ضَرَبَ لَكُم مَّثَلًا مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ هَل لَّكُم مِّن مَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَٰنُكُم مِّن شُرَكَآءَ فِى مَا رَزَقْنَٰكُمْ فَأَنتُمْ فِيهِ سَوَآءٌ تَخَافُونَهُمْ كَخِيفَتِكُمْ أَنفُسَكُمْ كَذَٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ ٱلْـَٔايَٰتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ · بَلِ ٱتَّبَعَ ٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوٓا۟ أَهْوَآءَهُم بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ
Ḍaraba lakum mathalan min anfusikum, hal lakum min mā malakat aymānukum min shurakāʾa fī mā razaqnākum fa-antum fīhi sawāʾun takhāfūnahum ka-khīfatikum anfusakum, kadhālika nufaṣṣilu'l-āyāti li-qawmin yaʿqilūn · Bali'ttabaʿa'lladhīna ẓalamū ahwāʾahum bi-ghayri ʿilm
"He has struck for you a parable from among yourselves: among those your right hands possess, have you partners in what We have provided for you — such that you would be equal in it, and would stand in awe of them as you stand in awe of one another? Thus do We set out the signs in detail for a people who reason. No; those who did wrong followed their own desires without knowledge."
And the construct had occurred in the twenty-first verse as well: khalaqa lakum min anfusikum azwājā. The same construct, twice in the sūra: one for creation, the other for a parable. This is a repetition that can be verified from the text.
I record this as an observation: the verse brings its evidence not from a field the hearer knows nothing of but from within his own life — as, in the third verse of the sūra, the event took place at adna'l-arḍ (in the nearest land). The sūra keeps on holding the distance of its evidence short.
The question is this: would you make those under your own hand partners equal in your property? And would you stand in awe of them as you do of your own kind?
And the logic of the sentence must be recorded, and I give this as my own reading: the parable reminds the hearer of his own measure. A person does not accept equality within his own property; yet he counts this acceptable concerning God. The verse offers no proof — it shows the hearer his own inconsistency.
A note per the method (Method): the construct mā malakat aymānukum here recalls a reality belonging to the social order of that period, and the verse recalls it not in order to endorse that order but in order to set up a parable. The Qurʾān's rulings in this field are a separate matter; I draw no legal conclusion here. The work the verse does is to show the hearer an equality he does not himself accept.
كَذَٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ ٱلْـَٔايَٰتِ — the root ف-ص-ل and the tafṣīl pattern were analysed in detail at Fuṣṣilat 41/3: to divide a whole into its parts, to set out in detail. I do not repeat it here.
بَلِ ٱتَّبَعَ ٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوٓا۟ أَهْوَآءَهُم بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ — and the cause is stated: following one's desire.
The same line was treated at al-Jāthiya 45/23 (mani'ttakhadha ilāhahu hawāh), and two parsings were tabulated there. I rely on that treatment.
The difference here is worth recording: in al-Jāthiya the desire was what is taken as a god; in al-Rūm the desire is what is followed (ittabaʿa). And a note is added: bi-ghayri ʿilm — without knowledge.
This note must be read together with the seventh verse of the sūra, and I give this as my own reading: in the seventh verse it had been said that the other side has a certain knowledge (yaʿlamūna ẓāhiran). Here it is said that what they follow is without knowledge. The two do not contradict: there is knowledge about the outside of the life of this world, and none about the direction being followed. The sūra draws a line between the presence of knowledge and its power to give direction.