harm, even by putting you through difficulty, as the most merciful toward you. He also treats trials as part of the completeness of Allah’s mercy. ↩︎

166. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr al-Fātiḥa wa-l-Baqara, 1/5; Ibn al-Qayyim, Madārij al-Sālikīn, 1/50, ʿAṭāʾāt al-ʿIlm edition. ↩︎

167. Al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 1/33–34, as quoted by al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, pp. 170–171. ↩︎

168. See note 167 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

169. See note 98 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

170. al-Zajjāj, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān wa-Iʿrābuh, 1/40, deriving اسم "name" from سمو "elevation" and rejecting وسم "marking" through the morphology of the diminutive and the plural. ↩︎

171. See note 98 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

172. See note 126 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

173. See note 75 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

174. See note 99 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

175. al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 2/278, transmitting from Abū al-Haytham Khālid b. Yazīd: the alif was dropped لكثرة دورها على الألسن "for the frequency of its going round on the tongues", and ألا ترى أنهم لما كتبوا: ﴿اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ﴾ بالألف ردّوا الباء إلى صيغتها "do you not see that when they wrote ﴿recite in the name of your Lord﴾ with the alif, they returned the bāʾ to its own shape." al-Wāḥidī, al-Basīṭ, 1/438, gives the same reason from frequency and a different contrasting verse, وأثبتت في قوله ﴿فَسَبِّحْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الْعَظِيمِ﴾ "and it was established in His words ﴿so glorify the name of your Lord, the Most Great﴾", at 56:74. The اقْرَأْ "recite" example is al-Thaʿlabī's and not al-Wāḥidī's. ↩︎

176. al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 2/280; al-Wāḥidī, al-Basīṭ, 1/442, defending الاسم هو المسمى "the name is the named" in the relevant use. ↩︎

177. Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 1/98–99, on the junction to الحمد "the praise", giving separation, ordinary connection with the final word remaining majrūr, marked by its kasra, and the heard opening of the mīm, with his own limit لا يقرأ بهذا "this is not recited". Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 1/35, reports the same form and attributes to Ibn ʿAṭiyya the limit that it is not established as a reading. ↩︎

178. Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 1/88, granting the semantic attraction of marking and rejecting it morphologically, with the plural and the diminutive in support of the other root. ↩︎

179. Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 1/44: الباء فى «بسم الله» حرف التضمين أي بالله ظهرت الحادثات، وبه وجدت المخلوقات "the bāʾ in bismi llāh is the letter of implication, that is: by Allah the things that come to be appeared, and by Him created things were brought into being", running on through من عين وأثر وغبر، وغير من حجر ومدر، ونجم وشجر، ورسم وطلل، وحكم وعلل- إلا بالحق وجوده، والحق ملكه، ومن الحق بدؤه، وإلى الحق عوده "of substance or trace or what has passed, of anything else, of stone or clay, of star or tree, of a mark or a ruin, of a judgement or a cause, but that by the Real is its existence, and to the Real belongs its ownership, and from the Real is its beginning, and to the Real is its return", and closing فبه وجد من وحّد، وبه جحد من ألحد، وبه عرف من اعترف، وبه تخلّف من اقترف "by Him the one who declares His oneness came to be; and by Him the one who turned away denied; and by Him the one who acknowledged came to know; and by Him the one who transgressed fell behind." ↩︎

180. Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 1/44, closing his treatment: فلما أعاد الله جل جلاله هذه الآية أعنى بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم فى كل سورة وثبت أنها منها أردنا أن نذكر فى كل سورة من إشارات هذه الآية كلمات غير مكررة، وإشارات غير معادة، فلذلك نستقصى القول هاهنا وبه الثقة "since Allah, glorious is His majesty, repeated this verse, I mean bismi llāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm, in every sūrah, and it is established that it is part of it, we intend to mention in every sūrah, out of the allusions of this verse, words that are not repeated and allusions that are not brought back again; for that reason we set out the discussion fully here, and in Him is the trust." ↩︎

181. Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 2/165, at the head of Sūrat Yūsuf: وقدّم الله- سبحانه- اسم الله فى هذا المحل على اسميه الرحمن والرحيم على وجه البيان والحكم، فبرحمته الدنيوية وصل العبد إلى معرفته الإلهية "and Allah, glory be to Him, put the name Allāh in this place ahead of His two names al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm, by way of exposition and of ruling: for by His mercy in this world the servant arrived at knowledge of His divinity", and فالواصل إليه محمول بإحسانه، والواقف دونه مربوط بخذلانه "so the one who arrives at Him is upheld by His kindness, and the one who halts short of Him is bound by His forsaking." ↩︎

182. See note 97 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

183. al-Wāḥidī, al-Basīṭ, 1/439, noting that the initial hamza of اسم "name" is a connecting one and falls in pronunciation after the bāʾ. ↩︎

184. al-Wāḥidī, al-Basīṭ, 1/439, supporting the derivation from elevation on the evidence of inflection and of the diminutive; compare his al-Wasīṭ, 1/63. ↩︎

185. See note 13 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

186. See note 122 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

187. Al-Bāqillānī, Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān, as quoted by al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, 3/343. Within that quotation, the Basmala’s classification is introduced with وَذُكِرَ, “it has been mentioned.” The classification is therefore reported within material that al-Zarkashī is himself transmitting. ↩︎

188. Al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 2/422. ↩︎

189. Al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 2/423. ↩︎

190. See note 101 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

191. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/263. ↩︎

192. See note 86 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

193. See note 125 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

194. al-Suyūṭī, Muʿtarak al-Aqrān, 1/224, taking 27:30–31 as his instance of the first kind of concision, and saying of the letter جمع في أحرف العنوان والكتاب والحاجة "he gathered, in a few letters, the address, the letter and the need." The classification is of the whole letter at 27:30–31. The definition printed beside it there, وهو أن يُقصر اللفظ على معناه "which is that the wording be held to its meaning", sits under a bare فصل "section" with no name attached, and it is not al-Suyūṭī's own: at al-Itqān, 3/181, he prints the same sentence with its author, وَقَالَ الطِّيبِيُّ: فِي التِّبْيَانِ الْإِيجَازُ الْخَالِي مِنَ الْحَذْفِ ثَلَاثَةُ أَقْسَامٍ: أَحَدُهَا: إِيجَازُ الْقَصْرِ وَهُوَ أَنْ يُقْصَرَ اللَّفْظُ عَلَى مَعْنَاهُ "and al-Ṭībī said in al-Tibyān: … the first is concision by brevity, which is that the wording be held to its meaning". His own comment in Muʿtarak is, قلت: وهذا رأي من يدخِل المساواة في الإيجاز "I say: this is the view of one who brings equivalence in under concision." ↩︎

195. al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 1/52, on the reading he reports from الشيخ الأكبر "the Greatest Shaykh": من باب الإشارة فلا ينظر فيه إلى الظاهر ولا يتقيد بالقواعد ولا أرى الاعتراض عليه من الإنصاف "of the category of allusion: so the outward sense is not looked to in it, and it is not held to the rules; and I do not consider objecting to it to be fair dealing." The reading described is خبر مبتدأ مضمر هو ابتداء العالم وظهوره "the predicate of an elided subject, namely the beginning of the world and its appearance". He reports it and states the rule under which it may be read; he does not adopt it as the grammatical analysis. ↩︎

