The Exegesis of the Saying of Allah the Exalted: << يوم تشهد عليهم ألسنتهم و أيديهم و أرجلهم بما كانوا يعملون >> .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Exalted said: to the end of it. He said: "The day that the settling which it is attached to them, and for them is a great punishment, the day". The author did not make it attached to "cursed in this world and the Hereafter"; he made it attached to "for them." He brought a preposition and a genitive with the settling to which the preposition and genitive are attached, namely that for them is a great punishment. We want the one who... parses this. Who will parse it for them? A punishment... who will parse it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, the preposition and genitive is a fronted predicate. For them is a great punishment. The preposition and genitive is a fronted predicate, and "punishment" is the subject, and "great" is a description. Good. When the preposition and genitive... becomes the predicate, they say it is permissible to make it attached to a verb, and it is permissible to make it attached to a noun of the doer. Ibn Malik said:
"And they inform by a circumstantial or by a preposition, intending a meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'"
So here we say: For them is a painful punishment. It settled for them a painful punishment. We make the predicate a sentence, or "existing" for them, we make it a noun of the doer. And whichever it is, "existing" is valid to be attached to the circumstantial, and "settled" is also valid to be attached to the circumstantial. And on this basis, we say: The day that the great punishment will be for them, when? The day that their tongues testify against them, to the end of it. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it clear? For them is a preposition and genitive, a fronted predicate. But is this preposition and genitive the predicate, or is the thing to which the preposition and genitive is attached the predicate? The answer is: the thing to which the preposition and genitive is attached. But they say the preposition and genitive is the predicate, by way of leniency and permissiveness. So the predicate is the omitted word to which the preposition and genitive is attached, derived from "settled" or "it settled." "Settled for them a painful punishment" or "it settled for them a great punishment." Here the author says in the exegesis: "The day that the settling which it is attached to them". And where is this settling? We estimated it. We said its estimation is "settled for them" or its estimation is "it settled for them." The word "day" is a circumstantial in the accusative case. What is its governor? The settling. We do not say "the settling"; we say its governor is the estimated word to which the preposition and genitive is attached, whether you estimate it as "settled" or estimate it as "it settled." So "day" is attached to it. It was said it is attached to what the preposition and genitive is attached to in "for them," whether you estimate it as "settled" or estimate it as "it settled." Is it clear now or not? Clear. Good. And that is now because if the predicate is a preposition and genitive, it must be attached to an omitted word, either you estimate it as a verb or you estimate it as a noun of the doer, so you say "it settled for him" or "settled for him." And you heard the verse we recited in this rule from the *Alfiyyah*.
"And they inform by a circumstantial or by a preposition, intending a meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'"
"Existing" is a noun of the doer, "settled" is a verb. When will this great punishment be for them? "The day that their tongues testify against them, 'testify' with the upper and lower letters". "Testify" and "testifies." Their tongues, their hands, and their feet testify with what they used to do of speech and action. And it is the Day of Resurrection, meaning the day in which these limbs testify is the Day of Resurrection. Or "testify" with the upper and lower letters means that there are two readings: "testify" and "testifies." And that is because "tongues" is a broken plural, or is it masculine? A broken plural. And for a broken plural, both masculine and feminine are permissible. You say "the men said" and "the men said." "Testify" is feminine or masculine? Feminine. And "testifies" is masculine. Both are permissible. "Tongues" is the plural of "tongue," "hands" is the plural of "hand," and "feet" is the plural of "foot." With what they used to do. The author said "of speech and action." We took from the words of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) a great benefit, which is that "action" includes speech and deed, unlike "deed." For this reason, we make speech... what is its counterpart? Deed. You do not say "speech and action" if you want to clarify a statement. It is permissible to say "speech and action," but by way of permissiveness. So we understood that "action" is used for speech and for deed.
Rather, the people of the Sunnah and the community said in the discussion of faith that "action" includes the action of the tongue, which is speech, the action of the limbs, which is deed, and the action of the heart as well, such as its fear, its hope, its love, and the like, the movement of the heart. So "action" includes speech and deed. And if you want to distinguish, you say "speech and deed." So if you hear or an expression comes to you containing "speech and action," know that this is from the category of permissiveness, using "action" for "deed." Otherwise, the original is that "deed" is the counterpart of "speech," not that "action" is the counterpart of "speech."
The student: Is there a difference?
