Part 3 - Investigation of the Statements of Scholars Regarding the Letter ض and its Pronunciation

Part 3 – Investigation of the Statements of Scholars Regarding the Letter ض and its Pronunciation

September 4, 2025

28–42 minutes

In the way of statements of scholars, the proponents of the Ṭāʾī ض had very little to hold on to in support of their view. The only thing they used in this respect was a description given by Ibn Sīnā of the pronunciation of the letter ض in a treatise on the pronunciation of letters, claiming that it provided proof that the Ṭāʾī ض was present as a dialectical variation among Arabs since early times. In reality, Ibn Sīnā’s statement does not prove their claim at all, but it does provide information that can be useful. First, it should be noted that although Ibn Sīnā is not considered a major authority in the language, nor is he an authority in tajwīd at all, he is considered to be a reference to a certain extent on this topic of pronunciation of letters by other scholars. For example, Ibn al-Jazarī makes reference to his classification of the mak͟hārij of the letters in an-Nas͟hr.[1]

As for the relevant aspect of Ibn Sīnā’s description of the ض, then it is that he describes it as occurring from a total trapping of sound or air followed by a single release, placing the letters ب ت ج د ض ط ق ك ل م ن in this category.[2] He describes these letters as sharing in the fact that they occur at the moment between the trapping and release, in contrast to the other category in which the remaining letters are placed, which have an incomplete trapping of air/sound and their sound continues across the time in which the trapping and release are both occurring.

The supporters of the Ṭāʾī ض argued that this can only refer to their ض, and that Ibn Sīnā’s comment “in a way” after mentioning the ض indicates it was a dialectical variation from the ض mentioned by Sībawayhi and others. This reasoning does not stand up to deeper investigation, as we find that Ibn Sīnā categorized the mak͟hraj of the ض in the same relative place that the rest of scholars categorize it, mentioning it after the letters of the middle of the tongue (ش and ج) and before any of the letters of the tip of the tongue, rather than mentioning it with the location of ت د ط. Ibn Sīnā even states that the mak͟hraj of the ض is close to that of ج, and none of these things align with the claim that the Ṭāʾī ض is intended, despite the fact that he does not describe the mak͟hraj of the ض in much detail. A much more reasonable interpretation of Ibn Sīnā’s comment “in a way” is that it refers to the ض not trapping air/sound in exactly the same manner as the rest of these letters, which explains why he also makes this same comment after the mention of ل م ن.

Considering the more likely interpretation of Ibn Sīnā’s comments, and his indications of the mak͟hraj of the ض, Ibn Sīnā’s statements can only be reconciled with the mutawātir pronunciation of the ض, and not with the Ṭāʾī ض or the Ẓāʾī ض. It would indeed be absurd for anyone to consider the Ẓāʾī ض, which has intense rak͟hāwah according to its proponents, as a letter where the sound is fully trapped, and we have also seen that Ibn Sīnā’s classification of the mak͟hraj of the ض does not align with that of the Ṭāʾī ض.

It is necessary to reconcile Ibn Sīnā’s classification of complete trapping of air/sound with the classification of the ض as a letter of rak͟hāwah by the majority of scholars. This reconciliation can only be done with the mutawātir pronunciation of ض, and this leads us to understand Ibn Sīnā’s comment “in a way” to refer to the fact that the complete trapping of air/sound is not occurring in the entirety of the mouth for these 4 letters, allowing some sound to flow through other parts of the mouth, and this interpretation is upheld by academics such as ʾAħmad Muk͟htār ʿUmar.[3] Noting Ibn Sīnā’s description of the mak͟hraj of ض as being near and further in front than location of the ج, it is reasonable to conclude that Ibn Sīnā is indicating that the trapping of sound (due to ʾiṭbāq) with the ض happens here with the middle of the tongue adhering to the palate, while some sound would still flow elsewhere, between the tongue and the side teeth. This understanding and reconciliation aligns perfectly with the mutawātir pronunciation of the ض.

