A Translation in Progress (Sharh Shudhur al-Dhahab) Asslamu 'alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh It has always been my desire to translate the

Sharh Shudhur al-Dhahab of Ibn Hisham alAnsari. Not only did I find it extremely systematic and organized, but I also found it to be extremely practical and useful in its linguistic treatment of Quranic verses. As he says in his introduction that he makes a point of ending (almost) every grammatical issue that he discusses in his book, with a relevant Quranic verse. I, therefore, thought, that if I put up what I've translated of the Sharh Shudhur al-Dhahab sofar and then everyday or every second day translate a little more and post it, I might eventually finish the translation insha Allah. At the same time I would like to use this as an opportunity to invite members to comment on aspects of the translation and even discuss pertinent points of grammar raised in the original work. This, insha Allah, will ensure that the the activity is interactive and that members will also be able to directly engage the contents of Ibn Hisham's work. Should anyone ask me, as I've been asked many times before, wherein lies the practicality of translating such an involved Arabic grammar work, are'nt we better of studying it in the original Arabic? My answer to this is that I'd like to see people not only discuss but also write about the Arabic language in a language that they are comfortable with. I've seen how brothers and sisters discuss very complex issues of 'aqidah, usul al-fiqh, and fiqh in English, so why cannot the same be done for Arabic. It's my experience and observation that very few westerners reach a level of Arabic competence and proficiency that enables them to speak and write confidently and competently in Arabic. More importantly, if they are westeners the likelihood of them ever writing for an Arab audience is very minimal. At the end of it all, you find western students of Arabic neither proficient in Arabic or English. My point is that for the purpose of promoting Arabic amongst English speakers we might as well start discussing and writing these things in English. Those who honestly want to improve their Arabic in Arabic can also do things on the sideline to keep up with that aspect. However, if he / she is not going to write in Arabic, then he / she might as well start considering writing in English as there is a great need for this skill. I hope this clarifies this issue. I will now commence with posting portions of what I've been translating thus far, and I look forward to your comments, insha Allah. If you don't have a copy of the original Arabic, then the entire text can be downloaded here. Make dua that Allah accepts from me this humble effort as way of promoting the Language of His Holy Book, the Qur'an. Translation Text 1: Introduction Says the Shaikh, the Imam, the learned scholar, the highly erudite, the gatherer of widely dispersed virtues, unique and peerless in his time, the foremost amongst investigators and researchers, a blessing for Muslims, Jamaluddin (the Beauty of Devotion), Abu Muhammad, Abdullah, the son of Shaikh Jamaluddin Yusuf, the son of Ahmad, the son of Abdullah, the son of Hisham, al-Ansari (May Allah envelop him in His Grace, and let him inhabit His Spacious Garden): The first thing that I utter is: Truly, I praise Allah, the Exalted and Most Generous, He who taught with the Pen, who taught Man what he knew not". Then, I follow that with blessings and peace on the one who was sent as a mercy unto the worlds, a leader to the righteous and a

model of conduct for the doers (of good and righteous works) Muhammad, the unlettered Prophet, the Arabian Messenger, as well as (blessings and peace) on his guiding family and his companions who raised the Foundations of the Religion (of Islam). As to what follows thereafter, this is a book wherewith I explain my short treatise entitled Shudhur adh-Dhahab Fi Marifah Kalam al-Arab (Golden Sparks in Knowing the Language of the Arabs), completing thereby its shawahid (i.e. Nahw evidences and proofs), connecting its shawarid (i.e. loose strands) and enabling the searching hunter thereof to hunt down its awabid (i.e. wild game). I aim to clarify explicit wordings not to mystify implicit suggestions. I intend therein to tie together the structures and parts not to disperse (therein) rules and laws. I also take upon myself therein the responsibility that whenever I pass by a poetry verse from the shawahid to mention its Irab and whenever I come across a strange word then I follow it with that which takes away its strangeness and whenever I complete a question I end it of with a related and relevant verse from among the verses of Revelation, and I also follow it with what it requires in terms irab (syntactic analysis), tafsir (interpretation) and tawil (exegesis). My purpose in doing that is to train the student and acquaint him / her with the behaviour and attitude required to tread the path in search of the likes of these pursuits. Allah (and Allah alone) do I beseech to bring about through it benefit for me and you. He is near and answers (to our prayers) and my success is only through Allah, in Him do I place my trust and to Him shall I return. Translation Text 2: Matn: I said before: The ( word) is a ( i.e. a single expression). Sharh: I say now: " " has three dialectical variants and two meanings. As for its dialectical variants, they are: " " on the pattern of " ( " lotus fruit / blossom), which is the standard dialect as well as the dialect of the Inhabitants of Hijaz and it is this dialect that Revelation came with. Its plural form is " " " like " " " . " " on the pattern of "" ( " lotus tree), and " " on the pattern of "" ( " date), and they (i.e. these two dialectical variants) are the two dialectical variants of Tamim. Furthermore, the plural of the first is " " " like " " " and that of the second is " " " like " " " . Similarly, whatever occurs on the pattern of "" " , like " ( " liver) and "" ( " shoulder blade), then these three dialectical variants are permissible for it. Moreover, if the middle letter is a ) ( letter of the throat i.e. pharyngeal), then a fourth dialectical variant is permissible, namely: letting the first letter follow the second in its , like: " " ( " thigh) and " ( " to testify, bear witness).

As for its two meanings, the first is ) ( technical), and it is that which I have mentioned (in the matn). What is meant by " ( " in the definition) is an utterance (i.e. ) denoting a meaning, like: "" ( " man) and "" ( " horse), as opposed to ( i.e. writing) for example, since even though it denotes a meaning it is not a ( utterance), and as opposed to " ( i.e. non-used utterance) like "" " the inverted form of " " since even though it is a it does not denote a meaning. Hence, none of these as well as what is similar to it is called " " . What is meant by " " is that whose part does not denote a part of the (whole) meaning, like the examples that we have put forward when we said: "" " and "" " . Do you not see that the parts of each one of them which are its three letters when one of them is isolated and taken alone, then it does not denote anything of what the whole denotes, as opposed to when we say: " ) ( " Zayds servant) for it is a ) ( compound), because each of its two parts which are " " and " " denotes a part of the meaning which " ) " as a whole denotes. The second meaning is: ) ( lexical / linguistic), and it is "" " ( " complete sentences). Allah, Most High, says: (Nay, it is but a word he] " speaks) in reference to the statement of the one who said: (My Lord, send] " me back, that I may do righteous deeds in what I have left undone). " " in Arabic has three aspects or usages: ) ) ( particle of rebuke and reproach), having the meaning of " ( " truly, indeed) and having the meaning of " ( "yes, indeed before an oath) The first (usage) is like " " in the aforementioned verse, that is, Put an end to this talk, for there is absolutely no way of returning (to this word). (Truly,] The second (usage) is like Man is indeed rebelious), that is, " " (Truly, Indeed), because there is nothing that precedes this verse that can be reproached. This is what some scholars say. An objection has been raised against this view which is that after " "the particle " " is vowelled with an (initial) and similarly " " which shares its meaning. Hence, this ought to be the case with " " also. It is more befitting then to explain " " in the verse as having the meaning of " " which is used to open and commence speech with for after that " " the particle " " is vowelled with a (initial) " , (Alas, the] " like: Friends of Allah shall most certainly not be overcome by fear nor shall they grieve). The third (usage) is before an oath (i.e. ) , like: and its meaning is: " " (Indeed, by the] moon). This is what al-Nadhr ibn Shumail maintains, and he is followed by a group (of grammarians) amongst them Ibn Malik. It has a fourth meaning which is to have the meaning of " " . " "is a ) ( particle of intensification, accentuation and emphasis) which causes the to be according unanimous agreement and the to be contrary to the Kufans. The ( personal pronoun in the form of " " in " ) "is its and refers to the statement (that was made) and " " " is its . " " is a clause composed of a ( subject) and ( predicate) in the place of in that it is a ( attributive adjective) for " " . Likewise is the case with all declarative clauses /

sentences after ( indefinite nouns), as for after ( definite nouns), they are (objects of state or condition), like: " " ( " Zaid came laughing). Assalamu 'alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Just some comments: (1) See how ibn Hisham closes the mas'alah (grammar issue) with a Qur'anic verse which also serves as an example for the use of the word to mean "a whole speech". Also, he does not merely mention the verse but also gives a bit of an analysis for the purpose of benefitting his readers. (2) Ibn Hisham aso follows the approach of those who maintain that it is better to start a grammar treatise with a treatment of the rather than with as is a part of , and to understand the whole you have to understand the parts first. Insha Allah, I will open open up another thread to discuss how different authors commenced their grammatical works, starting with the most recent sources and then working our way up to the earliest sources until we reach Kitab Sibawayh. (3) In the Qatr al-Nada wa Ball al-Sada (the Dew Drop and Thirst Quencher), Ibn Hisham also opens with a defnition of which is the same definition that he offers here. His commentary, though, is slightly different. In the Sharh of the Qatr al-Nada, he immediately discusses the linguistic and lexical meaning of , quoting the same Quranic verse in the process. He does, however, go into the dialectical variants of as he has done in Sharh of the Shudhur al-Dhahab. He then goes into discussing each of the elements of the definition, namely: and . In the Sharh of the Qatr al-Nada, he also tell us what a ( utterance), that is, a (vocal) sound that is comprised of some of the letters (of the alphabet). He then closes off the mas'alah (grammatical question) by answering two queries (1) why was ( ) , which means "to be coined", not used in the definition like other grammarians do elsewhere? and (2) why did he prefer to use instead of which is more common? I would like, in the future, insha Allah to open up a separate thread for just discussing the differences between the two matns (i.e. short grammatical treatises) as well as their respective commentaries. (4) It might be that Ibn Hisham was the first to define as such, and his Sharh of this section in the Qatr al-Nada constitutes in part a defense of this definition by answering to possible queries. This he does not do in the Sharh of the Shudhur al-Dhahab. (5) It is said that and ( the two verbs for praise and blame respectively) are variations of and . The variation like also occurs in the Quran in the verse: ( " [ )if ye disclose (acts of) charity, even so it is well, but if ye conceal them, and make them reach those (really) in need, that is best for you]. Translation Text 3: Matn: Then I said: It (i.e. the ) constitutes an ( noun), " ( verb) and ( particle) Sharh: I say now: The is a generic term under which only these three types fall. This has been agreed upon

unanimously by those whose opinion counts. They say: The proof for restricting (the to these three types) is: that the meanings (that exist in language) are three: ( essence / entity), ( action, event) and ( that which connects the action / event to the essence) and that the , if it denotes a meaning in something other than itself, then it is the , and if it denotes a meaning in itself (rather than in something-else), then if it denotes a definite time, then it is the " and if not, then it is the . Ibn Khabbaz says: The restriction of the to three types is by no means specific to the language of the Arabs because the proof demonstrating the restriction (of the ) to three types is a rational one, and rational matters do not differ from language to language. Each of these three has a technical and lexical meaning. The signifies: - technically - that which denotes a meaning not accompanied by one of the three times or tenses, and - lexically - a characteristic or property of something, that is, its defining sign, and from this perspective includes (and is applicable as a name to) all three types of , because each of them is a sign pointing to its meaning. The " signifies: - technically - that which denotes a meaning accompanied by one of the three times or tenses, and - lexically - the very action which the agent produces such as ( standing), ( sitting), etc. The signifies: - technically - that which denotes a meaning in something other than itself, and - lexically - the edge, verge, margin, border or ridge of something, like "" " (mountain edge or ridge), and in the Revelation ] ) " (i.e. the Quran): (Amongst the people there are those who worship Allah on the verge ) till the end of the verse, that is, on the border or outer limit of Religion, that is, he does not enter into it (i.e. the Religion of Islam) with strong and solid resolve, such that if good comes his way in the form of health, plenty of wealth, etc. then he is happy and satisfied, but if a calamity, that is, something bad, befalls him in the form of sickness or poverty, etc. then he turns upon his face away from it (i.e. away from Allah and His Religion). The is an ( conjunctive particle / conjunction), " " is a " ( genitive particle or preposition), having the meaning of some or among, "" "is through it (i.e. through " ) " and the ( definite article) is for defining the class or genus, " " is a ( subject) whose ( predicate) has been fronted in the form of the ) (i.e. the prepositional phrase which is the preposition and the noun governed by it in the genitive "" ) " , " " is a " that is due to it being stripped of the ) and , and the " (doer) is latent or hidden referring to " " from the perspective of the latters form (rather than its meaning). " "is through the " . The is (a) a ( relative clause) of " " if " " is assumed to be ( definite) having the meaning of " "and (b) a ( attributive