196. al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 1/52: وقد اعتركت الأفهام هنا في توجيه القصر لظنه من ذكر الاختصاص حتى ادعاه بعضهم بأنواعه الثلاثة وأفرد البعض البعض، فمقتصر على قصر الإفراد، وقائل به وبالقلب، وفي القلب من كل شيء "and understandings have collided here over how to account for the restriction, on the supposition that it comes from the mention of exclusivity, to the point that some have claimed it in all three of its kinds, while others singled out one, so that one restricts himself to qaṣr al-ifrād, and another holds that together with al-qalb; and in the heart there is something against every one of them." The closing clause is his refusal of the whole claim. ↩︎

197. See note 106 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

198. See note 121 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

199. Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 1/34; Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qurʾān, English translation, vol. 1, al-Fātiḥah section, pp. 1–8. The translator is not identified in the supplied copy. ↩︎

200. al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/37, distinguishing the name from the named. ↩︎

201. See note 199 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

202. See note 85 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

203. See note 124 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

204. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 1/147. He classifies the omission as concision: what is unstated could be expressed openly. ↩︎

205. See note 20 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

206. See note 128 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

207. See note 75 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

208. See note 133 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

209. See note 95 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

210. Al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 171, benefit 8; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 5999; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, no. 2754, both narrating from ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه. ↩︎

211. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 14/401, root س-م-و s-m-w, quoting al-Zajjāj: وَقَالَ الزَّجَّاجُ: مَعْنَى قَوْلِنَا اسمٌ هُوَ مُشْتَق مِنَ السُّموِّ وَهُوَ الرِّفْعَة، قَالَ: والأَصل فِيهِ سِمْوٌ مثلُ قِنْوٍ وأَقْناءٍ "and al-Zajjāj said: the sense of our saying ism is that it is derived from al-sumūw, which is elevation; he said: and its base in it is simw, like qinw and aqnāʾ". The plural أسماء "names" and the diminutive سمي are adduced by al-Jawharī, in support of his own derivation from سموت, and not by al-Zajjāj. The rejection وَمَنْ قَالَ إنَّ اسْماً مأْخوذٌ مِنْ وَسَمْت فَهُوَ غَلَطٌ "and whoever says that ism is taken from wasamtu is mistaken", because that derivation would predict a diminutive of another shape, stands at 14/402 and is transmitted there from the Tahdhīb. ↩︎

212. al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Mufradāt Alfāẓ al-Qurʾān, p. 428: الاسم: ما يعرف به ذات الشيء، وأصله سمو "the name is that by which the essence of a thing is known, and its origin is simw", with the plural and the diminutive as evidence, and the reason that a name raises the mention of the named. ↩︎

213. Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 3/99, root س-م-و s-m-w: ويقال إن أصل اسم سمو، وهو من العلو، لأنه تنويه ودلالة على المعنى "and it is said that the origin of ism is simw, which is from elevation, because it is a raising up and an indication of the meaning." ↩︎

214. See note 170 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

215. al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān, 1/3, giving five forms of the word, deriving it from سمو "elevation", and holding the Kufan وسم "marking" analysis apt in sense and unsound in morphology. ↩︎

216. See note 178 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

217. al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, ʿUmdat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 4/312, at the entry for وسم "marking": فاسد من جهة الاشتقاق "unsound from the side of derivation", said of deriving اسم "name" from it; at 2/224 he records the Baṣran derivation, the Kufan derivation, and Thaʿlab's proposal from سميت "I named" with a final yāʾ. ↩︎

218. Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 6/110, root و-س-م w-s-m: أصل واحد يدل على أثر ومعلم "a single root indicating a trace and a mark." He does not derive اسم "name" from it. ↩︎

219. Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/16–17 on the name, the one named, and naming; 1/17–18 on the objection and answer; and 1/18–19 on remembrance. Ibn Taymiyyah’s explanation is quoted by Ibn al-Qayyim at 1/19. ↩︎

220. See note 219 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

221. See note 219 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

222. See note 183 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

223. al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān, 1/4, taking both as descriptions from mercy, each majrūr in agreement with the preceding divine name; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 1/30, recording alongside the adjectival reading the possibilities of substitution and of naming by dominance. ↩︎

224. Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/24. This explanation begins his own answer, after the end of the quotation from al-Suhaylī. ↩︎

225. al-Zajjāj, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān wa-Iʿrābuh, 1/42, on jarr in the recited form and on the naṣb and rafʿ that qaṭʿ, treating the description as a separate expression, would permit outside it; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān, 1/4, with the same demonstration on an understood أعني "I mean" or هو "He is". ↩︎

226. See note 177 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

227. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 11/56, root بسمل b-s-m-l: بَسْمَلَ الرجلُ إِذا كَتَبَ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ بَسْمَلَة "a man basmala'd when he wrote bismi llāh, a basmala"; and Ibn Manẓūr's own addition, وبَسْمَلَ إِذا قَالَ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ أَيضاً "and he basmala'd when he said bismi llāh as well"; and the ordinary usage قَدْ أَكثرت مِنَ البَسْمَلَة أَي مِنْ قَوْلِ بسم الله "you have done much basmala, that is, much saying of bismi llāh". The verse is لَقَدْ بَسْمَلَت لَيْلى غَداةَ لَقِيتُها "Laylā said bismillāh the morning I met her." ↩︎

228. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 1/137, treating the word البسملة "the Basmala" as a case of النَّحْت "blend-coinage", alongside سبحل "he said subḥāna llāh", حيعل "he said ḥayya ʿalā", حوقل "he said lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata illā bi-llāh", حمدل "he said al-ḥamdu li-llāh" and هلل "he said lā ilāha illā llāh". He cites Sībawayh for the same operation on the tribal names عبشمي "of ʿAbd Shams" and حضرمي "of Ḥaḍramawt", and quotes ʿUmar b. Abī Rabīʿa, لَقَدْ بَسْمَلَتْ لَيْلَى غَدَاةَ لَقِيتُهَا … أَلَا حَبَّذَا ذَاكَ الْحَبِيبُ الْمُبَسْمِلُ "Laylā said bismillāh the morning I met her; how fine that beloved who says it!" He notes that المبسمل "the one who says it" is heard as an ism fāʿil, naming the performer, and that no ism mafʿūl, naming what receives the action, is heard from the verb. ↩︎

229. See note 211 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

230. See note 212 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

231. See note 213 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

232. See note 218 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

233. See note 10 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

234. See note 142 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

235. See note 143 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

236. See note 143 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

237. Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/127, root أ-ل-ه ʾ-l-h: فالإله الله تعالى، وسمي بذلك لأنه معبود "so al-ilāh is Allah, exalted is He, and He is so named because He is worshipped." He rules bewilderment out of this root because its hamza is converted from a wāw. ↩︎

238. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Sharḥ al-ʿAqīda al-Wāsiṭiyya, 1/38, in his treatment of the Basmala: "الله" علم على نفس الله عز وجل، ولا يسمى به غيره ومعناه: المألوه، أي: المعبود محبة وتعظيماً وهو مشتق على القول الراجح لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ يَعْلَمُ سِرَّكُمْ وَجَهْرَكُمْ﴾، فإن ﴿فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ﴾ متعلق بلفظ الجلالة، يعني: وهو المألوه في السموات وفي الأرض "Allāh is a proper name for God Himself, and none other is named by it; and its meaning is al-maʾlūh, that is, the one worshipped in love and in magnification. And it is derived, on the preponderant view, on the strength of His words and He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth, He knows your secret and your open speech: for in the heavens is governed by the divine Name, meaning, and He is the one worshipped in the heavens and in the earth." The pattern is spelled out at 1/365: فالإله بمعنى المألوه، أي: المعبود المتذلل له "so ilāh means maʾlūh, that is, the one worshipped, the one humbled before", with the parallel إله بمعنى مألوه، مثل: بناء بمعنى مبني، وفراش بمعنى مفروش "ilāh in the sense of maʾlūh, like bināʾ in the sense of what is built and firāsh in the sense of what is spread out." ↩︎

239. See note 238 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

240. al-Harrās, Sharḥ al-ʿAqīda al-Wāsiṭiyya, pp. 46–47, stating the objection from pre-eternity and then rejecting it: وَالصَّحِيحُ أَنَّهُ مشتقٌّ "the correct view is that it is derived"; and on the source of the derivation, after setting the worship sense beside the bewilderment sense: وَالصَّحِيحُ الأوَّل، فَهُوَ إلهٌ؛ بِمَعْنَى مأْلوهٍ؛ أَيْ: مَعْبُودٍ "the correct view is the first, so He is ilāh in the sense of maʾlūh, that is, worshipped." He adds that on the view that it is derived the word is a description in origin over which proper-name usage has come to dominate. ↩︎

241. See note 238 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

242. al-Ḥakamī, Maʿārij al-Qabūl, 1/66–67, in his summary treatment of the Basmala: فَحُذِفَتِ الْهَمْزَةُ وَأُدْغِمَتِ اللَّامُ الْأُولَى فِي الثَّانِيَةِ وُجُوبًا فَقِيلَ: اللَّهُ "the hamza was elided and the first lām assimilated obligatorily into the second, so Allāh was said." The same steps are given by Abū al-Haytham, as reported by al-Mundhirī in Lisān al-ʿArab, 13/467. ↩︎

243. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 2/14, expounding the ḥadīth أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله "I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that none deserves worship except Allah": وذلك يتضمن الإقرار به وعبادته وحده فإن الإله هو المعبود ولم يقل حتى يشهدوا أن لا رب إلا الله؛ فإن اسم الله أدل على مقصود العبادة له التي لها خلق الخلق وبها أمروا "that entails acknowledging Him and worshipping Him alone, for al-ilāh is the one worshipped; and He did not say until they bear witness that there is no lord but Allah, because the Name Allāh points more directly to the purpose of worshipping Him, for which creation was made and with which it was commanded." ↩︎

244. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 10/249: فقوله: ﴿لا إله إلا أنت﴾ فيه إثبات انفراده بالإلهية والإلهية تتضمن كمال علمه وقدرته ورحمته وحكمته ففيها إثبات إحسانه إلى العباد فإن الإله هو المألوه والمألوه هو الذي يستحق أن يعبد وكونه يستحق أن يعبد هو بما اتصف به من الصفات التي تستلزم أن يكون هو المحبوب غاية الحب المخضوع له غاية الخضوع؛ والعبادة تتضمن غاية الحب بغاية الذل "His saying none deserves worship except You contains the affirmation of His being alone in divinity; and divinity comprehends the perfection of His knowledge, His power, His mercy and His wisdom, so in it is the affirmation of His beneficence toward the servants. For the ilāh is the maʾlūh, and the maʾlūh is the one who deserves to be worshipped; and His deserving to be worshipped is by what He is described with of the attributes that entail that He be the one loved with the utmost love and submitted to with the utmost submission. And worship comprehends the utmost love together with the utmost lowliness." ↩︎

245. Ibn al-Qayyim, Madārij al-Sālikīn, 1/11, under the heading that al-Fātiḥa establishes prophethood from several angles: الثاني: أخذها من اسمه "الله"، وهو المألوه المعبود، ولا سبيل للعباد إلى معرفة عبوديته إلا من طريق رسله. الموضع الثالث: من اسمه "الرحمن"، فإن رحمته تمنع إهمال عباده "the second: taking it from His name Allāh, and He is al-maʾlūh, the worshipped, and servants have no way to know how He is to be worshipped except by way of His messengers. The third place: from His name al-Raḥmān, for His mercy forbids His neglecting His servants"; and فمن أعطى اسم الرحمن حقه علم أنه متضمن لإرسال الرسل وإنزال الكتب أعظم من تضمنه إنزال الغيث "so whoever gives the name al-Raḥmān its due knows that it comprehends the sending of messengers and the sending down of books more than it comprehends the sending down of rain." The edition cited is the عطاءات العلم ʿAṭāʾāt al-ʿIlm printing. ↩︎

246. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, ed. al-Turkī, 18/421–423, on 29:46. His gloss at 18/422 is ومعبودنا ومعبودكم واحد, “the One we worship and the One you worship is one”; the edition notes that this clause is absent from one witness. At 18/423 he also records Mujāhid's narrower application of the instruction, excluding those who ascribe a partner, a son, poverty, or a bound hand to Allah, or harm Muḥammad ﷺ. This is Mujāhid's explanation, distinct from al-Ṭabarī's own account. ↩︎

247. Benjamin D. Suchard, “Semitic ʾilāh- and Hebrew ʾĕlōhîm: From plural ‘gods’ to singular ‘God’”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49/4 (2025), opening discussion of cognates; David Kiltz, “The Relationship between Arabic Allāh and Syriac Allāhā”, Der Islam 88 (2012), pp. 33–50, especially 46–47. Kiltz distinguishes a formal loan from possible influence through contact between speakers. ↩︎

248. Laïla Nehmé, “New dated inscriptions (Nabataean and pre-Islamic Arabic) from a site near al-Jawf, ancient Dūmah, Saudi Arabia”, Arabian Epigraphic Notes 3 (2017), pp. 123–131, especially the photograph and facsimile at p. 127, transcription and translation at pp. 125, 128, and dating and cross discussion at pp. 129–130. DaJ144PAr1 names Ḥgʿ{b/n}w, son of šlmh; the first name has an uncertain consonant and the second permits Salama, Salāma, or Salima. The proposed month formula is incomplete. Nehmé treats dkr as most probably an Arabic prayer formula. These uncertainties do not affect the reading of year 443 or ʾl-ʾlh. ↩︎

249. See note 248 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

250. See note 248 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

251. Younis al-Shdaifat, Ahmad Al-Jallad, Zeyad al-Salameen, and Rafe Harahsheh, “An Early Christian Arabic Graffito Mentioning ‘Yazīd the King’”, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28 (2017), pp. 317–318, especially note 5, on the partly restored dkr ʾl-ʾlh invocation at Zebed; Pierre Larcher, “Épigraphie et linguistique : l'exemple du graffito arabe préislamique du Ǧabal ʾUsays”, Romano-Arabica 15 (2015), p. 95, on the possible later date of the Arabic addition. ↩︎

