Explanation of the Tenth Verse, which is his saying: "By the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al, and what is attributed to a noun, a distinction has been established"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"By the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al, and what is attributed to a noun, a distinction has been established".
Yes, the meaning of the verse is that the genitive is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case, connected to "has been established," meaning that a distinction has been established for the noun by these things.
By the genitive: every noun in the genitive case, or one that accepts the genitive case, is a noun. Every word, I mean, we say a noun in the genitive case, and it entails circularity. Every word in the genitive case, or one that accepts the genitive case, is a noun, right? Or not? "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim": "Bism" is a noun, a noun because it is in the genitive case by the preposition "ba"; "Allah" is a noun because it is in the genitive case by apposition; "al-Rahman al-Rahim" is a noun because it is in the genitive case by dependency, being a description. So, every word in the genitive case by a preposition, by apposition, or by dependency is a noun. Is that understood? Good. Is this an apparent sign, or not? It is an apparent sign. When I see a word in the genitive case, I know it is a noun. But the meaning is not that when I see a word with a kasrah, it is a noun. "Alladhina" (those who) is in the genitive case, but due to the meeting of two sukun (silent letters). Do we say "alladhina" is a noun? No, because it was not put in the genitive case; it was moved with a kasrah due to an impediment, yes, which is the meeting of two sukun. Otherwise, it would be in the jazm (jussive) case.
Second: the second sign is tanwin, "by the genitive and tanwin." Tanwin is a silent nun attached to the end of a word in pronunciation, not in writing. A small silent nun, yes, it is not pronounced and not written. "Zaydun" is written with a nun, or not? "Zaydan," "Zaydin," the nun is not written. Every word with tanwin is a noun, it is a noun. Is this a clear sign, or not? When you read the Qur'an:[Ash-Shuraa 42:52] "Sirat" has tanwin and "Mustaqim" has tanwin, and it has two signs: this is the genitive and tanwin. [Al-Fath 48:20] has one sign, which is tanwin. Every word with tanwin is a noun. Every word that you know has tanwin, you know tanwin means two vowels: two fatha, two damma, or two kasrah. Every word with two damma, two fatha, or two kasrah is a noun, it is a noun. Complete, do you agree, Ahmad? Good, this is tanwin.
And the vocative: every word that is called out to is a noun. Every word that is called out to is a noun. You say "O Yahya," is "Yahya" a noun or not? It is a noun. Why? Because it is a vocative. Every word that is called out to is a noun. And every word that also accepts the vocative is a noun. Even if we assume it is not being called out to, but it accepts the vocative, it is a noun.
Even if it is on the pattern of a verb, if it is like "O Ya'rib," "O Yazid," yes, good. Here.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Every word accepts tanwin, but just because it accepts tanwin, it may not be clear to a person. A person might think "Yadrib" (he strikes) accepts "Yadribun," yes, "Dhara" (he struck), you say "Dharan." In reality, we cannot give a person a rule saying: every word that accepts tanwin is a noun, because I fear someone who has no knowledge, who knows the Arabic language... something, yes, so this is not possible. But the vocative, he cannot say "O Yakun" (be), "Yakun" is a present tense verb, he cannot say he calls it. But if he names it, he says "O Yadrib" and it becomes a noun, understood? "O" is the vocative.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, if you say "O Layt" (if only), you cannot say "O Layt," it is not possible to call out to "Layt," absolutely not. Even the "ya" in "Layt" is not for the vocative; it is only for emphasis. It is not for the vocative. The first "ya" is not for the vocative. He says the one being called is omitted. He says:[Ya-Sin 36:26-27] "My Lord," yes, good. And the vocative.
And "al". Some people say "alif and lam," and the correct is "al", because "al" is all a tool of definition. "Al" means that every word containing "al" is a noun.
Every word containing "al" is a noun. But this has some ambiguity, because some words accept "al" and are not nouns. Yes, but when "al" occurs in what is not a noun, we make it a relative pronoun, like the saying of the poet: "You are not the judge whose judgment is pleasing." His saying "al-Tardha" (the pleasing) has "al", but they make "al" here a relative pronoun, not a sign of a noun.
But in any case, the majority is that every word containing "al" is a noun.
It has the fourth or fifth sign: the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al. The fifth: "and what is attributed." "Masnad" means attribution, and it is a verbal noun with a mim, a verbal noun with a mim, meaning attribution. And this sign is the best of the signs, because things come that do not accept all four signs, do not accept all four signs, do not accept them, but attribution indicates the attributed thing. If you say "Qamaw" (they stood), the waw, even the genitive is correct, or not? It does not accept the genitive. Even tanwin, the waw does not accept tanwin. The vocative, it does not accept it. If you say "O Qamaw," "O Qam," say "O," and you do not reach it, you do not call out to "al", here it does not accept it. Attribution now, attribution accepts attribution. And therefore "Qamaw": I attributed the standing to it, I attributed the standing to it, here, good.
