We are now taking the new lesson. He said: "And from Abu Thalhah al-Khushani (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: I said
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We are now taking the new lesson. He said: "And from Abu Thalhah al-Khushani (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: ".
The statement of Abu Thalhah (may Allah be pleased with him) "We are in the land of a people of the Book" means by them the Jews or the Christians, but it appears that the intended meaning is the Christians, because they were, as I think, in the outskirts of Sham.
And his saying: "We are in the land of a people of the Book. Should we eat from their vessels?" An expression like this occurs frequently in the Noble Qur'an: "afna'kul" (should we eat). It is formed by the hamzah (interrogative particle) followed by a conjunction (wa) and then the conjoined element. How is the underlying structure estimated? The grammarians have two views on this. The first is that they say "afna'kul" is conjoined to what preceded it, and the original form is "fa-ana'kul" (so shall we eat). The original is... so the estimation is "fa-ana'kul," conjoining an optative sentence to a declarative sentence, and there is no objection to this. The second view says that the hamzah is attached to an omitted element that is estimated according to what suits the context. It is estimated according to what suits the context. This view is more established than the first, meaning it is closer to the rules than the first, but it has a difficulty. The difficulty is that a person may find the estimated element difficult and ask, "What do I estimate?" Sometimes it is difficult for you to estimate a specific thing, and in that case, you resort to what? To the first view. And based on this, we say: if you can estimate an omitted element after the hamzah and conjoin to it what follows the conjunction, that is preferable. If you cannot, then you must adopt the second view, which we made the first, because if a person does not find water, he performs tayammum (dry ablution). So if it is difficult for you to estimate a suitable thing, say that the hamzah was in the place of the fa (so), and the fa is what conjoined the sentence. There is nothing in it but the conjoining of an optative sentence to a declarative sentence. Here, what do we estimate if we adopt the second view? Do we estimate "Shall we mix with them and eat from their vessels?"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes? What do we estimate?
I said: O Messenger of Allah, we are in the land of a people of the Book. Should we eat from their vessels? He said: Do not eat from them unless you find others; if you do, wash them and eat from them.
قلت: يا رسول الله إنا بأرض قوم أهل كتاب أفنأكل في آنيتهم؟ قال: لا تأكلوا فيها إلا أن تجدوا غيرها فاغسلوها وكلوا فيهاThe statement of Abu Thalhah (may Allah be pleased with him) "We are in the land of a people of the Book" means by them the Jews or the Christians, but it appears that the intended meaning is the Christians, because they were, as I think, in the outskirts of Sham.
And his saying: "We are in the land of a people of the Book. Should we eat from their vessels?" An expression like this occurs frequently in the Noble Qur'an: "afna'kul" (should we eat). It is formed by the hamzah (interrogative particle) followed by a conjunction (wa) and then the conjoined element. How is the underlying structure estimated? The grammarians have two views on this. The first is that they say "afna'kul" is conjoined to what preceded it, and the original form is "fa-ana'kul" (so shall we eat). The original is... so the estimation is "fa-ana'kul," conjoining an optative sentence to a declarative sentence, and there is no objection to this. The second view says that the hamzah is attached to an omitted element that is estimated according to what suits the context. It is estimated according to what suits the context. This view is more established than the first, meaning it is closer to the rules than the first, but it has a difficulty. The difficulty is that a person may find the estimated element difficult and ask, "What do I estimate?" Sometimes it is difficult for you to estimate a specific thing, and in that case, you resort to what? To the first view. And based on this, we say: if you can estimate an omitted element after the hamzah and conjoin to it what follows the conjunction, that is preferable. If you cannot, then you must adopt the second view, which we made the first, because if a person does not find water, he performs tayammum (dry ablution). So if it is difficult for you to estimate a suitable thing, say that the hamzah was in the place of the fa (so), and the fa is what conjoined the sentence. There is nothing in it but the conjoining of an optative sentence to a declarative sentence. Here, what do we estimate if we adopt the second view? Do we estimate "Shall we mix with them and eat from their vessels?"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes? What do we estimate?