Read on Twitter
Time for Part 2 of the ض series! Let’s take a journey through time and look at statements of classical qurrā', grammarians, jurists, exegetes, historians, etc, all discussing the immense similarity of sound between ض and ظ.
I will mainly use two books as reference: the book (Arabic) of the late Qari Ubaidullah ibn Ataa (d. 2011) found here https://archive.org/details/alfirdwsiy2018_gmail_1674
and the book (Urdu) of Qari Muhammad Shareef (d. 1978) which can be downloaded here https://kitabosunnat.com/kutub-library/sabeel-al-rishad-fi-tehqiq-talafuz-al-zaad
and the book (Urdu) of Qari Muhammad Shareef (d. 1978) which can be downloaded here https://kitabosunnat.com/kutub-library/sabeel-al-rishad-fi-tehqiq-talafuz-al-zaad
Classical linguists such as ibn al-A'rābī (d.846) said that interchanging ض and ظ was an acceptable practice in the Arabic language, and was not considered a mistake, but rather a matter of variant dialects.
One of the oldest known reports of this phenomenon is a story of the companion Umar during his caliphate. A man asked him whether it was permissible to slaughter a deer (ظبي) for the ritual sacrifice (يضحى), but according to the report, he interchanged the ض and ظ!
Umar asked him why he didn't pronounce the words "properly," to which the man responded that it was an alternate dialect. @JonathanACBrown discusses more ض/ظ minimal pairs in his essay which can be found here http://www.drjonathanbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/New-Data-on-the-Delateralization-of-Dad-and-Za.pdf
al-Fayyūmi (d. 1368) says that many Arabs interchange ض for ظ and others do the opposite. He says this is acceptable for speech, but should be avoided in Qur'an recitation. Nevertheless, it establishes similarity! Moreover, there is a word in the Qur'an upon which…
...the 10 canonical reciters disagree as to whether it's recited with a ض or ظ! I will explore that in more detail when I discuss the statements of the Qur'anic exegetes (mufassirūn).
Do the classical Tajwīd scholars ever claim a similarity between ض and ظ? Contemporary proponents of neo-ض vehemently claim that the classical scholars did not, but rather they emphasized taking great care and caution to distinguish the two, which means they must not be similar
This issue should honestly be pretty straightforward, but it has been plagued with so much sophistry and mental gymnastics that everyone is left confused. Let's put this matter to rest once and for all.
Any serious student of Tajwīd has no doubt studied the famous Muqaddimah of Ibn al-Jazari. Seldom an ijāzah is complete without studying that poem. In it, he writes, “Differentiate the ض with istitalah and makhraj from the ظ, and [all the verbal nouns of ظ in the Qur’an] are..."
![Any serious student of Tajwīd has no doubt studied the famous Muqaddimah of Ibn al-Jazari. Seldom an ijāzah is complete without studying that poem. In it, he writes, “Differentiate the ض with istitalah and makhraj from the ظ, and [all the verbal nouns of ظ in the Qur’an] are..."](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJTXfXeUUAA0sxP.png "Any serious student of Tajwīd has no doubt studied the famous Muqaddimah of Ibn al-Jazari. Seldom an ijāzah is complete without studying that poem. In it, he writes, “Differentiate the ض with istitalah and makhraj from the ظ, and [all the verbal nouns of ظ in the Qur’an] are...\"")
For some reason, many people today want to interpret this as ” ض and ظ have nothing in common,” which is bizarre. IJ doesn't focus on any other pair of letters with the same scrutiny he does for this pair. In addition, he follows it up by mentioning EVERY SINGLE ROOT WORD in…
...the Qur'an that has the letter ظ in it, and expects a student of Tajwīd to memorize them (it's a fun chapter) so that they never get confused as to which word has ض and which has ظ. That level of paranoia would make no sense if the neo-ض was intended as it barely resembles ظ
Take a look at this passage in IJ’s book at-Tamhīd: in addition to mentioning أنقض ظهرك and يعض الظالم , he also advises to take caution in الأرض ذهبا (implying ض and ذ similarity)! But absolutely no mention of something like عضدا or منضود as a contemporary scholar would.
It makes absolute sense to advise caution for phrases like أنقض ظهرك and يعض الظالم. If both letters sound nearly identical, each must be pronounced from its distinct articulation point and without being interchanged. I've recorded some examples https://soundcloud.com/tulaibzafir/sets/some-pronunciations
These words are supposed to take a certain level of skill, practice, and awareness to pronounce and distinguish. The ض is notoriously known as the hardest letter to pronounce and even more difficult to differentiate from ظ, as we’ll see from the statements of jurists soon.
Yet, these days, a phrase like أنقض ظهرك is a piece of cake (even for a child as Qari Abul-Wafa' complains below), whereas generations of not just laity, but even scholars struggled with it! That’s because the neo-ض is way easier to pronounce than the original proto-ض.
Let’s transition now to what the mufassirūn (Qur’anic exegetes) have to say about the ض and ظ similarity. These discussions are usually found under the commentary of two verses in books of tafsīr: the last verse of Surat-ul-Fatihah or the 24th verse of Surat-ut-Takwir (81:24).
Let's discuss 81:24 first. The 10 canonical reciters famously differ as to whether the final word is pronounced with a ض (i.e. بضنين) or a ظ i.e. (بظنين). Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, Kisai and Ruways recite it with a ظ. The rest with a ض.
Some scholars believed that the difference of opinion arose due to an ambiguity of the script, claiming that the difference between ض and ظ in script was that the latter had a slightly longer stroke. They say this particular word was purposefully left ambiguous.
