to “whoever.” Thus, if one says, “Successful indeed is the person who purifies it,” the subject pronoun in “purifies it” refers back to “whoever.” This is the unquestionably sound construction, just as one says, “Successful indeed is whoever fears Allah,” or, “Successful indeed is whoever obeys his Lord.”

If, however, the meaning were “Successful indeed is whoever Allah has purified,” there would no longer be any pronoun in the clause referring back to “whoever.” On this interpretation, the subject pronoun refers to Allah, who is not the referent of “whoever,” while the object pronoun refers to the soul previously mentioned. Thus neither the subject pronoun nor the object pronoun refers back to “whoever.” The relative clause would therefore lack a pronoun referring back to its antecedent, which is impermissible.

Admittedly, had it said, “Successful indeed is whoever Allah has purified his soul,” or, “whoever Allah has purified it for,” or something similar, the construction would have been sound. It is astonishing that this escaped those grammarians who advocated that interpretation.

He did not say, “Successful indeed is a soul He has purified.” In that case, “He has purified” would be an adjectival clause describing “a soul,” rather than a relative clause. Instead, He said:

“Successful indeed is the one who purifies it.”

The clause is therefore a relative clause attached to “whoever,” not an adjective describing it.

Nor did He say, “Successful indeed is the soul which He has purified.” Had that been said, with the subject pronoun in “has purified it” referring back to Allah’s name, the construction would have been sound.

If, then, they force the interpretation and say that the implied meaning of “Successful indeed is the one who purifies it” is “the soul which He has purified,” and argue that the object pronoun in “purifies” refers back to “whoever,” which can refer to both masculine and feminine