252. See note 251 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

253. Nehmé, “New dated inscriptions,” pp. 131–132 and fig. 10: proposed ʾnh ʿbdʾlʾlh, replacing the first edition’s invocation. Ahmad Al-Jallad, “The Digraph اى in the Quranic Consonantal Text and the Identification of a New Letter Shape for Final Hē in the 7th to 8th Century Arabic Script”, Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021), p. 10 and fig. 3, reproduces the Umm al-Jimāl reading ʿbd ʾl-ʾlh in his discussion of sixth-century script. ↩︎

254. Pierre Larcher, “Épigraphie et linguistique : l’exemple du graffito arabe préislamique du Ǧabal ʾUsays”, Romano-Arabica 15 (2015), p. 84, including the Ḥarrān Arabic building formula and provincial-era date. ↩︎

255. Timothy I, Apology before the Caliph al-Mahdī, translated by Alphonse Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies, vol. 2 (1928), pp. 61–63; complete translation, including Mingana’s chronological note 172 for the approximate date. The dialogue is preserved through Timothy's account, not an independently recorded verbatim transcript. ↩︎

256. See note 255 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

257. Vevian F. Zaki, “A Dynamic History: MS Sinai, Arabic 151 in the Hands of Scribes, Readers, and Restorers”, Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 11 (2020), pp. 200–201, 215–216; Hebrews 2:9 is at fol. 165r. The annotation preserves an alternative reading, “without God,” distinct from the main text quoted above. The present codex joins the Pauline Epistles to Acts and the Catholic Epistles, originally separate units of production; it is not a complete Bible. ↩︎

258. See note 257 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

259. Sarah Pessin, “Saadya [Saadiah]”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, section 1, “Life,” for 882–942, his rabbinic and theological work, and leadership of the Sura academy. ↩︎

260. Saadia Gaon, Tafsīr, Genesis 1:1, in Joseph Derenbourg (ed.), Œuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmî, vol. 1, Version arabe du Pentateuque (Paris, 1893); Judeo-Arabic text alongside the Hebrew, Genesis 1:1. ↩︎

261. Kenneth Seeskin, “Maimonides”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, revised 18 November 2024, section 1, “Life and Works,” for his career in Jewish law and philosophy, settlement in Egypt, and death in 1204. ↩︎

262. Maimonides, Responsa, ed. A. H. Freimann (1934), no. 369, response to Obadiah, part A; Hebrew text. The short English quotation renders אינם עובדי עבודה זרה כלל. In the same response he judges Muslims mistaken on other religious matters. ↩︎

263. See note 262 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

264. Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, 28 October 1965, section 3. ↩︎

265. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium, section 16. ↩︎

266. Miroslav Volf, interviewed by Mark Galli, “Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?”, Christianity Today, April 2011 issue, especially the answers on shared reference and the Jewish comparison. The interview discusses Volf’s Allah: A Christian Response (HarperOne, 2011). See also his Yale biography for his professorship and Episcopal and Evangelical church membership. ↩︎

267. See note 266 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

268. Miroslav Volf, “Allah and the Trinity: A Christian response to Muslims”, The Christian Century, 8 March 2011, an essay identified by the publisher as adapted from Allah: A Christian Response. Read with his April 2011 interview, especially his answers defending the Trinity and interpreting Qurʾānic criticism. ↩︎

269. See note 243 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

270. Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/22–23. ↩︎

271. Al-Suhaylī, Natāʾij al-Fikr fī l-Naḥw, pp. 51–52, as quoted by al-Tamīmī, al-Masāʾil al-ʿAqadiyya al-mutaʿalliqa bi-sm Allāh ʿazza wa-jall, p. 54. Al-Suhaylī reads 19:65 as denying any namesake for Allah and indicating that His name was not taken from earlier material. ↩︎

272. al-Ghazālī, al-Maqṣad al-Asnā, p. 61: وَالْأَشْبَهُ أَنَّهُ جَارٍ فِي الدَّلَالَةِ عَلَى هَذَا الْمَعْنَى مَجْرَى أَسْمَاءِ الْأَعْلَامِ وَكُلُّ مَا ذُكِرَ فِي اشْتِقَاقِهِ وَتَعْرِيفِهِ تَعَسُّفٌ وَتَكَلُّفٌ "the likelier view is that in indicating this meaning it runs as proper names do, and everything said about its derivation and its definition is forced and strained." ↩︎

273. Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 1/123–124. He transmits al-Rāzī’s attribution of the underived view to al-Khalīl, Sībawayh, and most scholars of legal theory and law at 1/124. Al-Qurṭubī’s separate list of scholars is quoted at 1/123. ↩︎

274. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 1/25; ʿUmdat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 1/105. His survey includes proposed derivations connected with elevation, concealment, worship, rest, bewilderment, and seeking refuge. ↩︎

275. Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/22–23; quoted by Sulaymān b. ʿAbd Allāh, Taysīr al-ʿAzīz al-Ḥamīd, p. 10; al-Saffārīnī, Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār al-Bahiyya, 1/30; and Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā, Tawḍīḥ al-Maqāṣid, 1/12. ↩︎

276. See note 275 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

277. See note 240 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

278. See note 238 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

279. al-Ḥakamī, Maʿārij al-Qabūl, 1/66: ذهب الخليل وسيبويه وجماعة من أئمة اللغة والشافعي والخطابي وإمام الحرمين ومن وافقهم إلى عدم اشتقاقه لأن الألف واللام فيه لازمة فتقول يا الله ولا تقول يا الرحمن "al-Khalīl, Sībawayh, a group of the imāms of the language, al-Shāfiʿī, al-Khaṭṭābī, Imām al-Ḥaramayn and those who agreed with them held that it is not derived, because the alif-lām in it is inseparable: you say yā Allāh and you do not say yā al-Raḥmān"; then وقال آخرون إنه مشتق. واختلفوا في اشتقاقه إلى أقوال أقواها أنه مشتق من أله يأله إلاهة، فأصل الاسم الإله "and others said it is derived, and they differed over the derivation into several positions, the strongest of which is that it is derived from alaha yaʾlahu ilāha, so that the origin of the name is al-ilāh." Sībawayh is named for non-derivation here and for derivation by Ibn al-Qayyim, as quoted in Sulaymān b. ʿAbd Allāh, Taysīr al-ʿAzīz al-Ḥamīd, p. 10: القول الصحيح أن (الله)، أصله: (الإله)، كما هو قول سيبويه وجمهور أصحابه إلا من شذ منهم "the correct position is that Allāh has its origin in al-ilāh, as is the position of Sībawayh and the generality of his followers, save the odd one among them." Both parties claim him. ↩︎

280. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 1/162–163: وأصل هذا الاسم الإله بالتعريف وهو تعريف إلاه الذي هو اسم جنس للمعبود مشتق من أله بفتح اللام بمعنى عبد، أو من أله بكسر اللام بمعنى تحير أو سكن أو فزع أو ولع مما يرجع إلى معنى هو ملزوم للخضوع والتعظيم "the origin of this name is al-ilāh with the definite article, which is the definite form of ilāh, a generic noun for the one worshipped, derived from alaha meaning he worshipped, or from aliha meaning he was bewildered, or settled, or took fright, or craved, all of which come back to a meaning that entails submission and magnification"; and وليس ذلك من قبيل العلم بالغلبة بل من قبيل العلم بالانحصار مثل الشمس والقمر فلا بدع في اجتماع كونه اسم جنس وكونه علما "and that is not of the kind of proper name by predominance but of the kind by exclusivity, like the sun and the moon; so there is nothing strange in its being both a generic noun and a proper name." ↩︎

281. Ibn Barrī, in Lisān al-ʿArab, 13/469, answering al-Jawharī's objection to Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī: the objection does not touch him, because الإله "al-ilāh" may be said of God and of idols alike, whereas الله "Allāh" is said of none but Him. ↩︎

282. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 1/88. His argument continues by contrasting Allah with everything besides Him, which is needy and subject to servitude, and therefore unfit to be worshipped. ↩︎

283. Ibn al-Qayyim, Madārij al-Sālikīn, 1/49–50, ʿAṭāʾāt al-ʿIlm edition. At 1/50 he also expressly connects the derivation of the name Allāh with the attributes of divinity. ↩︎

284. al-Ghazālī, al-Maqṣad al-Asnā, p. 61: اعلم أن هذا الاسم أعظم أسماء الله عز وجل التسعة والتسعين لأنه دال على الذات الجامعة لصفات الإلهية كلها حتى لا يشذ منها شيء وسائر الأسماء لا يدل آحادها إلا على آحاد المعاني من علم أو قدرة أو فعل أو غيره ولأنه أخص الأسماء إذ لا يطلقه أحد على غيره لا حقيقة ولا مجازا "know that this Name is the greatest of Allah's ninety-nine names, because it indicates the Essence that gathers all the attributes of divinity, so that not one of them falls outside it, whereas each of the other names indicates only single meanings, knowledge or power or an act or something else; and because it is the most exclusive of the names, since no one applies it to anything other than Him, neither literally nor figuratively." He draws the consequence in the sentences that follow: the other names are described as being the name of Allah, and it is not said that Allāh is one of the names of al-Shakūr or al-Ṣabūr. ↩︎

285. Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11/224, in the تكميل "completion" he appends to the chapter باب لله مائة اسم غير واحدة "chapter: Allah has one hundred names less one": وجملة ما وقفت عليه من ذلك أربعة عشر قولا "and the sum of what I have come upon of that is fourteen positions"; and the second of them: الثاني: الله لأنه اسم لم يطلق على غيره ولأنه الأصل في الأسماء الحسنى، ومن ثم أضيفت إليه "the second: Allāh, because it is a name that has never been applied to another, and because it is the root among the beautiful names, which is why they are annexed to it." He reports the two reasons without naming who gave them. ↩︎

286. Ibn Amīr Ḥājj, al-Taqrīr wa-l-Taḥbīr, 1/5: ثم روى هشام عن محمد بن الحسن قال سمعت أبا حنيفة رحمه الله يقول: اسم الله الأعظم هو الله، وبه قال الطحاوي وكثير من العلماء، وأكثر العارفين "then Hishām transmitted from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, who said: I heard Abū Ḥanīfa, may Allah have mercy on him, say: Allah's greatest Name is Allāh; and al-Ṭaḥāwī said the same, and many of the scholars, and most of the knowers of Allah." The وعلى هذا الأكثرون "and on this are the majority" at 1/5 belongs to the separate question of whether the Name is derived, and not to this one. ↩︎

287. Ibn al-Najjār, Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-Munīr, 1/25: الثانية: أنه اسم الله الأعظم عند أكثر أهل العلم "the second: that it is Allah's greatest Name in the view of most of the people of knowledge." He gives no evidence for that attribution. ↩︎

288. al-Shirbīnī, Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, 1/88–89: وعند المحققين أنه اسم الله الأعظم، وقد ذكر في القرآن العزيز في ألفين وثلاثمائة وستين موضعا "and in the view of the verifiers it is Allah's greatest Name; and it is mentioned in the Noble Qurʾān in two thousand three hundred and sixty places"; then his report of al-Nawawī, the author of the Minhāj he is commenting on: واختار المصنف تبعا لجماعة أنه الحي القيوم، قال: ولذلك لم يذكر في القرآن إلا في ثلاثة مواضع: في البقرة، وآل عمران، وطه "and the author chose, following a group, that it is al-Ḥayy al-Qayyūm; he said, and that is why it is mentioned in the Qurʾān in only three places, in al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān and Ṭā-Hā." The count and the choice are given as al-Shirbīnī's report of what others hold and of what he found. ↩︎

289. al-Ashqar, al-ʿAqīda fī Allāh, p. 213: والذي يظهر من المقارنة بين النصوص التي ورد فيها اسم الله الأعظم أنه: (الله)، فهذا الاسم هو الاسم الوحيد الذي يوجد في جميع النصوص "and what appears from comparing the texts in which Allah's greatest Name is mentioned is that it is Allāh, for this name is the only one found in all of the texts." There he gives the Name at two thousand six hundred and ninety-seven places and الرحمن "al-Raḥmān" at fifty-seven, the first حسب إحصاء المعجم المفهرس "by the reckoning of al-Muʿjam al-Mufahras." ↩︎

290. al-Tamīmī, al-Masāʾil al-ʿAqadiyya al-mutaʿalliqa bi-sm Allāh ʿazza wa-jall, p. 107, opening his examination of the arguments for اللَّه (Allah): أما الاستدلال بأن لفظ الجلالة هو الاسم المشترك بين جميع الأحاديث الواردة … ففيه نظر. وذلك أن هذا اللفظ لم يرد في جميع النصوص التي ذكر النبي ﷺ أن الاسم الأعظم فيها ومن ذلك حديث أسماء بنت يزيد، فلفظ الجلالة لم يرد في الآية التالية وهي قوله تعالى: ﴿وَإِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ﴾. وإله ليس مرادفا للفظ الجلالة (الله) وإن كان هو أصل اشتقاقه "as for the argument that the divine Name is the name common to all the reports that have come down, there is something to be looked into in it: this word has not come in all the texts in which the Prophet ﷺ said the greatest Name lies, among them the ḥadīth of Asmāʾ bt. Yazīd, for the divine Name does not occur in the following verse, His words and your God is one God, none deserves worship except Him, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful; and ilāh is not a synonym of the divine Name Allāh, even if it is the root it is derived from." The fourth objection is at p. 108: ثم لو كان الاسم الأعظم هو لفظ الجلالة لكان هذا واقعا من كل داعٍ، لأن غالب الداعين لا يخلو دعاؤهم من قول اللهم … فلا معنى لهذا التشويق للدعاء بالاسم الأعظم "and further, were the greatest Name the divine Name, this would already be the case with every supplicant, since most supplicants' prayers are never free of saying Allāhumma; so there is no sense in this urging toward supplicating by the greatest Name." He sets out the same men's arguments at pp. 105–106 before answering them, and quotes al-Ashqar himself in full at p. 110. ↩︎

291. See note 290 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

292. See note 289 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

293. al-Ghazālī, al-Maqṣad al-Asnā, p. 169: يحتمل أن يقال إن اسم الله الأعظم خارج عن هذا العدد الذي رواه أبو هريرة … ويحتمل أن يقال إنها تشتمل على اسم الله الأعظم ولكنه مبهم فيها "it may be said that Allah's greatest Name lies outside this number that Abū Hurayra transmitted … and it may be said that they contain Allah's greatest Name but that it is left indeterminate among them." He then adduces the hadiths of Asmāʾ bt. Yazīd and of Buraydah. ↩︎

294. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 1493, from Buraydah, with لقد سألت الله بالاسم الذي إذا سئل به أعطى، وإذا دعي به أجاب "you have asked Allah by the Name which, when He is asked by it, He gives, and when He is called by it, He answers"; the wording لقد سألت الله عز وجل باسمه الأعظم "you have asked Allah, mighty and majestic, by His greatest Name" is at no. 1494. Also Ibn Mājah, al-Sunan, no. 3857, and al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3475 (ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād, the edition of record for this work), where al-Tirmidhī says هذا حديث حسن غريب "this is a ḥasan gharīb ḥadīth." Al-Albānī, Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd, no. 1341: قلت: إسناده صحيح، وصححه ابن حبان، والحاكم والذهبي، وحسنه الترمذي "I say: its chain is ṣaḥīḥ; Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī graded it ṣaḥīḥ, and al-Tirmidhī graded it ḥasan." ↩︎

295. See note 294 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

296. See note 294 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

297. See note 294 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

298. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 1495, from Anas: اللهم إني أسألك بأن لك الحمد، لا إله إلا أنت المنان، بديع السماوات والأرض، يا ذا الجلال والإكرام، يا حي يا قيوم "O Allah, I ask You by the fact that praise belongs to You, none deserves worship except You, the Bestower, Originator of the heavens and the earth, O Possessor of Majesty and Honour, O Living, O Self-Subsisting", answered with لقد دعا الله باسمه العظيم، الذي إذا دعي به أجاب، وإذا سئل به أعطى "he has called upon Allah by His mighty Name, by which, when He is called, He answers, and when He is asked, He gives." Also Ibn Mājah, al-Sunan, no. 3858, and al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3544 (ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād), where al-Tirmidhī says هذا حديث غريب من هذا الوجه "this is a gharīb ḥadīth by this route" and adds وقد روي من غير هذا الوجه عن أنس "and it has been transmitted from Anas by other routes than this one." Al-Albānī, Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd, no. 1342: قلت: حديث صحيح، وصححه ابن حبان والحاكم والذهبي "I say: a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth, and Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī graded it ṣaḥīḥ." His grading is of the ḥadīth considering all its asānīd together, not a grade of al-Tirmidhī’s isnād alone. ↩︎

299. See note 298 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

300. See note 298 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

301. Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, no. 1496, from Asmāʾ bt. Yazīd: اسم الله الأعظم في هاتين الآيتين ﴿وَإِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ﴾، وفاتحة سورة آل عمران: ﴿الم اللَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ﴾ "Allah's greatest Name is in these two verses: and your God is one God, none deserves worship except Him, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful; and the opening of Sūrat Āl ʿImrān: Alif Lām Mīm. Allah, none deserves worship except Him, the Living, the Self-Subsisting." Also Ibn Mājah, al-Sunan, no. 3855, and al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, no. 3478 (ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād), where the printed text says هذا حديث حسن صحيح "this is a ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth." Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11/224, records the divergence and the objection: أخرجه أصحاب السنن إلا النسائي وحسنه الترمذي. وفي نسخة صحيحة، وفيه نظر لأنه من رواية شهر بن حوشب "the compilers of the Sunan brought it out, except al-Nasāʾī, and al-Tirmidhī graded it ḥasan; and in one copy, ṣaḥīḥ; and there is something to be looked into in it, because it is by the transmission of Shahr b. Ḥawshab." Al-Albānī, Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd, no. 1343: قلت: حديث حسن، وصححه الترمذي "I say: a ḥasan ḥadīth, and al-Tirmidhī graded it ṣaḥīḥ", with وهذا إسناد ضعيف؛ شهر بن حوشب ضعيف "and this chain is weak; Shahr b. Ḥawshab is weak." ↩︎

302. Ibn Mājah, al-Sunan, no. 3856: اسم الله الأعظم الذي إذا دعي به أجاب في سور ثلاث: البقرة، وآل عمران، وطه "Allah's greatest Name, by which when He is called He answers, is in three sūrahs: al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān and Ṭā-Hā." The wording as printed opens عن القاسم قال "from al-Qāsim, who said", which makes it his own statement; a marfūʿ isnād through Ghaylān b. Anas to Abū Umāmah stands beside it; al-Albānī, Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfa, 13/279: وهو حسن الإسناد، ومخرج في "الصحيحة" "and it is of ḥasan chain, and it is documented in al-Ṣaḥīḥa." ↩︎

303. See note 285 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

304. al-Tamīmī, al-Masāʾil al-ʿAqadiyya, p. 93: ذكر الحافظ ابن حجر منها أربعة عشر قولا، وقد ذكرها السيوطي وأفردها بمصنف وأوصلها إلى عشرين قولا، وقال الشوكاني: إنها على نحو أربعين قولاً، ولكنه لم يسرد الأقوال واكتفى بذكرها عدداً. وذكر الروحاني أنها تنيف عن ستين قولا "Ibn Ḥajar mentioned fourteen positions of them; al-Suyūṭī set them out, devoted a separate treatise to them, and brought them up to twenty; al-Shawkānī said they are about forty, though he did not list them and confined himself to the number; and al-Rūḥānī said they exceed sixty." He then lists sixty at pp. 93–101, the first fourteen in Ibn Ḥajar's wording and the rest from al-Suyūṭī's الدر المنظم and al-Rūḥānī's فتح الله بخصائص اسم الله. The historical counts are reported through al-Tamīmī. ↩︎

305. al-Albānī, Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfa, 13/279–280: واعلم أن العلماء اختلفوا في تعيين اسم الله الأعظم على أربعة عشر قولا، ساقها الحافظ في "الفتح"، وذكر لكل قول دليله، وأكثرها أدلتها من الأحاديث، وبعضها مجرد رأي لا يلتفت إليه … وتلك الأحاديث منها الصحيح، ولكنه ليس صريح الدلالة، ومنها الموقوف كهذا، ومنها الصريح الدلالة؛ وهو قسمان: قسم صحيح صريح، وهو حديث بريدة … وقال الحافظ: "وهو أرجح من حيث السند من جميع ما ورد في ذلك". وهو كما قال رحمه الله، وأقره الشوكاني في "تحفة الذاكرين" "know that the scholars differed as to specifying Allah's greatest Name over fourteen positions, which the Ḥāfiẓ set out in al-Fatḥ, giving each position its evidence. Most of them have ḥadīths for evidence, and some are mere opinion not to be attended to … Of those ḥadīths some are ṣaḥīḥ but not explicit in their indication; some are mawqūf, like this one; and some are explicit in indication, and these are of two sorts: one sort ṣaḥīḥ and explicit, and it is the ḥadīth of Buraydah … The Ḥāfiẓ said: and it is the strongest in respect of its chain of all that has come down on this matter, and it is as he said, may Allah have mercy on him; and al-Shawkānī endorsed it in Tuḥfat al-Dhākirīn." The endorsement stands in a passage in which he also corrects Ibn Ḥajar for presenting the رب رب "rabbi rabbi" athar as a Prophetic hadith when it is the statement of two Companions. ↩︎