As to whether the claim about the script holds any weight, hopefully someone with more expertise like @PhDniX or @CellardEleonore can comment on that, but from what I can gather, the claim that this particular word was purposefully written ambiguously seems to be conjecture.
Many scholars such as Rashid Ahmad Ludhyanwi (quoted in attached pic) consider this word proof that the letters strongly resemble one another, as it demonstrates the interchangeability of ض and ظ, and interchangeability only occurs with sounds that resemble one another.
He also mentions that as-Suyuti cites specifically the ناضرة/ناظرة occurrence in Surah Qiyamah [75:22-23] as special word-play beyond a simple rhyme, which is proof of their resemblance.
![He also mentions that as-Suyuti cites specifically the ناضرة/ناظرة occurrence in Surah Qiyamah [75:22-23] as special word-play beyond a simple rhyme, which is proof of their resemblance.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJTXlcxUcAA5EfY.png "He also mentions that as-Suyuti cites specifically the ناضرة/ناظرة occurrence in Surah Qiyamah [75:22-23] as special word-play beyond a simple rhyme, which is proof of their resemblance.")
Now let’s talk about the Fatihah. I’ll also jump into the statements of the fuqaha’ (jurists) in this part as there is a lot of overlap. This will be difficult to sum up, as jurisprudence of Quran recitation is very complex and can be difficult to navigate without social context
The Tajwīd scholar’s ultimate goal is to preserve Qur’anic recitation as it was during the time of the Prophet. The jurist’s goal is to define the absolute minimum requirement expected from a layperson. This is why juristic rulings of the Qurra'...
...pertaining to Qur’an recitation are a lot stricter than those of the Fuqaha’. Hence, it is unlikely to find a book of Tajwīd that permits pronouncing ض as anything but ض, whereas books of fiqh offer concession for letters that may be difficult to pronounce.
The general principle is that if a letter is too difficult to pronounce for a layperson and they are unable, they replace it with the first letter they’re able to pronounce closest to the original letter. This shouldn’t be that surprising of course, it’s quite rational I think.
A person who is unable to pronounce ظ because they have difficulties with its emphatic nature may end up pronouncing it as ذ. Then they may even have difficulty with the interdental nature of ذ so it becomes a ز. This is common in the subcontinent with Farsi/Urdu speakers.
The neo-ض, because it sounds like an emphatic د, turns into just a د for folks who have trouble with emphatic sounds. So you would expect classical books of Fiqh to offer the concession of replacing ض with د...right?
But that’s not the case! The order of similarity is always from ض to ظ, because it’s considered the next closest sounding letter. In social contexts where the laity has trouble with emphatic letters, the ذ comes next. The د is never even considered!
Haven’t you ever wondered why ض ends up as a “z” sound in Farsi/Urdu? Didn’t you ever find it odd when that Desi imam recited “walaz-zaalleen” in Fatihah? For the same reason their ظ also ends up as a “z” sound. Let’s take a look in Tafsir books now.
Ibn Kathir mentions that the well-known ruling of scholars is that replacing ض with ظ is forgiven for those who can’t differentiate due to their close resemblance, he mentions no other letter pairs.
Imam Razi says interchanging ض and ظ does not invalidate prayers. He goes further to say that the ability to differentiate the two is so severely difficult that it's not an obligation for anyone, because if it were, it would have been something addressed by the Companions
Imam Ālūsi says that interchanging ض with ظ does not invalidate prayers due to the difficulty of distinguishing them. He goes on to agree with Razi that there is no obligation to differentiate.
Ibn Taymiyyah says prayer behind someone who cannot pronounce the letters of the Fatihah properly is not accepted, EXCEPT for the letter ض when replaced with (only) a ظ! He explains that this is because “they are identical in sound.”
He further says when the Imam recites ولا الضالين , not one person would assume he recited الظالين despite the two words sounding nearly identical. The letters are too similar to distinguish, and the intent of the Imam is inferred from context.
Ibn Abideen the Hanafi jurist allows the interchanging of 3 pairs only for those who find difficulty: ض with ظ, then ص with س, then ط with ت. The د is not mentioned.
It’s mentioned in the book of Maliki Fiqh, Mawahib-ul-Jalil, that replacing ض with ظ only is allowed for those who find the ض difficult to pronounce. No other letter is mentioned.
It’s written in Mughni-ul-Muhtaj, a book of Shafi’i Fiqh, that switching ض with ظ is permitted in Fatihah due to the difficulty in differentiating them for most people. No other letter pair is mentioned.
It’s written in al-Iqnaa’, a book of Hanbali fiqh, that it is not permitted for one to be Imam if they cannot pronounce the letters of Fatihah correctly EXCEPT for the ض, if they replace it with ظ...
...In such a case, a person is allowed to be Imam EVEN in front of someone who CAN pronounce it correctly!! (That's mind-blowing for fiqh-enthusiasts!) The author says this is because one does not turn “illiterate” due to only this particular exchange of letters (i.e. ض to ظ).
I could go on and on, but I think this thread has gone long enough. It should be clear that the letter described in all of the above quotes is not our neo-ض, which is very easy to differentiate from ظ...
Either the above scholars were really paranoid about ض in particular for some unknown reason, or they describe a letter that actually sounds nearly identical to ظ and is super difficult to distinguish from it.
In my next thread, I will talk about how this evolution from proto-ض to neo-ض possibly took place. It's a gripping tale of linguistics, politics, fame, and technology! My final thread will be about how the proto-ض tradition is still alive in chains of transmission. Stay tuned!
