2.1. THE MEANING OF ‘PURIFYING ONESELF
Qatadah, Ibn ‘Uyaynah and others said: He has succeeded who purifies himself through obeying Allah and performing righteous deeds’. Al-Fara’ and al- Zajjaj said: ‘A soul has succeeded that Allah has purified and a soul has failed that Allah has corrupted’. Al-WalibI mentioned the same thing on authority of Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyAllah ‘anhuma) in a way such that the chain of transmission was not connected. However that is not what was intended by the ayah. Rather what was intended is the first statement with its authoritative wording and meaning.
As for the wording ( he who purifies it the ‘he’ part is considered in the Arabic language to be a relative pronoun and it necessarily refers back to the self. So when it is said: A person has succeeded who purifies himself , the pronoun for ‘person’ in the Arabic word ‘purifies himself is referred to by the word ‘who’.This is an aspect of Arabic discourse about which there is no doubt in its correctness, just as it is said:‘He has succeeded who fears Allah and he has succeeded who obeys his Lord’.
As for the meaning of ‘he has succeeded who Allah purifies’, the pronoun does not continue referring back to the term ‘who’s the phrase. The pronoun in this case refers back to Allah and not the term for ‘he’,and the pronoun of the object refers back to the previously mentioned ‘self.Thus neither the pronoun of the subject nor the object refer back to the term who’.So the connection of the reference dropped and this is not allowed (in the language).
Yes, if it is said: ‘He has succeeded who Allah purifies himself without a pronoun attached to the verb, or ‘who Allah purifies for him’ with a feminine pronoun attached to the verb, or similar manners of speaking, the expression is correct. For this to be hidden from those grammarians who hold this view is strange. He would not say: ‘It has succeeded a soul [that] purifies itself, for indeed here ‘purifies itself is an attribute for ‘itself, not a connection; rather He said:
“He has succeeded who purifies it”(al-Shams (91): 9)
So the phrase is connected due to the term for ‘who’ not an attribute for it.
Also, he would not say: ‘It has succeeded the soul which purifies if , for indeed if that was said and the pronoun in the term purifies if it is made to refer back to the name of Allah, it would be correct. If they pretended to say: ‘The assumption about “He succeeds who purifies if ’ is that it is the ‘self that purifies if . They say: ‘The pronoun of the object the term purifies refers back to who and it (the term who) is appropriate for the masculine or feminine, and the singular or plural. So the pronoun refers back to its feminine use and its feminization is not literal. For this reason it is said: “‘He’ has succeeded”and it is not said: ‘It (feminine) has succeeded’. It is said to them: ‘This is also con- sidering that it is outside the scope of eloquent use of the language for it is only correct when the discourse indicates that in the same manner and whoever….1 based upon that the intended meaning for us and likewise His statement:
“And among them are those who listen to you” (Yunus (10): 42),
and similar examples.
In this case, then there does not exist in the term ‘who’ or in what comes after something that indicates that the intended meaning is the feminine term for ‘self , thus it is not allowed to intend with speech what does not contain proof of its intention; for indeed the Speech of Allah, lofty and sublime is He, is safeguarded from the likes of this. And if it is assumed to be possible for the pronoun of ‘purifies himself [with a feminine pronoun] to refer to ‘self and to ‘who* despite that the term ‘who* has no proof obligating its reference back to it, truly its reference to the feminine is more appropriate than its reference to what could possibly be masculine and feminine; while it’s being masculine demonstrates the lack of proof of the feminine for indeed when discourse has two possible meanings, its conveyance upon their most apparent is obligated. Whoever pretends that it is otherwise has exited well-known Arabic speech and the Qur’an is free from that. Deviating from what the surface of speech demonstrates and moving towards what is not demonstrated by it without proof is definitely not allowed, then how so with a text from the perspective of its meaning? For Allah has conveyed that piety and evil deeds are inspired. This has been expanded upon at some other point.
By Shaykhu’l-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah
Comments
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.