Abu al-Qasim Mahmud ibn Umar al-Zamakhshari (Arabic: الزمخشري; 1074 –1143) was a medieval Muslim scholar of Iranian descent.

Others like Ibn Khalkan argued that his constant travels in the very cold weather of Khawarizm were the reason for his leg loss.

One of his teachers was Abu Mudhar Mahmoud ibn Jarir Al-Dhabi Al-Asfahani who was called by his peers Fareed Asruh: ‘the most brilliant scholar of his time’.

[10] Al-Qafti (1172–1248) wrote in his book Akhbar Al-Olama ‘Scholars’ Biographies’ that students followed Al-Zamakhsahri wherever he traveled in order to learn from him.

In Samarqand, some of his students were Ahmed ibn Mahmoud Al-Shati, Mohammad bin Abi Al-Qasim Al-Khawarizmi who was referred to as the top poet and syntactician of his time Abu Yusuf Ya’gub bin Ali Al-Balkhi a contributing linguist and poet, and Rashid Al-Din Al-Vatvat, a distinguished scholar in prose and verse.

[3][11] Al-Zamakhshari died in Gurgānj (known now as Konye-Urgench), the capital city of Turkmenistan, on 12 July 1143 AD (Monday, eve of 8th Dhu AlHijjah, 538 AH), aged 69.

Some attributed this linguistic behaviour to his Mu’tazalah philosophical ideas, which freed his soul and encouraged him to have a comprehensive perspective of life.

As in, فمن حدثتموهـ له علينا العلاء ‘the one you told about the priority’, where the 1st object is ‘the one’, the 2nd is the attached pronoun to the verb هـ, and the 3rd is the prepositional phrase.

The book then concludes with two pages where the editor provided a biography about Al-Zamakhshari and praised him as a respected figure whose contributions extended to the religious, linguistic, and literary aspects of life.

[13] This book was a primary source for linguists as well as learners of Arabic and Quran, regardless of its Mu’tazile approach, a rationalist school of Islamic theology in Baghdad and AlBasrah.

[3][7] In this book, Al-Zamakhshari tried to show the beauty and richness of the Arabic language, derive proverbs, explain expressions with multiple meanings, and dive into the science of rhetoric.

Ibn Khaldun (1332 –1406) in Al-Muqadimah ‘The Introduction’ (1377) says that this interrogative style is what made it easier to follow for readers of different educational backgrounds.

[13] After the great fame that this book enjoyed, many scholars wrote commentaries, such as Al-Imam Nasser Al-Deen Ahmed bin Mohammed ibn Al-Mouneer who wrote Al-Intissaf ‘Equality’, Kamal Basha Al-Mufty, Khair Ad-Deen Khidhr Al-A’utufi, Sun’u Allah ibn Ja’afar Al-Mufty and Alam Ad-Deen Abd Al-Kareem bin Ali Al-Iraqi.

This seemed only possible for educated linguists whose language is pure Arabic, and who have achieved a deep knowledge of the different syntactic and semantic relations that different structures could bear.

[14] Knowing that Al-Zamakhshari was a voracious reader, he might have looked at some syntactic books of other great grammarians and might have considered them disorganized.

[9] Thus, he intended to provide a better organization of the syntactic and morphological aspect of Arabic grammar to facilitate understanding, an aim he stated at the beginning of his book.

He also believed that Al-Zamakhshari did not attempt to extensively explain his ideas unless they addressed grammatical issues raised in the Quran or poetry, in which case he provided his readers with detailed explanations.

Jurji Zaydan once wrote in his 1943 book Tarikh Adab Al-Lughah Al-Arabiyyah ‘History of Arabic Language Literature’ that the reason Al-Zamakhshari's Al-Muffassal was accepted by people is that King Issa Ibn Ayyob — who was a syntactician — admired this book and assigned 100 Dinar and a house to whoever memorized it.

It began with an introduction praising God for all his blessings and asking readers to carefully read this book and understand the purpose behind the use of each word.

One of the competing claims about Al-Zamakhshari is his analysis of the co-occurrence of the interrogative prefix /ʔ-/ with the conjunction words in Arabic, especially in Quranic verses.

[9] On the other hand, Abu Hayyan a 10th-century linguist and philosopher agreed with Sibawahi and strongly rejected Al-Zamakhsahri's analysis, and indeed called it the “Zamakhshariyyan trend”.

[17][19] This view seemed to have a supporting piece of evidence because Ibn Hayyan said that Mohammad bin Masoud Al-Ghazni argued for an elided verbal phrase between the interrogative prefix and the conjunction particle, but the literature about this linguist and his analytical approaches seem to be very limited.

When God said that those whom people invoke besides Him will never be able to create a fly even if they gathered together for that purpose: (لن يخلقوا ذباباً) lan ya-khlouq-ou thobab-an NEG PRES-create-3rd PL fly-ACC “They can never create a fly” (The Quran, 22:73) [18] However, some 8th century scholars such as Ibn Hisham believed that Al-Zamakhsari regarded lan as a continuous negation particle because he was deeply influenced by the philosophical ideas of his Mu’tazile approach.

[2] For instance, example (1) above shows how Mu’tazile people believe that they will never be able to see God in the afterlife, and this is the approach Al-Zamakhshari followed in his semantic and syntactic analysis of the Quran.

However, all Muslims (who do not follow the Mu'tazile approach), believe the opposite, as it is actually stated in the Quran that believers will ,indeed, be able to see God:[2][6] وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَاضِرَةٌ * إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ ﴾ [القيامة: 22، 23]﴿ "Some faces, that Day, will beam (in brightness and beauty) * Looking towards their Lord" (The Quran, 75: 22,23) [18] As for lan, Ibn Hisham also had a different opinion, as he regarded it as a normal negative particle that does not bear a continuous negation sense.

When God said about the disbelievers that they will never wish to die:[2] (لن يتمنوه أبداً) Lan ya-tamana-au-hu abad-an NEG PRES-wish-3rd PL-OBJ.PRO never-ACC “They will never long for it” (The Quran, 2:95) [18] In this example, Ibn Hisham argued against Al-Zamakhshari's view because he believed that if lan had a continuous negation sense, then it would be redundant to say abadanan ‘never’ in the same verse, which is never the case.

When God asked Mary to tell people that she vowed a fast unto the Most Gracious (Allah), so she shall not speak to any human being:[2] (فلن أكلم اليوم إنسياً) f-lan u-kalim al-yaoum insiy-an then-NEG 1st SG.PRES-speak DEF-day human-ACC “So, I shall not speak to any human being today” (The Quran, 19:26) [18] In this example, Ibn Hisham also refuted Al-Zamakhshari's view because if lan meant ‘never’, then why its meaning would be constricted by the time adverbial word ‘today’ in the same verse?