The College of Education for Humanities discussed a master’s thesis titled “The Grammatical Study between Ibn Malik and Al-Samin Al-Halabi in their Commentaries on Al-Tashil – A Comparative Study.”

The College of Education for Humanities discussed a master’s thesis titled “The Grammatical Study between Ibn Malik and Al-Samin Al-Halabi in their Commentaries on Al-Tashil – A Comparative Study.”

The study, presented by the student Farah Ahmed Jassim and supervised by Professor Dr. Ibrahim Rahman Hameed, aimed to analyze the grammatical study of Ibn Malik and Al-Samin Al-Halabi in their respective commentaries on Al-Tashil. This significant work summarizes issues of language, grammar, and morphology and has been explained in multiple commentaries over the years to clarify its complexities and elaborate on its conciseness. Two prominent explanations include Ibn Malik’s Sharh Al-Tashil and Al-Samin Al-Halabi’s Idhah Al-Sabeel Ila Sharh Al-Tashil.

Key Findings:

1. Use of Evidence:
   • Both Ibn Malik and Al-Samin Al-Halabi employed Quranic verses, poetry, proverbs, and Arab sayings in their explanations.
   • Ibn Malik introduced his commentary with a preface summarizing its objectives but omitted details about his methodology and book structure.
   • In contrast, Al-Samin Al-Halabi skipped the preface and focused directly on clarifying the issues, adopting a pedagogical approach.
2. Methodological Differences:
   • Al-Samin Al-Halabi developed a unique methodology, reordering the chapters of Al-Tashil. For instance, he began with the chapter on adjectives (Bab Al-Na’t) and concluded with the chapter on feminine markers (Bab Fi Al-Ta’ Al-Ta’nith). He also modified some phrases and created separate chapters for topics that Ibn Malik addressed within other sections.
3. Approach to Explanation:
   • Ibn Malik provided detailed explanations, elaborating extensively on the text, citing multiple examples from Quran, Hadith, poetry, and prose, and discussing various opinions before presenting his own.
   • Al-Samin Al-Halabi opted for brevity, often omitting examples or evidence, making his explanations shorter and more concise.
4. Source Utilization:
   • Both scholars relied on a wide range of linguistic and grammatical sources, borrowing from Basra and Kufa scholars, though Basra sources dominated.
   • Ibn Malik referenced more sources than Al-Samin Al-Halabi, showcasing broader exploration.
   • However, Al-Samin Al-Halabi was clearer in delivering the scientific material.

Conclusion:

The study revealed distinct differences in methodology and style between the two scholars. While Ibn Malik was comprehensive and detailed, Al-Samin Al-Halabi prioritized clarity and conciseness, offering a unique contribution to the grammatical commentary of Al-Tashil.