to the previously mentioned soul, so that neither the subject pronoun nor the object pronoun refers back to “who.” The relative clause would then be left without a resumptive pronoun, and that is impermissible.

Indeed, had it been worded, “Successful indeed is he whose soul Allah Himself purifies,” or, “Successful is the one for whom Allah purifies it,” and the like, the wording would have been correct.

That a point such as this (1) should escape the grammarians who adopted the contrary view is astonishing.

He did not say, “Successful indeed is a soul that He purifies,” for in that case purifies-it would function as an adjective modifying soul, not as a relative clause.

Rather, He said, “Successful indeed is he who purifies it,” so the whole sentence acts as an attribute of “who,” which previously had no attribute (2).

Nor did He say, “Successful indeed is the soul that He purifies,” for had that been said, and the pronoun in purifies-it made to refer to the name of Allah, the construction would have been sound—yet what He actually said was only, “Successful indeed is he who purifies it.” (3)

When, therefore, the proponents of this view indulge in strained interpretation (4) and claim that the intended meaning of “Successful indeed is he who purifies it” is “Successful indeed is he whose soul He purifies,” they allege that there is a hidden subject pronoun in purifies and that the object pronoun refers back to “who.”

They further maintain that “who” (5) is suitable for the masculine, the feminine, the singular, and the plural, so the pronoun may return to its feminine sense, which is only figurative femininity; hence they say: