مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِهِۦٓ إِلَّآ أَسْمَآءً سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ أَنتُمْ وَءَابَآؤُكُم مَّآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَٰنٍ إِنِ ٱلْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوٓا۟ إِلَّآ إِيَّاهُ ذَٰلِكَ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ ٱلنَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
“Those whom ye worship beside Him are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers. Allah hath revealed no sanction for them. The decision rests with Allah only, Who hath commanded you that ye worship none save Him. This is the right religion, but most men know not.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
According to this exegete, the address in the verse is first directed to the community, and the idolaters' naming of the idols they worshipped as 'god' and 'lord' carries the meaning of likening them to Allah and associating partners with Him. This naming is not based on any permission or evidence from Allah, but is merely the invention and fabrication of the idolaters themselves. Furthermore, it is stated that Allah has commanded that nothing other than Himself should be worshipped, because divinity and worship are exclusively Allah's attribute.
وذلك تسميتهم أوثانهم آلهة أربابا، شركا منهم وتشبيها لها في أسمائها التي سموها بها بالله، تعالى عن أن يكون له مثل أو شبيه. يقول: سموها بأسماء لم يأذن لهم بتسميتها، ولا وضع لهم على أن تلك الأسماء أسماؤها دلالة ولا حجة، ولكنها اختلاق منهم لها وافتراء
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Zemahşerî, this verse expresses that the idolaters attributed the name 'god' to things that do not deserve divinity, and therefore their worship was directed not at a real entity but at empty names. These names (such as Lât, Uzzâ, Menât) are names imposed merely by desire and lust, and they have no evidence from Allah that these carry the attribute of divinity.
يعني أنكم سميتم ما لا يستحق الإلهية آلهة ، ثم طفقتم تعبدونها ، فكأنكم لا تعبدون إلا أسماء فارغة لا مسميات تحتها
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Kurtubî, in this expression the second object of the verb has been omitted; the meaning is understood through implication. What is meant is that people carved out these entities themselves and named them 'gods', and Allah did not send down any evidence or proof regarding this naming.
فحذف المفعول الثاني للدلالة والمعنى : سميتموها آلهة من عند أنفسكم يعني نحتموها وسميتموها آلهة أي ما أنزل الله بها من حجة ولا برهان
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Ibn Kesîr, this expression indicates that the things associated as partners (the idols/partners) possess no evidence or proof whatsoever. After this, it is emphasized that Allah possesses judgment, authority, will, and complete dominion; He has commanded all His servants only to worship Him.
أي حجة ولا برهان ثم أخبرهم أن الحكم والتصرف والمشيئة والملك كله لله وقد أمر عباده قاطبة أن لا يعبدوا إلا إياه
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to this exegete, the naming of the idols as 'gods' is actually without substance; although the idols possess a physical form, they are not characterized with the attributes of divinity, so what is named 'god' does not actually exist. Furthermore, according to one view, idol-worshippers are resemblers (mushabbihah); they thought the great light was god and the angels were small lights, and they made idols according to these imaginary forms, whereas this imagined thing does not actually exist. Therefore, what the idol-worshippers worship consists merely of names.
فصح أنهم لا يعبدون إلا مجرد الأسماء
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Beydâvî, Joseph asks his prison companions about the difference between worshipping scattered and numerous gods and worshipping the One and Mighty Allah; he points out that what they worship consists merely of names that they and their fathers have given, and these carry no rational or transmitted evidence regarding their right to divinity. The right to judgment and worship belongs exclusively to Allah in essence, because He is the Necessary Existent and the Creator and Owner of all things. According to this text, the verse demonstrates a gradual and persuasive method in preaching: first the superiority of monotheism was explained through rhetoric, then it was proved by argument that what they worshipped did not deserve divinity, and finally the true religion was made explicit.
فإن استحقاق العبادة إما بالذات وإما بالغير وكلا القسمين منتف عنها
Comparison
Common ground
All exegetes agree that the name 'god' given to the idols does not correspond to a real entity, and this naming is not based on any evidence or permission from Allah. Furthermore, the common emphasis emerges that judgment, worship, and divinity belong exclusively to Allah.
Differences
While Taberî and Zemahşerî address the matter more from the perspective of language, naming, and the concept of associating partners; Kurtubî focuses from a grammatical perspective on the estimation of the omitted element. Ibn Kesîr emphasizes Allah's dominion and authority in context. Râzî adds a theological dimension to the matter, connecting idol-worshippers with the anthropomorphists (mushabbihah) and philosophically grounds that the conception of divinity does not actually exist. Beydâvî reads the verse in the context of Joseph's gradual method of preaching, drawing attention to the process of rhetoric and argumentation.
Historical context
Early exegetes (Taberî) relied on narration and linguistic analysis, while in later periods (Zemahşerî, Kurtubî) rhetorical and grammatical subtleties were treated more systematically, theological and philosophical discussions were incorporated into the verse with Râzî, and Beydâvî brought forward the method of preaching with a summary and contextual synthesis. The fundamental emphasis on monotheism has remained constant throughout all periods, while the method and points of emphasis have developed and become more enriched.
Modern connection
This comparative reading reminds us that the human tendency to assign values and authority according to one's own desires can exist in every period; this also points to the importance of maintaining consistent balance between knowledge and faith. Furthermore, it can be said that adopting a gradual, explanatory, and evidence-based style when presenting ideas can serve as a valuable example for healthy dialogue and tolerance in social communication.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar