Explanation of the fifth verse, which is his saying: “And it demands satisfaction without dissatisfaction, surpassing Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :“And it demands satisfaction without dissatisfaction” Does “demands” mean “requires” or “entails”? Does it mean it requires us to be satisfied with its author, meaning it asks us to be pleased with its owner, without entailing satisfaction in the sense that whoever reads it is pleased with it for the meanings it contains? Yes. This is closer to the meaning of “demands satisfaction,” meaning it necessitates or entails that whoever reads it is pleased with it.
“Surpassing Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses”. Ibn Ma’iṭ (may Allah have mercy on him) passed away in the year 628, and the author [Ibn Malik] in 672. Ibn Ma’iṭ has a Thousand Verses on grammar, and he was a contemporary of the author, living in the same era. But Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses falls short of Ibn Malik’s Thousand Verses in two respects, as they say:
First: It is not on a single meter, whereas Ibn Malik’s is on a single meter.
And it is known that if a poem is not on a single meter, one finds unease in it, is that not so?
Second: Its meanings are fewer. Its meanings are fewer, and I have seen a portion of an explanation of Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses. In truth, there is neither equality nor closeness between Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses and Ibn Malik’s Thousand Verses (may Allah have mercy on him). That one is not... Ibn Malik’s Thousand Verses. So when Malik says: “Surpassing it,” he means exceeding it and overflowing it. Is that correct? And is this considered a matter of envy? That a person prevents people from reading the books of so-and-so and so-and-so? In truth, intention is the foundation. If his intention is to advise the people, it is not of envy at all. And what indicates to us the path is that whoever is better than the other in advising us. If the purpose is to prevent people from benefiting from the books of this man, such that if they benefit from his books they increase in reward with Allah, then this is certainly blameworthy. But he (may Allah have mercy on him) acknowledged the truth to its rightful owner, Ibn Malik.
“Surpassing Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses”. Ibn Ma’iṭ (may Allah have mercy on him) passed away in the year 628, and the author [Ibn Malik] in 672. Ibn Ma’iṭ has a Thousand Verses on grammar, and he was a contemporary of the author, living in the same era. But Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses falls short of Ibn Malik’s Thousand Verses in two respects, as they say:
First: It is not on a single meter, whereas Ibn Malik’s is on a single meter.
And it is known that if a poem is not on a single meter, one finds unease in it, is that not so?
Second: Its meanings are fewer. Its meanings are fewer, and I have seen a portion of an explanation of Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses. In truth, there is neither equality nor closeness between Ibn Ma’iṭ’s Thousand Verses and Ibn Malik’s Thousand Verses (may Allah have mercy on him). That one is not... Ibn Malik’s Thousand Verses. So when Malik says: “Surpassing it,” he means exceeding it and overflowing it. Is that correct? And is this considered a matter of envy? That a person prevents people from reading the books of so-and-so and so-and-so? In truth, intention is the foundation. If his intention is to advise the people, it is not of envy at all. And what indicates to us the path is that whoever is better than the other in advising us. If the purpose is to prevent people from benefiting from the books of this man, such that if they benefit from his books they increase in reward with Allah, then this is certainly blameworthy. But he (may Allah have mercy on him) acknowledged the truth to its rightful owner, Ibn Malik.