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a great difference. If you say "action," it includes speech and deed. And if you say "deed," it is specific to deed, which is the action of the limbs, not the action of the tongue. So "action" includes the speech of the tongue and the deed of the limbs, and "deed" is specific to the deed of the limbs only.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If it is said "speech and action," it is from the category of division, but it is permissiveness in using "action" for one of its two meanings, which is "deed"... Good, I say:[An-Nur 24:24] The tongue testifies against the person. How does it testify? It says to this slanderer of the unaware chaste woman: "You slandered her." The tongue itself says this, even though the deed is not a deed in this world. The action is the action of the tongue, and yet the tongue testifies against its owner with this speech, which is the slander. Their hands also testify against them. Their feet testify against them. And Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, mentioned that these limbs testify against the person on the Day of Resurrection. And therefore He mentioned that the skins also testify against the person, and that a dialogue occurs between the person and his skin. [Fussilat 41:21]
The day that their tongues testify against them and their hands
يوم تشهد عليه ألسنتهم وأيديهمThe student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, the preposition and genitive is a fronted predicate. For them is a great punishment. The preposition and genitive is a fronted predicate, and "punishment" is the subject, and "great" is a description. Good. When the preposition and genitive... becomes the predicate, they say it is permissible to make it attached to a verb, and it is permissible to make it attached to a noun of the doer. Ibn Malik said:
"And they inform by a circumstantial or by a preposition, intending a meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'"
So here we say: For them is a painful punishment. It settled for them a painful punishment. We make the predicate a sentence, or "existing" for them, we make it a noun of the doer. And whichever it is, "existing" is valid to be attached to the circumstantial, and "settled" is also valid to be attached to the circumstantial. And on this basis, we say: The day that the great punishment will be for them, when? The day that their tongues testify against them, to the end of it. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it clear? For them is a preposition and genitive, a fronted predicate. But is this preposition and genitive the predicate, or is the thing to which the preposition and genitive is attached the predicate? The answer is: the thing to which the preposition and genitive is attached. But they say the preposition and genitive is the predicate, by way of leniency and permissiveness. So the predicate is the omitted word to which the preposition and genitive is attached, derived from "settled" or "it settled." "Settled for them a painful punishment" or "it settled for them a great punishment." Here the author says in the exegesis: "The day that the settling which it is attached to them". And where is this settling? We estimated it. We said its estimation is "settled for them" or its estimation is "it settled for them." The word "day" is a circumstantial in the accusative case. What is its governor? The settling. We do not say "the settling"; we say its governor is the estimated word to which the preposition and genitive is attached, whether you estimate it as "settled" or estimate it as "it settled." So "day" is attached to it. It was said it is attached to what the preposition and genitive is attached to in "for them," whether you estimate it as "settled" or estimate it as "it settled." Is it clear now or not? Clear. Good. And that is now because if the predicate is a preposition and genitive, it must be attached to an omitted word, either you estimate it as a verb or you estimate it as a noun of the doer, so you say "it settled for him" or "settled for him." And you heard the verse we recited in this rule from the *Alfiyyah*.
"And they inform by a circumstantial or by a preposition, intending a meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'"
"Existing" is a noun of the doer, "settled" is a verb. When will this great punishment be for them? "The day that their tongues testify against them, 'testify' with the upper and lower letters". "Testify" and "testifies." Their tongues, their hands, and their feet testify with what they used to do of speech and action. And it is the Day of Resurrection, meaning the day in which these limbs testify is the Day of Resurrection. Or "testify" with the upper and lower letters means that there are two readings: "testify" and "testifies." And that is because "tongues" is a broken plural, or is it masculine? A broken plural. And for a broken plural, both masculine and feminine are permissible. You say "the men said" and "the men said." "Testify" is feminine or masculine? Feminine. And "testifies" is masculine. Both are permissible. "Tongues" is the plural of "tongue," "hands" is the plural of "hand," and "feet" is the plural of "foot." With what they used to do. The author said "of speech and action." We took from the words of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) a great benefit, which is that "action" includes speech and deed, unlike "deed." For this reason, we make speech... what is its counterpart? Deed. You do not say "speech and action" if you want to clarify a statement. It is permissible to say "speech and action," but by way of permissiveness. So we understood that "action" is used for speech and for deed.
Rather, the people of the Sunnah and the community said in the discussion of faith that "action" includes the action of the tongue, which is speech, the action of the limbs, which is deed, and the action of the heart as well, such as its fear, its hope, its love, and the like, the movement of the heart. So "action" includes speech and deed. And if you want to distinguish, you say "speech and deed." So if you hear or an expression comes to you containing "speech and action," know that this is from the category of permissiveness, using "action" for "deed." Otherwise, the original is that "deed" is the counterpart of "speech," not that "action" is the counterpart of "speech."
The student: Is there a difference?
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a great difference. If you say "action," it includes speech and deed. And if you say "deed," it is specific to deed, which is the action of the limbs, not the action of the tongue. So "action" includes the speech of the tongue and the deed of the limbs, and "deed" is specific to the deed of the limbs only.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If it is said "speech and action," it is from the category of division, but it is permissiveness in using "action" for one of its two meanings, which is "deed"... Good, I say: