Tasheel al-Nahw ver 2.1 – Several updates to the 2nd Online edition

Assalam ‘alaykum,

Mawlana Omar Salejee of Madrasah In’amiyyah, Camperdown, South Africa has pointed out a number of issues in Tasheel al-Nahw‘s 2nd online edition. May Allah reward him abundantly for his efforts. I have fixed these and updated the file. I am calling the new file “ver 2.1” because of the number of changes. I am also deleting the previous file from the website. From now on, only ver 2.1 will be available at this website.

Tasheel alNahw ver 2.1 updated

For those who have already printed out their copies of Tasheel al-Nahw, I am listing these issues below so that you can fix them manually.

  1. Page 11, 10th line from the top. The correct translation is: Twelve men came. (not ‘eleven’).
  2. Page 11, the last example on the page. The word الأمين should have a hamzah qat’iyyah after the alif-laam.
  3. Page 46, number 2.ii. The singular feminine (تَعَالَيْ) gets a fathah on the laam, not a kasrah
  4. Page 63, note number 1. The correct pronunciation of the word is سَمَاعِي (with a fathah on the س, not a kasrah).
  5. Page 65, 7th last line. The correct pronunciation of the word is سَمَاعِي (with a fathah on the س, not a kasrah).
  6. Page 69. The correct definition of jam’ kathrah is: It is a plural, which denotes a number from 3 to unlimited. (not ‘ten upwards’).
  7. Page 70, table 3.4, last line. The word أكبر cannot be given a tanween since it is ghayr munsarif. It should be replaced with a dammah.
  8. Page 75, Example 4 of naa’ib faa’il. The correct spelling is رُئِيَتِ الشَّمْسُ and رُئِيَ الشَّمْسُ.
  9. Page 92, 6th last line. The correct translation of the example will be: The people came except a donkey. (not ‘the donkey’)
  10. Page 105, under the explanation of ‘faa’. The words ‘slight delay’ should be removed from the definition of faa. The new definition will be “It shows sequence.”
  11. Page 108, regarding the terminology used in the sentence analysis of both the examples. The taabi’ in this case can also be called ‘bayaan‘ and the matboo’ can be called ‘mubayyan’. These labels have been added.
  12. Page 109, the word ابتداء appears in three places on this page. They have all been written incorrectly with hamzah qat’iyyah. The hamzah qat’iyyah needs to be removed, since this hamzah is wasliyyah not qat’iyyah.
  13. Page 118, table 4.4. The spelling of the first word in the first example is not correct. It should be أَرَيْتُ, instead of أَرَأَيْتُ.
  14. Page 132, number 2, the first example and number 3, the first 4 examples. An alif-laam needs to be added to the dual and plural forms of Zayd to keep them ma’rifah.
  15. Page 132, number 3, first example on the right hand side. The alif at the end of the word أعلموا needs to be removed.
  16. Page 140, second line of number 11. The hamzah qat’iyyah needs to be removed from the word ابتداء since it is a hamzah wasliyyah

27 thoughts on “Tasheel al-Nahw ver 2.1 – Several updates to the 2nd Online edition

  1. Hi, do I have permission to sell this book as printed for non-profit. Just charge them for the print price, because I want to get it professionally printed and I don’t believe there’s a printed version of this book available.

    • Brother Zakir: is this available to buy. I am in the UK and require a large number of copies for Students of Knowledge. Jazakallah

  2. By all means. As the file itself says “Make as many copies as you want” and bind them and sell them, as long as you don’t change the text.


    • thank you. I have tried searching for that font on google just now, I couldn’t find it. Can you please send me the .ttf font file. JazakAllah.

  3. Salaam. I have spotted which seems like another minor mistake – however it may not be.
    Can you have a look at page 79 of the PDF: In the last row of the table it says الْمُتَكَّلِمِ should it be الْمُتَكَلِّمِ? Please also send me your email address as it will be easier to communicate.

  4. Aside from the mistakes mentioned above, the usage of terms is quite inconsistent. There is intermittent swapping of English and Arabic terms without any indication, i.e., in one place the Arabic/English is used, in another place the English only is used while in another Arabic only is used (this is just one example of the style issues in this book). I’ve had several students who have become severely confused due to this style.

    I don’t mean to discredit the obvious hard work that has went into this but wouldn’t it have been better to get this fully reviewed (perhaps by other scholars, peers) and made rock solid before spreading it around? … especially given the number of mistakes and typos.

    If we lower the standards of our published materials to this level, I’m afraid that reflects poorly on our scholarship.

    • Jazak Allah khayran for your feedback, and sorry for the extremely late response.

      A few points to consider:
      1. As I had mentioned in the Foreword to the first edition, this is a work in progress. This is why I never published it in print format. The purpose of sharing it online was to get people’s feedback, and the text continues to improve based upon the feedback I receive from different people, students and teachers alike. Getting those people who are not otherwise using the text to give me feedback was very difficult. Besides the best feedback is the one that comes from those who are actually using the text in class.

      2. As for the style issues, general statements cannot help me much. I am not teaching the text these days. If you could provide me specific instances of where Arabic-English switching has caused a problem, I can fix it. Also, it should be kept in mind that as I state in the foreword, the Arabic terms should be the main focus, and English equivalents are provided merely as approximations.

      3. As I state in the Foreword, this text requires previous knowledge of Arabic. I’m not sure if your students have studied any Arabic before. If they haven’t, then that could also be a factor in their difficulties.

      In any case, thank you very much for your concern, and I look forward to receiving information about specific instances of problems that you and your students encountered. You can also contact me at ainbay97@gmail.com


  5. Asalamu alaykum,
    In point number 14 above:
    Page 132, number 2, the first example and number 3, the first 4 examples. An alif-laam needs to be added to the dual and plural forms of Zayd to keep them ma’rifah.

    It says an alif laam needs to be added to the first 4 examples in number 3. I have the latest edition of the book 2.1 with all the errors updated. In point number 3 only 2 examples have an alif laam added to Zaid, not the 4 is it perhaps a mistake from your side.
    Also, I am sure that your saying in one of the points that the simaiy needs a fatha on the seen not a kasrah is also incorrect. Because I have seen it in plenty of Nahw kitabs written like that. Put aside the idea that they are all printing errors. A mufti I know who is well known and is well grounded in his nahw has it written like that in his nahw book and he is a man of precision.
    I have been taught nahw by many teachers and it has always been simaiy.

    • Wa ‘alaykum assalam.

      Thanks for your comments. You are right, alif-laam should be added to all four examples. I have fixed the file.

      As for the correct pronunciation of sama’i, I had been taught sima’i as well, which is why I had used it in the earlier editions. However, once it was pointed out to me that sama’i is the correct pronunciation, I looked it up in various dictionaries, and yes, it is actually sama’i. You can look up in the dictionaries yourself. As for the esteemed Mufti sahib and your other teachers, if they have an actual evidence for it to be sima’i, then by all means follow that and do share the evidence with me as well. However, citing various ‘ulama’s use of sima’i is not evidence enough. Some mistakes can become common among ‘ulama especially when it is not something that important.


      • Asalamu Alaykum,
        I have checked in the dictionary and indeed it is. I will ask him about this because I do know him personally and if he does give evidence I will get back to you.
        Also, one more thing about the Jama’ Kathra you changed it to mean 3 upwards when before it was 10 upwards. Can you please reference a kitab for it being 3 upwards? I may be wrong again but I have known it to be 10 upwards. Even in Hidayatun Nahw it says so in Faslun fil Majmu’ under Jam’u Kathra.
        For the Jam’u Qillah could you please give a reference book for 3-10. I know this is the case but I can’t find it at the moment. I remember the distinction between Jam’u Qillah and Jama’ Kathra was Kathra was above ten and the other was under ten.
        Correct me if I’m wrong because I don’t consider myself an expert. I’m just investigating the actual facts to solidify my own knowledge and make sure my understanding is correct. I’m open to discussion. Please provide references.
        JazakAllah Khair

  6. Point 3 on page 23: would it better to say that if Jarr Majroor appear immediately after Inna and its Akhawaat, they will be treated as the Khabar and not the Ism of Inna/Akhawaat. The way the sentence is currently phrased in the book gives the impression that if you intend using jarr majroor in the sentence, it must (necessarily) appear immediately after Inna.

  7. السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاتة
    I thought jam kathra was from 11 to unlimited? But I understand that the Indians,deobandis etc, have a different way of learning and teaching arabic than actual Arabs so please lmk about this type of plural

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s