306. See note 285 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

307. Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11/224: وقد أنكره قوم كأبي جعفر الطبري، وأبي الحسن الأشعري وجماعة بعدهما، كأبي حاتم بن حبان، والقاضي أبي بكر الباقلاني فقالوا: لا يجوز تفضيل بعض الأسماء على بعض، ونسب ذلك بعضهم لمالك؛ لكراهيته أن تعاد سورة أو تردد دون غيرها من السور؛ لئلا يظن أن بعض القرآن أفضل من بعض "a group denied it, such as Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī and Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī and a company after them, such as Abū Ḥātim b. Ḥibbān and the Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī, and they said: it is not permissible to prefer some of the names over others. And some ascribed that to Mālik, on account of his dislike that one sūra be repeated or gone over rather than the others, lest it be supposed that some of the Qurʾān is more excellent than the rest." ↩︎

308. Al-Ṭabarī, as quoted by Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11/224. Ibn Ḥajar explains this position as allowing each divine name to be called “greatest,” understood in the sense of “great.” ↩︎

309. See note 308 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

310. Ibn Ḥibbān, as quoted by Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11/224: الأعظمية الواردة في الأخبار إنما يراد بها مزيد ثواب الداعي بذلك، كما أطلق ذلك في القرآن، والمراد به مزيد ثواب القارئ "the greatest-ness that comes in the reports intends only the added reward of the one who supplicates with it, as the same has been said of the Qurʾān, where what is meant is the added reward of the reciter." He is the same Ibn Ḥibbān whom al-Albānī names as grading the hadiths discussed in note 294 and note 298 ṣaḥīḥ. ↩︎

311. Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11/224: وقيل: المراد بالاسم الأعظم كل اسم من أسماء الله تعالى دعا العبد به مستغرقا بحيث لا يكون في فكره حالتئذ غير الله تعالى، فإن من تأتى له ذلك استجيب له. ونقل معنى هذا عن جعفر الصادق وعن الجنيد وعن غيرهما "and it is said: what is meant by the greatest Name is any name of Allah's by which the servant supplicates while wholly absorbed, such that there is nothing in his thought at that moment other than Allah, for whoever attains that is answered. The sense of this is transmitted from Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, from al-Junayd, and from others." ↩︎

312. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 17/68–69. The denial is reported there in al-Ṭabarī's voice: وطرد ذلك في أسماء الله فمنع أن يكون بعض أسمائه أعظم أو أفضل أو أكبر من بعض. وقال: معنى الاسم الأعظم: العظيم وكلها سواء في العظمة وإنما يتفاضل حال الناس حين الدعاء "and he extended that into the names of Allah, and so denied that any of His names could be greater or more excellent or larger than another. He said: the meaning of the greatest Name is the great; they are all equal in greatness, and it is only the state of people at the moment of supplication that differs." He then classifies the position, وهذا القول الذي قاله في أسماء الله نظير القول الثاني في تفضيل بعض كلام الله على بعض "and this position that he stated about the names of Allah is the counterpart of the second position on the preferring of some of Allah's speech over other parts of it", and ascribes the same to أبي الحسن الأشعري ومن وافقه "Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī and those who agreed with him". His own side is stated at 17/68: فهذا نوع إشارة إلى قول من يقول بتفضيل بعض كلام الله على بعض موافقا لما دل عليه الكتاب والسنة وكلام السلف والأئمة "this is a kind of pointer toward the position of those who hold that some of Allah's speech is more excellent than other parts of it, in agreement with what the Book, the Sunna, and the words of the salaf and the imāms indicate." ↩︎

313. Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11/225, the ninth of his fourteen positions. His stated wording is الله لا إله إلا هو الأحد الصمد الذي لم يلد ولم يولد ولم يكن له كفوا أحد: “Allah, none deserves worship except Him, the One, the Eternal Refuge, who has not begotten and was not begotten, and there is none comparable to Him.” He identifies Buraydah’s hadith and names Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Ḥākim as its collectors. The comparison of chains is his own judgment. ↩︎

314. See note 305 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

315. See note 288 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

316. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr al-Fātiḥa wa-l-Baqara, 3/257–258: ومنها: تضمن الآية لاسم الله الأعظم الثابت في قوله تعالى: ﴿الحي القيوم﴾؛ وقد ذكر هذان الاسمان الكريمان في ثلاثة مواضع من القرآن: في «البقرة»؛ و«آل عمران»؛ و«طه» … قال أهل العلم: وإنما كان الاسم الأعظم في اجتماع هذين الاسمين؛ لأنهما تضمنا جميع الأسماء الحسنى؛ فصفة الكمال في ﴿الحي﴾؛ وصفة الإحسان، والسلطان في ﴿القيوم﴾ "and among them: the verse's containing Allah's greatest Name, established in His words the Living, the Self-Subsisting. These two noble names are mentioned in three places in the Qurʾān: in al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān and Ṭā-Hā … The people of knowledge said: the greatest Name lies precisely in the joining of these two names, because they comprise all the beautiful names, the attribute of perfection being in al-Ḥayy and the attribute of beneficence and sovereignty in al-Qayyūm." The reason is reported from the people of knowledge; the choice is his. ↩︎

317. al-Tamīmī, al-Masāʾil al-ʿAqadiyya, p. 111, on the position that the greatest Name is الْحَيّ الْقَيُّوم, the Living and the Self-Subsisting: وقال ابن تيمية رحمه الله في كلامه عن اسم (الحي): فالحي نفسه مستلزم لجميع الصفات وهو أصلها ولهذا كان أعظم آية في القرآن: ﴿اللَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ﴾ وهو الاسم الأعظم "and Ibn Taymiyyah said, in his discussion of the name al-Ḥayy: al-Ḥayy itself entails all the attributes and is their root, and that is why the greatest verse in the Qurʾān is Allah, none deserves worship except Him, the Living, the Self-Subsisting; and it is the greatest Name", referred there to Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 18/311; and he also writes, وقد اختار هذا القول الإمام ابن القيم "and Imām Ibn al-Qayyim chose this position", referred to Zād al-Maʿād, 4/187–188. At p. 107 he adds Zād al-Maʿād, 1/204, the Nūniyya line اسم الإله الأعظم اشتمل على اسم الحي والقيوم مقترنان through Ibn ʿĪsā's commentary, and Madārij al-Sālikīn, 1/448, where Ibn al-Qayyim reports Ibn Taymiyyah as pointing to these two names. These references are supplied by al-Tamīmī; the attribution here rests on his account. ↩︎

318. Ibn al-Qayyim, Madārij al-Sālikīn, 1/35–36: وهما الوسيلتان المذكورتان في حديثي الاسم الأعظم اللذين رواهما ابن حبان في "صحيحه"، والإمام أحمد والترمذي "these are the two means mentioned in the two ḥadīths of the greatest Name, transmitted by Ibn Ḥibbān in his Ṣaḥīḥ and by Imām Aḥmad and al-Tirmidhī"; and فالتوسل بالإيمان بذلك والشهادة به هو الاسم الأعظم "so seeking a means through belief in that and bearing witness to it is the greatest Name"; and فهذا توسل إليه بأسمائه وصفاته "so this is seeking a means to Him through His names and His attributes." He treats calling on Allah by His names as باب عظيم من أبواب التوحيد "a mighty chapter among the chapters of divine oneness" at Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, 1/160. The edition cited is the عطاءات العلم ʿAṭāʾāt al-ʿIlm printing. ↩︎

319. See note 311 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

320. See note 312 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

321. al-Tamīmī, al-Masāʾil al-ʿAqadiyya, p. 112, under المطلب الرابع: الراجح في المسألة "the fourth section: the preponderant view on the question": والذي يظهر أن الجزم بتحديد الاسم الأعظم وتعيينه على وجه قطعي من الأمور المتعذرة، لأن العلم به من الأمور الموقوفة على الوحي السماوي لا مجال للاجتهاد فيه، وما ورد عن النبي ﷺ في هذا الموضوع مما يمكن الاحتجاج به ليس صريحا في تعيينه وما روي عمن تقدم من العلماء في تحديده إنما هو اجتهاد منهم في فهم هذه النصوص الواردة. وعليه فإن تحديد هذا الاسم على وجه القطع غير متيسر وقد أخفاه الله عنا بعد أن بين لنا الرسول ﷺ أهم خصائصه وبعض مواطن وجوده وأماكن تحريه "what appears is that to settle the greatest Name definitively, and to specify it conclusively, is among the things not open to us, because knowledge of it is one of the matters suspended upon revelation from heaven, in which there is no room for independent reasoning; and what has come from the Prophet ﷺ on this subject that may be argued from is not explicit in specifying it; and what is transmitted from the earlier scholars in determining it is their own reasoning about how to understand these texts. Accordingly, determining this Name conclusively is not within reach, and Allah has concealed it from us, after the Messenger ﷺ made plain to us its most important properties and some of the places where it is found and where it is to be sought." The comparison with Laylat al-Qadr follows there. Earlier, at p. 103, he states the other half of his position, that a greatest Name does exist: والذي يترجح … قول من أثبت لله الاسم الأعظم … وهي بمجموعها تقوم بها الحجة "what is preferred is the position of those who affirmed a greatest Name for Allah, and taken all together the proof stands by them." At p. 109 he reports that رجح جمع من أهل العلم "a number of the people of knowledge preferred" that it is اللَّه, which is his report of others and not his own preference. He names his own sources for this section: اسم الله الأعظم "Allah's greatest Name", of ʿAbd Allāh al-Damījī, pp. 93–171, ومنه استفدت "and I have benefited from it", and أسماء الله الحسنى "the beautiful names of Allah", of ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghuṣn. ↩︎

322. Ibn al-Qayyim, Madārij al-Sālikīn, 1/50: فـ"الرحمن": الذي الرحمة وصفه، و"الرحيم": الراحم لعباده "so al-Raḥmān is the One whose description is mercy, and al-Raḥīm is the One who shows mercy to His servants." The edition cited is the عطاءات العلم ʿAṭāʾāt al-ʿIlm printing. ↩︎

323. See note 13 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

324. See note 125 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

325. See note 204 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

326. See note 128 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

327. See note 122 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

328. See note 196 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

329. See note 124 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

330. See note 187 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

331. al-Suyūṭī, Muʿtarak al-Aqrān, 1/230, with the same sentence on التضمين "implication" as al-Zarkashī gives. ↩︎

332. See note 188 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

333. Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, 3/233; Muʿtarak al-Aqrān fī Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān, 1/265. ↩︎

334. See note 189 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

335. Al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 171, benefit 7. ↩︎

336. Ibn Abī al-Iṣbaʿ, Taḥrīr al-Taḥbīr fī Ṣināʿat al-Shiʿr wa-l-Nathr, p. 186. ↩︎

337. See note 142 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

338. Al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 171, benefit 5. ↩︎

339. See note 101 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

340. See note 104 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

341. See note 101 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

342. See note 105 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

343. See note 106 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

344. Al-Lāḥim, al-Lubāb, p. 172, benefit 10. ↩︎

345. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/259 to 1/271, the chapter باب اختلافهم في البسملة "the chapter on their differences over the Basmala". ↩︎

346. Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/37 to 1/49: his section on Sūrat al-Fātiḥah opens at الحمد "the praise" and never reaches the Basmala. ↩︎

347. See note 24 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

348. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/263, giving blessing, an auspicious beginning, and conformity to the written copy as the reason for establishing the Basmala at a fresh start even for readers who omit it in connection. ↩︎

349. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/263. ↩︎

350. See note 191 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

351. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/264, limiting Ḥamza's statement that one Basmala at the opening of al-Fātiḥah suffices for the Qurʾān to continuous recitation. ↩︎

352. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/265 to 1/266, on beginning inside a sūrah other than al-Barāʾah, on the Iraqi and Maghribī teaching practices, and on keeping an optional act of seeking blessing distinct from a transmitted reading. ↩︎

353. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/267, giving the four faces and forbidding the fourth because the Basmala belongs to openings and not to endings. ↩︎

354. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/262: فلو بسملوا لصادموا النص بالاختيار، وذلك لا يجوز "were they to say the Basmala there, they would collide with the transmitted text by preference, and that is not permitted." Among the combinations he names as sounding harsh are أهل المغفرة لا "worthy of granting forgiveness, no" and لله ويل "to Allah, woe". ↩︎

355. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 1/271, transmitting from al-Musayyibī from Nāfiʿ. ↩︎

356. See note 86 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

357. See note 177 for the source and its qualifications.↩︎

Why Do We Refer to Allah as “He”?

1. Islamweb, “Reference to Allah as masculine,” fatwa 83232; Islam Question & Answer, «استعمال ضمير المذكر “هو” في حق الله تعالى؟!», answer 98689. ↩︎

2. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 16/8–9, on 42:11. ↩︎

3. Al-Anbārī, al-Bulgha fī al-farq bayna al-mudhakkar wa-l-muʾannath, pp. 65–67; Ibn al-Sarrāj, al-Uṣūl fī al-naḥw, 1/152 (sun and moon), and 2/102 (al-Mubarrad’s explanation). ↩︎

4. Islam Question & Answer, answer 98689; Islamweb, fatwa 83232. ↩︎

5. Al-Khaṭṭābī, Shaʾn al-duʿāʾ, 1/111–113; Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾiʿ al-fawāʾid, al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī edition, 1/161–162. ↩︎

6. Abū al-Fidāʾ, al-Kunnāsh fī fannay al-naḥw wa-l-ṣarf, 1/307–309; Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Ṣafadiyya, 1/109, and Majmūʿ al-fatāwā, 17/161–162. ↩︎

7. Qamruz Zaman, “Referring to Allah(swt),” Muftisays, question 2050; preserved at IslamQA.org as “Why is Allah referred to as He in most texts?” ↩︎

8. Collins English Dictionary, “nonbinary”; Irshaad Sedick, “Is It Permissible to Identify as Non-binary or Agender?”, SeekersGuidance, 2 March 2023, subsection “Allah is the Only Non-Binary.” The latter uses the expression to explain freedom from male and female sex. ↩︎