adjective) if it is assumed to be " ( indefinite) having the meaning of "" ( " people). In the first case it (i.e. the ) has no place (in ) and likewise every that occurs as a , and in the second case, its place (of ) is and likewise every , because it follows its ( i.e. the noun described by it). " ) " is a ) occupying a place of ) as the ( object of state or condition), that is, " " ( " i.e. on the border, ready to exit). " " : the is and " "is a ) ( conditional particle). " " is a ) " in a place of " because it is the " ( verb denoting the condition) and the is a ( direct object) and " " " a " . " "is a ) " and the " is ( hidden and latent). " " is a ) connected to " ", and so on with the rest of the verse. In this verse there is a strange variant reading, namely: (" ) with "" " being ( i.e. in the genitive) and the explanation thereof is that " " is not a " that is ) ( i.e. indeclinable and fixed with a ) , rather it is a declinable " ( i.e. a descriptive noun) like " " and " " and is as the . Equivalent to this variant reading is the variant reading of al-Araj: (" ) except that this one is an " ) and is therefore not confused with the " and that one (i.e. ) is a on the pattern of a " and is therefore confused with it. Assalamu alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Just some comments: (1) Again we see Ibn Hisham closing this section with a Quranic verse from the beginning of Surah al-Hajj. The reason for quoting the verse is that it illustrates the lexical meaning of the word harf in terms of worshipping and serving Allah. It is interesting that in the part that he quoted of the verse, the word harf itself also occurs somewhat on the margin or periphery of the sentence such that it illustrates in both a semantic and concrete sense the lack of commitment and dedication on the part of him who worships Allah half-heartedly never submitting himself wholeheartedly and forever keeping to the periphery being ready to exit should something go wrong. (2) The student is also expected to make the connection as to why the particle is called harf. The answer is that the harf in relation to the ism and fil in the sentence is like the periphery in relation to the core. (3) While Ibn Hisham only quotes part of the verse, his grammatical analysis exceeds the part that he has quoted. (4) Compared to the Sharh of the Qatr al-Nada at this juncture, Ibn Hishams explanation of the three parts of speech in the Sharh of the Shudhur al-Dhahab is a little more elaborate. In fact, in the Sharh of the Qatr al-Nada, he only states that the kalimah is a genus incorporating three types under it, and then explains why these types are only three in number. He does not go into the lexical and technical definitions of the three parts of speech as he has done in the Sharh of the Shudhur al-Dhahab. Thus, his explanation in the Sharh of the Qatr al-Nada amounts to nothing more than a single paragraph. Translation Text 4: Matn:

Then I said: The is that which can take: the " " , ( addressing or calling someone), or ( attribution, giving information or saying something about it) Sharh: I say now: I mentioned for the three defining signs by which it is distinguished from its two counterparts. The first of them is " " . Moreover, this phrasing is better than the phrasing of those who say: " ( i.e. the " and the ) because we do not say for (" ) : , nor for ( " ) : . This is like: "" ( " the man), " ( " the book), " (" the house, dwelling), and the statement of Abu al-Tayyib (al-Mutanabbi): " " * " " The horses, the night and the battle-field all know me, as well as the sword, the spear, the scroll and the pen. These seven words are all , because of the prefixing of " " to them. If you should say how is it that it (i.e. " ) " is prefixed to the " in the words of al-Farazdaq: " * You are not a judge whose verdict people are pleased with, nor noble in lineage, nor someone holding a strong view and argument then, I will say: That is a hideous (poetic) necessity, so much so that al-Jurjani says, the meaning of which is: The use of this in prose is an error according to unanimous opinion and is not to be used as a rule, and " " in it (i.e. in the expression " )"is an (relative pronoun) having the meaning of " ". The second (of the defining signs of the ) is ( addressing or calling someone), like: ( ( ) O Prophet) ( ( ) O Nuh, Descend) ( " ( ) O Lut, We are Messengers from your Lord) ( ) ( ) O Hud, You have not come to us with clear evidence) ( ( ) O Salih, Come to us ) ( ... ) ( ) O Shuayb, Does your salah order you ?) Each of these words -- having the " " acting and entering on them -- is an , and likewise is the case for every ( object of address , vocative). If you should say: What do you say concerning: the variant reading of al-Kisa-iy: ( ) for he pauses on " " and then resumes with " "the , the Statement of the Most High: ( ) , and the statement of the Prophet Peace and Blessings be upon him : " " ) ( " Alas! Perhaps a dressed woman in this world will be naked on the Day of

Resurrection) where the in all these cases acts and enters on that which is not an ? then, I will say: There has been a difference of opinion on this and similar cases, which has culminated into two views: The first (of these two views) is that the has been dropped, that is, " " , " " and " ) ..." and the second (of the two views) is that " " in these verses is for the purpose of ( calling attention to something) and not for purpose of (addressing someone). The third (of the defining signs of the ) is , which is to attribute to something information through which a complete and self-contained meaning is conveyed and it does not make a difference whether the ( i.e. the information attributed) is a , " or : The " is like " " ( " Zayd stood) since " " is a " that is ( i.e. information attributed to " ) " and " " is an ( i.e. a noun to which information is attributed the information being " )" . The is like " " ( " Zayd is your brother) since " " ( " in " ) " is a and " " " an . The is like " ( " I stood), since " " is a " that is ( attributed) to the , and " " and the constitute a that is ( attributed) to " " . If you should say: What do you do in the case of them attributing " " " to " " when they say: " " ( " For you to hear al-Muaydiy is better than for you to see him) with " " being a " according to unanimous agreement? I will then say: " " is based on the assumption that " " is repressed such that the actual meaning is " " and what makes the omission of the first " " valid is the presence of the second " " . Thus, the " is paraphrased as a , that is, " " , so that attribution of information is really to an ( in the form of a paraphrased ) . Moreover, this sign is the most useful and most significant of the signs of the for through it the nominal nature of " ( " i.e. the nounness of " ) " is known in the Statement of the Most High: (" " " ( ) Say: That which is with Allah is better than amusement and trade) and ( ) [ ) That which is with you will run out (i.e. come to an end) while that which is with Allah is everlasting]. Do you not see that " " has the meaning of " ( " being better) attributed to it in the first verse, the meaning of " " (running out or coming to an end) in the second verse and the meaning of " " (everlastingness) in the third. It is for this reason that " " in these verses have been adjudged to be an ( relative pronoun) having the meaning of " ". Similarly " " in the Statement of Allah: ( ) ( )Truly, what they are producing is the trick of a magician) is also having the meaning of " "and " " is a ( relative clause) and the ( personal pronoun referring to the ) has been dropped, that is, [ "( ) ) ] " and " " is the ( of " ) ". It is permissible to assume " " to be a " ) " such that it and its are paraphrased as a in which case it does not require that an be assumed (for it). However, you do not have the option of assuming " " to be a ) ( curtailing and curbing particle) like the one in the Statement of the Most High: ( " " ( )Truly, Allah is only

One God) because in that case it is necessary for " " to be as the ( ) of " " Assalamu 'alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Just some comments: (1) Again we see Ibn Hisham ending the section off with a Qur'anic verse. The relevance of the particular Qur'anic verse is that " "in this verse is adjudged to be an ( noun) due to it being predicated of and information being attributed to it, which in itself is a defining feature only of nouns. In this respect, this verse is the same as the two previous verses that he quoted. However, his reason for ending the section off with this verse in particular is that there are some additional points concerning the verse that he feels might be of benefit to the reader. He is saying that while we interpret the ( )in the verse as an , it can also be interpreted as a or which is more commonly known as a like the particle ( )except that it does not cause ) . By interpreting it as such we find a slightly different meaning to the verse emerging. While -- according to the first analysis -- the verse means: (What they have produced is a magician's trick), according to the second analysis the verse means, (Their very act of producing is a magician's trick). However, it is also known that a ( infinitive / verbal noun) can be interpreted with the meaning of the so that ( / )becomes ( )in which case it is closer to the first interpretation. This is the same as using the masdar (infinitive or verbal noun) which literally means the act of creating to denote the meaning of the ism mafuul (passive participle) ( that which is created i.e. the creation). Ibn Hisham's dismissal of the ) ( ) option appears to be due to the Nasb ( )not being one of the 10 standard and authentic Qur'anic readings, since to interpret ( )as such requires ( )to be as the of ( ). Interestingly, the two Qur'anic readers Hamzah and al-Kisa'iy read ( ) ) , that is, "a magic trick" or "a trick of magic" instead of ( ) meaning "a magician's trick". Furthermore, in my view, the analysis of ( )as an is stronger and is further supported by what comes before this portion of the verse, namely, ( " [ ) Throw that which is in your right hand, (quickly) will it swallow up that which they have produced]. In this portion of the verse it is clear that ( )is an because it refers to what is being swallowed, in which case it must be something physical and concrete, since an action or deed is not capable of being swallowed. On the issue of a not requiring an ( i.e. a that connects the relative clause to the relative pronoun) , it is due to the rule that particles cannot be referred to by personal pronouns, only nouns can (that is, personal pronouns can only refer to nouns never to verbs and particles), and since ( )as a is a particle it does have an in its relative clause that refers to it. (2) The point with the distinguishing characteristics and features of each of the three parts of Speech is that a word is classified according to one of them not so much on the basis of what it means in essence and how it is defined but more on the basis of it displaying one or more of the physical and abstract features that feature consistently in a particular part of Speech and only in that part of Speech so as to become a distinquishing feature or characteristic. Thus, a word could have a lot in common with some other words which belong to a particular part of Speech but gets classified and categorised in the final analysis under one of the two other remaining parts of Speech simply because what it has in common with the first part of Speech is not considered a distinguishing feature of that part of Speech. To illustrate this lets use the following examples: - the word ( ) resembles the negative particle ( )from a semantic perspective, and completely lacks the meaning of action generally denoted by verbs. Yet, we find that the

majority of grammarians categorized it is a verb rather than a particle simply because it is able to display a particular feature only displayed by past tense / perfect verbs, which is the unvowelled Taa of Femininity ( ). So while this Taa can be suffixed to ( )as in ( ) it cannot be suffixed to ( ). Hence, ( )has been adjudged to be verb rather than a particle because of this distinguishing feature of past tense verbs. The same distinguishing characteristic also features in the two verbs of praise and blame, namely, and , and it is the only verbal feature that these two verbs are able to display. This will be dealt with more in the section on verbal characteristics. - the word ( )as a relative pronoun resembles two-lettered particles, as nouns are generally composed of three or more letters. Moreover, it completely resembles the negative particle ( )in form (though not in meaning). However, despite this resemblance the particle it has been adjudged to be a noun because of displaying the nominal distinguishing feature of ( being predicated of, being given information about) and only features in nouns, as only nouns can be predicated of or be given information about. At the same time it is important to bear in mind that not all of the distinguishing signs need to be displayed in a word to warrant membership to a particular part of Speech, rather one such sign is sufficient. However, it is customary for grammarians to list at least three signs for the noun or verb, since some signs might not be applicable to certain words, and other signs are then called for. A clear example of this is the " ( Taa that serves as a subject of a verbal sentence) like in ( I wrote). This Taa does not take any of the nominal signs mentioned by Ibn Hisham except one, namely, . It is on the basis of displaying that this Taa has been adjudged to be an noun rather than a particle. In short, we can say that words are categorized according to the three parts of Speech not on the basis of what they mean but on basis of certain membership criteria that they have to meet.