Ibn Malik's Alfiyyah between Ibn al-Nazim and Ibn Hisham (A Comparative Study)

Abstract

Now, after this journey of research, study, and comparison, I present a set of conclusions I have reached through this study, which are: 1 - The commentators’ position on the arrangement of the chapters of Alfiyyah: Both of them maintained the sequence of its chapters as Ibn Malik arranged them, starting with the chapter on speech and what it consists of and ending with the chapter on assimilation. However, Ibn Hisham modified the wording of the titles of some of the chapters, and altered their names. 2 - The commentators' position on the verses of Alfiyya: Ibn al-Nazim included all the verses of Alfiyya, starting with the opening verse and ending with its conclusion. However, he excluded the first two verses and the last four verses that concluded it from the commentary. Meanwhile, Ibn Hisham refrained from listing the verses of Alfiyya, and did not include even a single verse in his commentary. 3 - The Qur’anic evidence: According to Ibn al-Nazim, they amounted to four hundred and eighty-nine (489) verses, forty-three (43) of which are repeated, while according to Ibn Hisham, they amounted to six hundred and forty (640) verses, seventy-one (71) of which are repeated. It is clear that they took the readings as a source for proving the rules contained in the Alfiyya - like other commentators on it, and the examples of that are many and there is no room to mention them in this place. 4 - Evidence of the Noble Prophetic Hadith: Ibn al-Nazim included in his commentary (41) forty-one hadiths, and through our examination of the commentary, we find that Ibn al-Nazim referred to the hadiths with clear expressions. Ibn Hisham included in his commentary, The Clearest Paths (36) thirty-six hadiths, and he did not refer to the hadiths with clear expressions, so he referred to them as hadiths in places, and he mentioned them in many places during his commentary without indicating that they were hadiths. 5 - Poetic evidence: The poetic evidence in Ibn Al-Nazim’s commentary reached (679) six hundred and seventy-nine witnesses, while in Ibn Hisham’s commentary it reached (561) five hundred and sixty-one witnesses.