Tafsir at-Tabari: Jami' al-Bayan - Dar al-Tarbiyah wa al-Turath Edition

Volume 1 · Page 149

Translation · EN

AI translation

Abū Jaʿfar said: There is no disagreement among those knowledgeable in the Arabic language regarding the ruling (1) that the statement of a speaker, "Praise be to God in thanks," is correct. Since this is authentic according to all of them, it has become clear that "Praise be to God" may be uttered in place of thanks, and that thanks may be placed in the location of praise. For if that were not so, it would not be permissible to say "Praise be to God in thanks", deriving from the speaker's statement "Praise be to God" an absolute object for "I thank", because if thanks were not in the meaning of praise, it would be an error to derive from praise something other than its meaning and other than its wording. (2)

If someone says to us: What is the reason for prefixing the definite article "al-" to "praise" (al-ḥamd)? And why was it not said: "Praise (ḥamdan) to God, Lord of the worlds"?

It is said: The inclusion of the definite article "al-" in "praise" (al-ḥamd) conveys a meaning that a speaker's statement "Praise" (ḥamdan), omitting the definite article, does not convey. That is because their inclusion in "praise" indicates that its meaning is (3): all praises and complete thanks belong to God. If they were omitted from it, it would indicate nothing except that the praise of the speaker of that is for God, to the exclusion of all praises. For the meaning of a speaker's statement "Praise to God" (ḥamdan lillāh) or "Praise is for God" (ḥamdun lillāh) is:

Notes

(1) See what we wrote earlier (126) regarding the meaning of "there is no incompatibility."
(2) Scholars have discussed refuting what Abū Jaʿfar held—that "praise" and "gratitude" are synonymous, and that one may be used in place of the other, which is also the position held by al-Mubarrad. See al-Qurṭubī (1/116) and Ibn Kathīr (1/42). [Ibn Kathīr] erred in citing al-Qurṭubī, thinking he argued for the correctness of al-Ṭabarī's view, which is an illusion. What al-Ṭabarī said has a stronger proof and is more deeply rooted in Arabic than those who contradicted him. His statement "the verbal noun of ushkir" and his statement "that it proceed from praise" mean the absolute object. See what preceded (117, note 1).
(3) In the printed edition: "based on its meaning being"; they introduced an alteration to it.

This translation was produced with AI assistance and is part of an ongoing human-review process. Found a mistake? Use the feedback option in the reader menu.

Arabic (Source)

قال أبو جعفر: ولا تَمانُع بين أهل المعرفة بلغات العرب من الحُكْم (١) ، لقول القائل: "الحمد لله شكرًا" - بالصحة. فقد تبيّن - إذْ كان ذلك عند جميعهم صحيحًا - أنّ الحمد لله قد يُنطق به في موضع الشكر، وأن الشكر قد يوضع موضعَ الحمد. لأن ذلك لو لم يكن كذلك، لما جاز أن يُقال "الحمد لله شكرًا"، فيُخْرِج من قول القائل "الحمد لله" مُصَدَّرَ: "أشكُرُ"، لأن الشكر لو لم يكن بمعنى الحمد، كان خطأ أن يُصَدَّرَ من الحمد غيرُ معناه وغير لفظه. (٢)فإن قال لنا قائل: وما وجه إدخال الألف واللام في الحمد؟ وهلا قيل: حمدًا لله رب العالمين؟قيل: إن لدخول الألف واللام في الحمد، معنى لا يؤديه قول القائل "حَمْدًا"، بإسقاط الألف واللام. وذلك أن دخولهما في الحمد مُنْبِئٌ عن أن معناه (٣) : جميعُ المحامد والشكرُ الكامل لله. ولو أسقطتا منه لما دَلّ إلا على أنّ حَمْدَ قائلِ ذلك لله، دون المحامد كلها. إذْ كان معنى قول القائل: "حمدًا لله" أو "حمدٌ لله":

Notes

(١) انظر ما كتبناه آنفًا: ١٢٦ عن معنى "لا تمانع".(٢) تكلم العلماء في نقض ما ذهب إليه أبو جعفر من أن "الحمد والشكر" بمعنى، وأن أحدهما يوضع موضع الآخر، وهو ما ذهب إليه المبرد أيضًا. انظر القرطبي ١: ١١٦، وابن كثير ١: ٤٢، وأخطأ النقل عن القرطبي، فظنه استدل لصحة قول الطبري، وهو وهم. والذي قاله الطبري أقوى حجة وأعرق عربية من الذين ناقضوه. وقوله "مصدر أشكر"، وقوله "أن يصدر من الحمد"، يعني به المفعول المطلق. وانظر ما مضى: ١١٧، تعليق: ١.(٣) في المطبوعة: "مبني على أن معناه"، أدخلوا عليه التبديل.