We say the sign of attribution: attribution means adding something to the end of another. One of the signs of a noun is attribution. We say this sign is the most comprehensive of the signs; it includes the signs and is the most precise, it enters into everything.
We told you: pronouns, "Dharabtu" (I struck), "Qumtu" (I stood), "Qamaw" (they stood), "Qama" (he stood), "Qamna" (we stood). These pronouns do not accept the signs. For example, "Dharabna" (we struck), for example, "Qamaw," the waw, the waw, you see, is a noun, a noun.
The waw is the subject, a noun, yes. But apply the signs to it, first present it to the genitive, does it reject or accept? It rejects. The waw does not accept the genitive, clear, Ibrahim, good.
Give it tanwin, does it accept or not? It does not accept tanwin either. Give it the vocative, does it accept the vocative or not? It does not accept the vocative. Give it "al", it does not accept "al".
And what remains? Attribution. Now, attribute the standing to the waw, does it accept or not? It accepts. And now it is covered by these signs, everything appears on it. You have it here.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : It accepts attribution, it accepts attribution, meaning the verb is attributed to it, or the pronoun returns to it. Good, we now have these five signs. Right, or not? From the signs also, the sixth sign, which is very important: the correctness of the return of the pronoun to it. Every word to which the pronoun correctly returns is a noun. Every word to which the pronoun correctly returns is a noun. By this, we know a noun, what is a noun, what is a relative pronoun, for example, and where is the nounness, where is "ma" (what) and the like.
"Ma" (what) as a relative pronoun, it is correct to attribute to it, so you say: "Went the one who went of the days," it is correct to attribute to it. But also, there are things where attribution may not be correct, but the return of the pronoun to it indicates its nounness. So make this the seventh, the sixth, yes, the correctness of the return of the pronoun to it. So every word to which the pronoun correctly returns is a noun. So the signs of the noun are now.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : It is not correct at all, it is not correct.
The sixth, good. The sixth: if it is correct for the pronoun to return to it, it is a noun. You say, for example: "Zayd, I struck him." "Zayd" is now a noun because it has tanwin, or not? And it is a noun because the pronoun returned to it, "al" in "Dharabtu" (I struck) has two signs, for example. For example, if I say:[Al-A'raf 7:132]. "Whatever sign you bring us." "Maha" (whatever) now, it is not attributed to it, "Ta'tu" (you bring) is attributed to the hidden pronoun in it, "Ta'tuni" (you bring to me), and it also does not accept the genitive, nor tanwin, nor the vocative, nor "al", and it is not attributed, you do not say attribution, but it has the return of the pronoun, "bihi" (with it), the pronoun returns to "Maha" (whatever), so the return of the pronoun indicated to us that it is a noun.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not a relative pronoun, because "Maha" (whatever) is a conditional noun, it is not a relative pronoun.
Yes, the meaning of the verse is that the genitive is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case, connected to "has been established," meaning that a distinction has been established for the noun by these things.
By the genitive: every noun in the genitive case, or one that accepts the genitive case, is a noun. Every word, I mean, we say a noun in the genitive case, and it entails circularity. Every word in the genitive case, or one that accepts the genitive case, is a noun, right? Or not? "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim": "Bism" is a noun, a noun because it is in the genitive case by the preposition "ba"; "Allah" is a noun because it is in the genitive case by apposition; "al-Rahman al-Rahim" is a noun because it is in the genitive case by dependency, being a description. So, every word in the genitive case by a preposition, by apposition, or by dependency is a noun. Is that understood? Good. Is this an apparent sign, or not? It is an apparent sign. When I see a word in the genitive case, I know it is a noun. But the meaning is not that when I see a word with a kasrah, it is a noun. "Alladhina" (those who) is in the genitive case, but due to the meeting of two sukun (silent letters). Do we say "alladhina" is a noun? No, because it was not put in the genitive case; it was moved with a kasrah due to an impediment, yes, which is the meeting of two sukun. Otherwise, it would be in the jazm (jussive) case.
Second: the second sign is tanwin, "by the genitive and tanwin." Tanwin is a silent nun attached to the end of a word in pronunciation, not in writing. A small silent nun, yes, it is not pronounced and not written. "Zaydun" is written with a nun, or not? "Zaydan," "Zaydin," the nun is not written. Every word with tanwin is a noun, it is a noun. Is this a clear sign, or not? When you read the Qur'an:
And indeed, [O Muhammad], you guide to a straight path -
وإنك لتهدي إلى صراط مستقيمand [that] He may guide you to a straight path.
ويهديكم صراطا مستقيماAnd the vocative: every word that is called out to is a noun. Every word that is called out to is a noun. You say "O
O Yahya, take the book
يا يحي خذ الكتابEven if it is on the pattern of a verb, if it is like "O Ya'rib," "O Yazid," yes, good. Here.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Every word accepts tanwin, but just because it accepts tanwin, it may not be clear to a person. A person might think "Yadrib" (he strikes) accepts "Yadribun," yes, "Dhara" (he struck), you say "Dharan." In reality, we cannot give a person a rule saying: every word that accepts tanwin is a noun, because I fear someone who has no knowledge, who knows the Arabic language... something, yes, so this is not possible. But the vocative, he cannot say "O Yakun" (be), "Yakun" is a present tense verb, he cannot say he calls it. But if he names it, he says "O Yadrib" and it becomes a noun, understood? "O" is the vocative.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, if you say "O Layt" (if only), you cannot say "O Layt," it is not possible to call out to "Layt," absolutely not. Even the "ya" in "Layt" is not for the vocative; it is only for emphasis. It is not for the vocative. The first "ya" is not for the vocative. He says the one being called is omitted. He says:
I wish my people could know (27) Of how my Lord has forgiven me
يا رب ليت قومي يعلمون بما غفر ليAnd "al". Some people say "alif and lam," and the correct is "al", because "al" is all a tool of definition. "Al" means that every word containing "al" is a noun.
Every word containing "al" is a noun. But this has some ambiguity, because some words accept "al" and are not nouns. Yes, but when "al" occurs in what is not a noun, we make it a relative pronoun, like the saying of the poet: "You are not the judge whose judgment is pleasing." His saying "al-Tardha" (the pleasing) has "al", but they make "al" here a relative pronoun, not a sign of a noun.
But in any case, the majority is that every word containing "al" is a noun.
It has the fourth or fifth sign: the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al. The fifth: "and what is attributed." "Masnad" means attribution, and it is a verbal noun with a mim, a verbal noun with a mim, meaning attribution. And this sign is the best of the signs, because things come that do not accept all four signs, do not accept all four signs, do not accept them, but attribution indicates the attributed thing. If you say "Qamaw" (they stood), the waw, even the genitive is correct, or not? It does not accept the genitive. Even tanwin, the waw does not accept tanwin. The vocative, it does not accept it. If you say "O Qamaw," "O Qam," say "O," and you do not reach it, you do not call out to "al", here it does not accept it. Attribution now, attribution accepts attribution. And therefore "Qamaw": I attributed the standing to it, I attributed the standing to it, here, good.
We say the sign of attribution: attribution means adding something to the end of another. One of the signs of a noun is attribution. We say this sign is the most comprehensive of the signs; it includes the signs and is the most precise, it enters into everything.
We told you: pronouns, "Dharabtu" (I struck), "Qumtu" (I stood), "Qamaw" (they stood), "Qama" (he stood), "Qamna" (we stood). These pronouns do not accept the signs. For example, "Dharabna" (we struck), for example, "Qamaw," the waw, the waw, you see, is a noun, a noun.
The waw is the subject, a noun, yes. But apply the signs to it, first present it to the genitive, does it reject or accept? It rejects. The waw does not accept the genitive, clear, Ibrahim, good.
Give it tanwin, does it accept or not? It does not accept tanwin either. Give it the vocative, does it accept the vocative or not? It does not accept the vocative. Give it "al", it does not accept "al".
And what remains? Attribution. Now, attribute the standing to the waw, does it accept or not? It accepts. And now it is covered by these signs, everything appears on it. You have it here.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : It accepts attribution, it accepts attribution, meaning the verb is attributed to it, or the pronoun returns to it. Good, we now have these five signs. Right, or not? From the signs also, the sixth sign, which is very important: the correctness of the return of the pronoun to it. Every word to which the pronoun correctly returns is a noun. Every word to which the pronoun correctly returns is a noun. By this, we know a noun, what is a noun, what is a relative pronoun, for example, and where is the nounness, where is "ma" (what) and the like.
"Ma" (what) as a relative pronoun, it is correct to attribute to it, so you say: "Went the one who went of the days," it is correct to attribute to it. But also, there are things where attribution may not be correct, but the return of the pronoun to it indicates its nounness. So make this the seventh, the sixth, yes, the correctness of the return of the pronoun to it. So every word to which the pronoun correctly returns is a noun. So the signs of the noun are now.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : It is not correct at all, it is not correct.
The sixth, good. The sixth: if it is correct for the pronoun to return to it, it is a noun. You say, for example: "Zayd, I struck him." "Zayd" is now a noun because it has tanwin, or not? And it is a noun because the pronoun returned to it, "al" in "Dharabtu" (I struck) has two signs, for example. For example, if I say:
No matter what sign you bring us with which to bewitch us
مهما تأتنا به من آية لتسحرنا بهاThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not a relative pronoun, because "Maha" (whatever) is a conditional noun, it is not a relative pronoun.