Although the proofs that have already been brought against the Ṭāʾī ض are more than sufficient to establish its invalidity, we even have statements of past scholars explicitly condemning it. For example, aṣ-Ṣafāqusī[4] and ʿAlī al-Qārī[5] mention ض being pronounced mixed with ط and without using the proper mak͟hraj as one of the mistaken pronunciations that was found among people, making reference to at-Tamhīd by Ibn al-Jazarī. Ibn al-Jazarī also mentions in an-Nas͟hr that such errors came from non-Arabs and became the habit of the Nabateans, also spreading to some Arabs, due to people not relying upon trustworthy knowledgeable scholars.[6]

He even mentions one such error of the Nabateans being the pronunciation of ذ as[7] د, which is the same improper dialectical variation that the Egyptian dialectical pronunciation of ظ and ض, which is the Ṭāʾī ض, comes from. It should be noted that the statement in at-Tamhīd must be taken to refer to the unlearned lay-Egyptians who were the majority of the Egyptians Ibn al-Jazarī encountered in Damascus, and not to the scholars of Egypt who he himself learned under and took ʾijāzah from. Ibn an-Najjār, a student of Ibn al-Jazarī, also condemns the Ṭāʾī ض found among many Egyptians in his treatise on the letter[8] ض. It also must be noted that despite the fact that the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض use these statements as arguments against the known ض, we find that Ibn an-Najjār and Ibn al-Jazarī condemn those who use the Ṭāʾī ض for reasons that apply entirely to the proponents of the current Ẓāʾī ض. They mention that the proper pronunciation of ض must be directly learned from reliable scholars, and that the Ṭāʾī ض came about because its followers did not take from knowledgeable scholars, and instead based their pronunciation on their own opinions.

Now onto the Ẓāʾī ض, the first thing that must be investigated is the fact that past scholars put a special focus on pointing out the difference between the ض and ظ, both in pronunciation and in the words/roots in which they differ, and also on the ruling of the one who replaces a ض with a ظ in the recitation of their prayer. The focus given by scholars on the ض and ظ in these respects was not given to any other two letters, and the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض argue that this can only be due to their extreme similarity and difficulty, in such a way that cannot apply to the mutawātir ض. To get to the bottom of this issue, we first must have a deeper investigation into the relation between ض and ظ and the historical situation, such that a clear conclusion can be drawn. When looking at the relationship between ض and ظ, we find 3 important things:

The ض is the most difficult Arabic letter to pronounce, and although this is especially true for non-Arabs, even Arabs often have difficulty with it. The proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض argue that this cannot be the case for the mutawātir ض among scholars of the Qurʾān, claiming that it is not difficult at all to pronounce. This is an entirely ridiculous claim, and stems from their false attribution of the Ṭāʾī ض, which is indeed not significantly difficult to pronounce, to the masses of the most scholars of the Qurʾān across the world. As for the properly pronounced mutawātir ض, then it is just as difficult, if not even more difficult to pronounce than the Ẓāʾī ض.
The ض and ظ are similar in sound and pronunciation and ṣifāt, and ظ is the closest letter to ض. This remains true even if they are different enough to be distinguishable by ear to listeners, and the objection of the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض that they should sound almost identical has no weight here. When all the factors are considered, there is no need for them to be practically identical in sound to explain the special focus scholars gave to these 2 letters. Even under the view of the known ض among scholars being correct, it is not far fetched at all to say that ض and ظ when pronounced with full precision are the closest 2 letters in the Arabic language in sound, more than any other pair of letters. Indeed, there is no other pair of letters that have a higher chance of being audibly confused, as can be attested to by anyone who regularly listens to the recitations of well learned scholars of the Qurʾān.
The ض and ظ look very similar in the Arabic script of the past, and scholars such as ʾAbū ʿUbaydah[9] and al-Jaʿbarī[10] mention that the only difference between them in script was the head of the ظ being slightly more extended than that of the ض.

In terms of relevant historical factors, we also find 3 main things:

Even since the pre-Islamic period, many Arabs had dialects that would pronounce ض as ظ, or commonly switch the letters around.
Many non-Arabs were entering into ʾIslām at this time, who had significant difficulty pronouncing Arabic letters. This would be exacerbated with an especially difficult letter like ض, and people would pronounce it as the closest sound they were capable of pronouncing.
All major dialects of colloquial Arabic ended up combining the pronunciation of ض into their respective pronunciation of ظ.

Considering all this information, it is clear that the situation with ض and ظ is special compared to that of all other letters, as no other letters share even the majority of these factors that would lead to scholars giving them such attention. Consequently, there is no need to resort to the Ẓāʾī ض to explain this, and it is clearly justified for scholars to have given special attention to discussing the distinction between ض and ظ and the rulings relating to it, even under the view of the mutawātir ض being correct.

Moving on from this, we now must investigate the statements of scholars in relation to the pronunciation of the ض directly. We will focus on 3 main areas of discrepancy between the Ẓāʾī ض and the mutawātir ض:

The first area of investigation will be the relationship between the mak͟hraj of ض and the mak͟hraj of ظ.
The second will be the discrepancies in ṣifāt between the ض and the ظ.
The final matter will be the question of whether ض and ظ ought to be clearly audibly distinct or not.

First, before getting into the relationship between the mak͟hraj of ض and the mak͟hraj of ظ, we must recall the criticisms of the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض against the mutawātir ض in terms of mak͟hraj from the first section. They either claim that the mutawātir ض is pronounced from the tip of the tongue with the roots of the front teeth as is the case with ط د ت, or claim that the mutawātir ض incorrectly combines the true mak͟hraj of ض with involvement from the mak͟hraj of ط د ت. One of the points some mention in this respect is to point out that in diagrams such as the one shown in the beginning of the first section, it is mentioned that the tip of the tongue is to be placed in front of the front teeth and alveolar ridge without pressure, and they argue that there should be no reason to mention this if the mutawātir ض is not being pronounced from the mak͟hraj of ض.

As mentioned in the first section, the mak͟hraj of the mutawātir ض is indeed the side of the tongue together with the molars, and the pronunciation of the letter also has an important involvement from the middle of the tongue and the palate, whereas the tip of the tongue and front teeth are not involved in its pronunciation. The involvement of the middle of the tongue and palate does not contradict the fact that its mak͟hraj is still the side of the tongue with the molars, as the sound of the letter still ends at its proper mak͟hraj.

The involvement of the middle of the tongue and palate is simply the application of its ʾiṭbāq, as countless scholars, including Sībawayhi, mention that every letter of ʾiṭbāq involves 2 different parts of the tongue and that ʾiṭbāq entails the restriction of a letter’s sound.[11] Scholars like ar-Raḍī al-Astarābād͟hī also mention that while the side of the tongue adheres to the side teeth when pronouncing ض, the rest of the tongue adheres to the palate.[12] Furthermore, scholars such as al-K͟halīl and Ibn Sīnā, as has been seen prior, considered the mak͟hraj of ض to be the middle of the tongue with the palate, slightly further forward than the mak͟hraj of ج, and Ibn Sīnā further described the ض in a way that cannot possibly align with the Ẓāʾī ض and can only be reconciled with the mutawātir ض. Although such classifications are not to be considered correct, they are clearly indicative of the importance of the middle of the tongue and palate in the pronunciation of ض. With respect to the tip of the tongue and the front teeth, we find that Sībawayhi even mentions explicitly that the tip of the tongue rests near the mak͟hraj of ط when ض is pronounced.[13]

Moving on now to the Ẓāʾī ض, we must now also recall the arguments against it in terms of mak͟hraj from the first section. It was criticized for incorrectly mixing part of the mak͟hraj of ظ (the top front 2 teeth) into the pronunciation of ض, the mak͟hraj of which is not supposed to extend any further than the mak͟hraj of ل (which is above the canine). Besides direct observation in pronunciation, this could be noted by pressing the tip of the tongue at the front teeth to block sound from being produced there, leading to the sound of the Ẓāʾī ض immediately ceasing, or placing the finger in front of the front teeth to observe that air can be felt coming out from their location when pronouncing the Ẓāʾī ض. We will now observe that many of the scholarly proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض actually acknowledged that their pronunciation of ض connected with or included part of the mak͟hraj of ظ, and even claimed this to be correct. We will also compare this to the statements of past authoritative scholars on the mak͟hraj of ض, in terms of how far it extends and how it relates to the mak͟hraj of ظ.

In his treatise on the pronunciation of ض, Sīdī Bābā, one of the main early proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض in S͟hinqīṭ, quotes and affirms a statement from a scholar referred to as al-Wadg͟hīrī, who states that ظ and ض are “extremely close in mak͟hraj and ṣifāt, rather they share in part of the mak͟hraj and the bulk of the ṣifāt.”[14]

A page of Arabic text discussing the phonetic characteristics of Arabic letters, particularly focusing on the differences between the letters ض and ظ, with highlighted sections emphasizing key points.

Muħammad Nimr an-Nāblusi, a scholar supporting the Ẓāʾī ض who is quoted by ʿUbayd Allāh al-ʾAfg͟hānī, states in his treatise on the pronunciation of the ض that the mak͟hraj of ض and the mak͟hraj of ظ are directly (physically) connected to each other.[15]

A scholarly text in Arabic discussing the pronunciation differences between the Arabic letters ض and ظ, exploring historical and linguistic claims and providing references to various scholars.

Finally, ʿUbayd Allāh al-ʾAfg͟hānī himself, in one of his treatises on the relationship between ض and ظ, says that ض and ظ are identical in ṣifāt and close in mak͟hraj, and then claims that some scholars even said they have the same mak͟hraj, except that the mak͟hraj of ض extends further than that of[16] ظ. Elsewhere in his treatises, he makes other statements seeming to allude to this plainly false claim of ض and ظ being connected in mak͟hraj.[17]

A close-up view of an Arabic text discussing the relationship between the letters ض and ظ, highlighting scholarly opinions on pronunciation and phonetic analysis, with sections of the text emphasized in yellow for clarity.

In contrast to the claims of these supporters of the Ẓāʾī ض, objective investigation of the statements of scholars of the past can only lead to the conclusion that they had absolute consensus that ض and ظ do not share or connect at all in mak͟hraj. For example, Ibn ʾUmm Qāsim explicitly states there is no connection between the mak͟hraj of ض and that of[18] ظ, and scholars such as Ibn ʿĀbidīn (quoting from at-Tatārk͟hāniyyah, which quotes from al-Ħāwī),[19] al-Jaʿbarī,[20] az-Zamak͟hs͟harī,[21] Sībawayhi,[22] and others negate closeness in mak͟hraj between ض and ظ or state that they are distant in mak͟hraj, with such statements also being accepted by other scholars who quote or explain their words.

Additionally, it is mass transmitted from past scholars that the istiṭālah of ض only extends up to the end of the edge of the tongue at the mak͟hraj of ل, and scholars such as ar-Raḍī even specify that it only goes up to the beginning of the mak͟hraj of[23] ل. Indeed, the only matter here where difference can be found among the statements of past scholars is whether ض and ظ are close in mak͟hraj or distant in mak͟hraj, and this is not a disagreement carrying substance, since closeness and distance are relative. Although it is true that there is some level of closeness between ض and ظ in mak͟hraj, it is also true that 11 (ذ ث ص س ز ط د ت ر ن ل) out of the 29 letters of the Arabic language are closer in mak͟hraj to ظ than ض is, indicating that their closeness in mak͟hraj is not very high in an overall sense. For that matter, ط د ت are actually physically closer in mak͟hraj to ض than ظ is, being in between the two in mak͟hraj.

Further investigation of the words of past scholars also leads to the observation that they have actually explicitly mentioned the error that leads to the Ẓāʾī ض. Many past scholars made note of a pronunciation error which they called the Weak ض, which was a pronunciation of ض that mixed its correct mak͟hraj with that of the letters of the tip of the tongue such as ظ. As the name suggests, scholars describe it as a pronunciation which weakened the ṣifāt of the ض such as its ʾiṭbāq, thereby making it closer to ظ in strength, and mixed between the mak͟hraj of ض and ظ, due to inability to pronounce ض precisely from its proper mak͟hraj. These aspects of mixing the ض with ظ in mak͟hraj and in weakening of ṣifāt within the Weak ض are mentioned by numerous scholars, including as-Sīrāfī (explaining the words of Sībawayhi),[24] Ibn Yaʿīs͟h (copying from as-Sīrāfī),[25] ʾAbū ʿAlī al-Fārsī, Ibn K͟harrūs͟h (as quoted from them by scholars such as Ibn ʿAqīl and ʾAbū Ħayyān),[26] Ibn al-Ħājib,[27] and al-Jārabardī (copying from Ibn al-Ħājib).[28] Indeed, it would be very difficult to even conceive of the Weak ض as a distinct entity if the Ẓāʾī ض were correct, as the Ẓāʾī ض and ظ are already nearly identical in sound, leaving practically no room for a distinct intermediate pronunciation. As can be clearly observed, the description of the Weak ض applies perfectly to the Ẓāʾī ض when taking the understanding that the mutawātir ض is correct, and even aligns with the admissions of many supporters of the Ẓāʾī ض about aspects of their pronunciation.

This now brings us to the 2nd issue, which the discrepancy between ض and ظ in ṣifāt. We must first note another claim made by the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض that can be seen in these statements and others, which is the claim that ض and ظ are identical in ṣifāt. Besides the fact that ض has the ṣifah of istiṭālah that is not present for ظ, this claim is also misleading in that it neglects the fact that ظ and ض have discrepancies in the levels and intensities of all of the ṣifāt that they share. As observed from the statements of scholars about the Weak ض, one of its characteristic traits is the weakening of its ṣifāt, especially its ʾiṭbāq, such that it becomes closer in strength to ظ (together with the mixing with the mak͟hraj of ظ). This is means that the increased strength of the ض over the ظ includes the discrepancy in the intensities of their ṣifāt, and that neglecting these discrepancies is one of the two major aspects that lead to the error of the Weak ض. We must now proceed to demonstrate the discrepancy in the intensity of each shared ṣifah between the ض and the ظ.

The first shared ṣifah to be discussed between ض and ظ is their jahr, referring to the trapping of air flow as a consequence of the strength of reliance on the mak͟hraj. Proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض tend to hold a view that jahr cannot vary in level between letters, but this claim goes against the apparent consensus of past scholars. In terms of intensity of this ṣifah, ض exceeds ظ, and in fact also exceeds all other letters that share both jahr and rak͟hāwah in the intensity of its jahr. Ibn al-Ħājib is one of those who notes this explicitly, and comments on an obscure and mistaken view that all of the letters of rak͟hāwah are letters of hams by saying that “if he had said that they (ض ظ ذ ز ع غ ي) were in between the letters of jahr and those of hams it would have been more reasonable, although the ض is far from having hams.”[29] Many other scholars like Makkī[30] and al-Qasṭalānī[31] note that the levels of jahr and hams of letters vary based on the presence of other strong ṣifāt in those letters. Although they do not mention ض specifically, it is clear that this principle applies to it, as the ض indeed has more strong ṣifāt than ظ, and for that matter has even more strong ṣifāt than all other letters of jahr excluding ط (although ق could be argued to be equal to ض).

Next, for ʾiṭbāq, we observe that ظ is the weakest of the 4 letters of ʾiṭbāq in this ṣifah, while ض is the 2nd strongest after ط. The fact that ظ is the weakest of the letters of ʾiṭbāq is mentioned by numerous scholars, such as Makkī[32] and Ibn al-Jazarī,[33] who also note that the strongest of them is ط, and that ض and ص are in between the other 2 in intensity of ʾiṭbāq. It should be noted that this does not mean that ض and ص are equivalent in ʾiṭbāq, but only that they are both intermediate with respect to the 2 far ends. The fact that ض is stronger in ʾiṭbāq is clearly indicated by the justifications these scholars mentioned with these rankings, as they justified the stronger ʾiṭbāq of ط by the presence and intensity of other strong ṣifāt like jahr and s͟hiddah in it, and the weaker ʾiṭbāq of ظ by its more intense rak͟hāwah and the forward deviation of the tongue with its pronunciation. Considering the totality of the ṣifāt of ض and ص, it becomes clear that ض is significantly stronger than ص, and must have stronger ʾiṭbāq, and this fact is noted by contemporary scholars such as ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Qārī, who lists the order of the letters of ʾiṭbāq in terms of the strength of the ṣifah.[34] Since stronger intensity of ʾiṭbāq directly and necessarily entails stronger intensity of istiʿlāʾ,[35] there is no need to mention istiʿlāʾ directly, and it is already established that ض is stronger in istiʿlāʾ than ظ.

One of the criticisms of the mutawātir ض by the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض is that its ʾiṭbāq is excessively strong and too close to that of ط, and such ʾiṭbāq only belongs with letters of s͟hiddah. An example of this criticism can be found in al-Wadg͟hīrī’s statement that is quoted by Sīdī Bābā in his treatise, where al-Wadg͟hīrī claims that it is wrong for the tongue to adhere to the palate when pronouncing ض, as this form of ʾiṭbāq is only applicable to letters of s͟hiddah like ط. This criticism has no weight, as ʾiṭbāq itself is defined by adherence of the tongue to the palate, and this information can easily be found by consultation of any books on the topic, such as Zakariyyā al-ʾAnṣārī’s explanation of al-Jazariyyah.[36] Furthermore, as already noted, scholars like ar-Raḍī al-Astarābād͟hī even explicitly state that the rest of the tongue that is not adhering to the side teeth should adhere to the palate when pronouncing[37] ض, and this is not applied in pronunciation of the Ẓāʾī ض. The distinction between the ʾiṭbāq of ط and that of the other 3 letters is that the ʾiṭbāq of ط is complete and prevents any flow of sound or air, whereas this is not the case with any of the other 3 letters. This makes it abundantly clear that the ʾiṭbāq of the mutawātir ض is still distinct and notably less than that of ط.

The final shared ṣifah that must be compared directly between ض and ظ is the ṣifah of rak͟hāwah. The first thing to be noted here is that while discussing the topic of ʾidg͟hām, Sībawayhi explicitly mentions that the rak͟hāwah of ظ is greater than that of[38] ص. He explains this by mentioning that the tongue extends further out with ظ, such that it goes out past the front teeth, while this does not occur with ص. When we consider this justification, and the discrepancies in levels of other ṣifāt, the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that ض has less rak͟hāwah than both ص and ظ. This can be summarized through 3 reasons:

The mak͟hraj of ض is further back in the mouth than that of both ص and ظ, and also requires a more constricted flow of sound; this is a simple extension of the reasoning of Sībawayhi.
The ʾiṭbāq of ض is stronger than than of both ص and ظ, and ʾiṭbāq necessarily entails constriction and restriction of the flow of sound. As such, stronger ʾiṭbāq also means further constriction of sound flow, and consequently entails weaker rak͟hāwah.
The jahr of ض is stronger than that of both ص (which is a letter of hams) and ظ, and since jahr entails strength of reliance on the mak͟hraj and prevention of air flow, it is only reasonable to consider that this would be considered a factor in ض having weaker rak͟hāwah. This is reaffirmed by the fact that the definitions of jahr and s͟hiddah, which refers to the blocking of sound flow at the mak͟hraj due to strength of adherence to it, are connected in an apparent way.

This reasoning is confirmed by the fact that when comparing the levels of ʾiṭbāq in the 4 letters that have it, scholars connected the weak ʾiṭbāq of the ظ to its rak͟hāwah, which reaffirms both the fact that ظ has stronger rak͟hāwah than ض or ص, and that strength of ʾiṭbāq is directly connected to and correlates with weakness of rak͟hāwah. Further confirmation is also provided by Ibn Sīnā’s classification of ض as a letter where sound flow is trapped, and the mention of ض in sources like the treatise on letters (dated to 579 AH) attributed to Jābir ibn Ħayyān, where it is noted as a letter that contains both s͟hiddah and weak rak͟hāwah, and a description of its pronunciation is given that cannot possibly align with the Ẓāʾī[39] ض. Although those sources are not authoritative, they only serve to provide additional confirmation of what is already established. The final confirmation of this is that Makkī even mentions that being excessive with the rak͟hāwah of ض causes the inadvertent production of a ظ or[40] ذ. Although this passage does not mention the ṣifah of rak͟hāwah by name, the supporters of the Ẓāʾī ض do not dispute that it is indeed referring to rak͟hāwah, and they even use the first half of the passage as proof for the rak͟hāwah of ض, while ignoring the rest of it.

The conclusion that is arrived at here is that the rak͟hāwah of ض is not only less intense than that of ص and ظ, but also by extension less intense than that of all the rest of the letters of rak͟hāwah. This is abundantly clear from the combination of all of these factors, and it is in stark contrast to the claims of the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض on the matter, who are split between either claiming that rak͟hāwah cannot differ between letters, or claiming that the rak͟hāwah of ض is actually more intense than that of other letters of rak͟hāwah. This ridiculous claim is made by Sacaqlı Zāda himself, who classifies letters into 4 groups; the letters of s͟hiddah for which sound cannot be extended at all, the letters of madd for which sound can be extended to the level of an ʾalif, the normal letters of rak͟hāwah for which sound can be extended but are closer to those of s͟hiddah, and the letters of tafas͟hs͟hī for which sound can be extended and are closer to the level of the letters of madd (he refers to this group as containing “ض and the letters of tafas͟hs͟hī”).[41]

A book cover displaying the title 'جلاء العقل' in ornate Arabic script, with a background of textured parchment or paper.

It is also useful to bring up the relation to this topic of the ṣifah of istiṭālah, which is held by ض and no other letter. We know that istiṭālah is a strong ṣifah, and in this way it connects to the increased strength of ض that is intertwined with its discrepant levels of intensity of the ṣifāt that it shares with ظ. Strangely, scholars have seemingly contradictory statements on the cause of the istiṭālah in the ض; whereas some scholars like Sībawayhi[42] and ad-Dānī[43] mention the istiṭālah being caused by the rak͟hāwah of the ض, others like Makkī,[44] Ibn al-Jazarī,[45] and Ibn aṭ-Ṭaħħān[46] say that the istiṭālah is caused by the strength of the ض in its jahr and ʾiṭbāq and istiʿlāʾ. This indeed seems to confirm the increased level of intensity of ض in its strong ṣifāt that it shares with ظ, but it still may require further explanation. A possible understanding that could comprehensively reconcile these statements is to say that the istiṭālah of the ض is what allows for it to have these ṣifāt of strength while also having rak͟hāwah, and that without the proper application of its istiṭālah, either its strong ṣifāt will be weakened, or its rak͟hāwah will not be present. Experimentation with removing the istiṭālah of the ض confirms that this is indeed true.

To conclude from all of these observations about the mak͟hraj and ṣifāt of the ض and the discrepancy with the mak͟hraj and ṣifāt of ظ, it can be summarized that the distinction between ض and ظ in their mak͟hraj and in the istiṭālah of the ض produces differences in intensities of their shared ṣifāt, leading to full distinction between the 2 letters. This explains the fact that many scholars have said that ض and ظ only differ in mak͟hraj and in istiṭālah, and that if it wasn’t for these 2 differences, they would be the same letter. Since the discrepancy in levels of shared ṣifāt between ض and ظ are directly entailed by those 2 differences, this statement is indeed true and causes no problems. This conclusion is further confirmed by the way past scholars have described the incorrect Weak ض, as they connect the mixing of the mak͟hraj of ض with that of ظ with the weakening of the ṣifāt of ض such that it also becomes closer to ظ in the levels of intensity of the ṣifāt they share. Such a conclusion is very problematic for the Ẓāʾī ض, since these observations make the understanding of the Weak ض extremely applicable for that pronunciation, and reconciling these observations and this understanding with the claim that the Ẓāʾī ض is correct is extremely difficult and requires excessively far fetched claims.

The 3rd and final aspect here is the difference in sound between ض and ظ. As has been noted in the very beginning of the first section, the general principle is that all letters in the Arabic language must have their own distinct sounds, and that this is the purpose of their differences in mak͟hārij and ṣifāt. These distinctions, as explained by Makkī, are what allow for useful speech to be formed using these letters, and this differentiates the speech of humans from that of animals.

There are also countless statements by scholars that even state specifically for ض and ظ that their proper pronunciation necessitates that they become distinct in sound. For example, Makkī says[47] that “it is obligatory on a reciter to make the ظ clear so it is distinguished from ض” and that “it is necessary for a reciter to make the ض and then the ظ clear to the listener based on the right of each letter,” and ad-Dānī states[48] that “from among the most certain necessities on reciters is separating it (ض) from ظ” so “a good job must be done of making it clear so that it becomes distinct,” and as-Sak͟hāwī says[49] to “distinguish it with clarity from ظ.” Az-Zamak͟hs͟harī goes even further, saying[50] that “perfecting the differentiation between ض and ظ is obligatory, and knowing the mak͟hraj of each is necessary for a reciter, as the majority of the non-Arabs do not differentiate between the two letters, and even if they did differentiate then with an incorrect differentiation, and between the two is a distant gap.” ʾAbū S͟hāmah also quotes this statement of az-Zamak͟hs͟harī in affirmation of its content.[51]

The proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض accept in principle that ض and ظ should be distinct in sound, but claim that they should be so close that none but the most proficient of the reciters of the Qurʾān are able to distinguish them audibly. This claim clearly goes against the apparent texts of all the aforementioned statements, as it would be absurd to order people to make a clear differentiation between the letters if the distinction is so small that it is indiscernible to the vast majority of people, and it would be even more nonsensical to say there is a distant gap between them. The claim also seems to entirely defeat the purpose of having distinct mak͟hārij and ṣifāt that is mentioned by scholars, as there is very little benefit to having a set of distinct letters which the vast majority of listeners are unable to distinguish. For that matter, it is doubtful that any distinction exists in sound between the Ẓāʾī ض and the ظ that could ever be consistently discerned by anyone solely by ear.

This topic is one that the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض placed a great emphasis on, making it one of the main justifications for their pronunciation, and they justified this claim by the fact that many past scholars mention that ض and ظ are similar in sound, and some even put significant emphasis on this similarity. This is an extremely weak argument, as it is undisputed that the 2 letters are similar in sound, and even unproblematic to say that the ظ and mutawātir ض would be the closest 2 Arabic letters in sound. While the mutawātir ض does not require far fetched reinterpretation of any of these statements, the Ẓāʾī ض requires far fetched reinterpretations of the statements of scholars calling for clear distinction between ض and ظ and stating that there is a wide distance between them. Furthermore, scholars like Ibn ʿĀbidīn, when discussing the letters for which interchanging them does not invalidate prayer according to some scholars, quotes that scholars holding such views placed ض and ظ in the same category as ط and ت or ص and س in terms of similarity and difficulty of distinction.[52] There is no doubt that both of these pairs are clearly distinguishable by ear in the vast majority of cases; rather, even the mutawātir ض is more often difficult to distinguish from ظ than is the case with the other 2 pairs.

The proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض then clung to a statement of Ibn Taymiyyah found in his Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, where he says that “the two letters are a single thing to the hearing, and the sensing of one is from the same genus as the sensing of the other due to their similarity in mak͟hraj.”[53] The irony with this line of argumentation is that for the proponents of the Ẓāʾī ض to uphold their claim of audible distinction between their pronunciation and ظ, they must acknowledge that this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah must be reinterpreted out of its apparent meaning; here, they seek to both have their cake and to eat it.

Granted, they can argue that the apparent of the statement fits more with their view, but this argument has little weight when their view requires giving far fetched reinterpretations to vast swathes of other statements and evidence. For that matter, it is already far more plausible to simply deny that this passage of Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā is accurately recorded/transmitted than it is to deny the mass transmission of the leading scholars of the Qurʾān about the pronunciation of ض. Only an obscenely warped methodology could allow for such an argument to be upheld when weighed against these other factors. In terms of the interpretation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement, then it is likely that he meant that the two letters were so commonly swapped or mixed, in addition to being similar, that a person would know what word is intended even when swapped in recitation of the Qurʾān due to the fact that the two letters were essentially seen and treated as one by most people.

Overall, considering a holistic analysis and thorough investigation of the statements of past scholars, the justification for the Ẓāʾī ض is weak, and many stronger arguments can be made in support of the mutawātir ض. This is in stark contrast to the Ṭāʾī ض, which has practically no evidence at all from the statements of past scholars.

CITATIONS:

[1] – النشر في القراءات العشر لابن الجزري – باب مخارج الحروف

[2] – الدرس الصوتي عند علماء القرن الخامس الهجري – الشدة والرخاوة – ص 145-158

[3] – كتاب البحث اللغوي عند العرب لأحمد مختار عمر – ص107

[4] – تنبيه الغافلين للصفاقسي – ص87

[5] – المنح الفكرية لعلي القاري – ص70

[6] – النشر في القراءات العشر لابن الجزري – فصل في ما تشتركه الحروف وما تنفرد به من الصفات

[7] – النشر في القراءات العشر لابن الجزري – فصل في مواضع تفخيم كل حرف وترقيقه

[8] – غاية المراد لابن النجار

[9] – تفسير الألوسي – سورة التكوير – تفسير قوله تعالى وما هو على الغيب بضنين

[10] – إتحاف فضلاء البشر للبناء الدمياطي – ص574

[11] – شرح الجاربردي على الشافية – ص 365 , الكتاب لسيبويه – ج4 ص436