Allah the Exalted said: “Put your hand into your bosom; it will come out white, without any harm. And draw your arm close to you from fear. These are two signs from your Lord for Pharaoh and…”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
He said: [Al-Qasas 28:32] “... and the meaning of ‘put in’ is ‘insert,’ and his statement: ‘your hand’ means the palm”. In reality, there is no need for this, because... the intended meaning of “hand” when used in a general sense is the palm. This is why, when Allah the Exalted said: [Al-Ma'idah 5:38], the intended meaning of “hands” is “palms.” However, if “hand” is intended to mean something other than the palm, it is restricted... as in His saying in the verse about dry ablution: [Al-Ma'idah 5:6], where it says: [Al-Ma'idah 5:6]... “wipe the palm only,” meaning not the whole thing. So, “hand” in a general sense means only the palm. And his statement: “The right one—where do we take that from? It is not in the noble verse... Therefore, it is better that we leave it indefinite, as Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) left it indefinite, and it does not concern us whether it is the right hand or the left hand... He said: It is the collar of the shirt, and he took it out”... His statement: هو طوق القميص ... الجيب .... قوله: "وأخرجها" المؤلف قدّر طلباً ليناسب الجواب لأنه ليس مجرد إدخال .. بل إذا أخرجها خرجت بيضاء، لكن الحقيقة أنه ما داعي إلى ذلك لأنه لا مانع أن يكون تخرج جواباً لقوله:اسلك فإن الإدخال إذا قلت: اخرج .. لزم من ذلك ... والأصل عدم الحذف، وعليه فـتخرج هنا مجزومة جواباً للطلب في قوله:اسلك لأن جواب الطلب إذا حُذِفت منه الفاء صار مجزوماً ، وإن وجدت معه الفاء صار منصوباً بأن قال ابن مالك:
وَبَعْدَ فَا جَوَابِ نَفْيٍ أَو طَلَبْ مَحْضَيْنِ أَنْ وَسَتْرُهَا حَتْمٌ نَصَبْ
يعني معناه أنَّ أنْ تنصب بعد فاء التي وقعت جواباً لنفي أو طلب محضين، ولكنه إذا فقدت الفاء فإنه يجزم
وَشَرْطُ جَزْمٍ بَعْدَ نَهْي أَنْ تَضَعْ إِنْ قَبْلَ لاَ دُونَ تَخَالُفٍ يَقَعْ
... بمعنى طلب، طلب أمر.
تخرج خلاف ما كانت عليه من الأُدمة" الأدمة السمرة يعني اللون اللي بين البياض والسواد يُسَمَّى أدمة، وكان موسى صلى الله عليه وسلم آدَم، أدخل يده فخرجت بيضاء مِن غير سوءأي مِن غير عيب، وأن العيب.. والبياض الذي يسوء المرء ما هو؟ البرص ولهذا قال المؤلف:" أي برص" وقوله: بيضاء محلها من الإعراب حال من أين؟ من فاعل تخرج.
بيضاء من غير سوء قال: فأدخلها وأخرجها تضيء كشعاع الشمس تغشي البصر" ... يكفينا أن نقول ما قال الله سبحانه وتعالى:بيضاء من غير سوء بل بياضا لا .. ولا.. وأما أن تكون تضيء كان الله يقول: تخرج مضيئة. لأن الإضاءة أبلغ من مجرد البياض، كذلك أيضاً أقوى للآية ونحن .. قول الله: بيضاء.
واضمم إليك جناحك من الرهب بفتح الحرفين وسكون الثاني مع فتح الأول وضمه" و"سكون الثاني" اللي هو الهاء "مع فتح الأول" اللي هو الراء "وضمه" فتكون القراءة بثلاثة الرَهَبوالرَهْبوالرُهْب واضمم إليك جناحك من الرَهَب واضمم إليك جناحك من الرُهْب واضمم إليك جناحك من الرَهْب وقوله: جناحك المراد بالجناح اليد لأنها للإنسان بمنزلة الجناح للطائر، وقوله:مِن الرهبمِن السببية ... قال: "أي الخوف" هذا تفسير للرهب الرهب معناه الخوف، المعنى يقول المؤلِّف:" أي الخوف الحاصل من إضاءة اليد بأن تدخلها في جيبك فتعود إلى حالتها الأولى" يعني معناه إذا قال ... وأردت أن تعود إلى حالها الأولى فاضمم إليك مرة ثانية .. تعود إلى حالها فإذا أدخلها في جيبه وأخرجها صارت بيضاء، وإذا أراد أن يعيدها إلى حالتها ضمَّها إليه فعادت إلى حالها. هذا معنى كلام المؤلف، وقال بعض العلماء إن الجملة هذه منفصلة عن الأولى وأن الله .. إذا خاف أن يضم يده إلى صدره حتى يزول عنه الخوف، وهل هذه آية خاصة لموسى فقط أنه إذا خاف من شيء فإنه يضم يده إليه .. أو أنها عامة لكل أحد، هي على كل حال بالنسبة لموسى.. أنه إذا خاف مِن فرعون أو مِن غيره يضم إليه يده، لكنَّ غيره رُوِي عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أنه قال: " ما من خائف يضع يده على صدره إلا زال خوفه " ........ على كل حال هي بالنسبة لموسى الآن فيها قولان لأهل العلم: القول الأول أن هذه ..... وهذا يُضعِفه أن الله قال: اضمم إليك جناحك من الرهب وموسى لم يرهب لأن الله ما دام قال له: بيضاء من غير سوء فإنه لن يرهب، والقول الثاني أنه عندما يحصل منه خوف .. عرفت مِن الآية ولَّى مدبراً ولا مدعى خائفا أرشده الله أنه إذا .. الخوف من شيء فإنه يضم يده إليها إلى نفسه واضمم إليك جناحك من الرهب ، وعبَّر عنها بالجناح لأنها للإنسان كالجناح للطائر" وهذا صحيح وهي جناح أيضاً حتى الإنسان عنده ... يفرد يديه .... وهي لا شك أنها تزين الإنسان كما أن جناح الطائر يزينه.
فَذَانِكَ بالتشديد والتخفيف أي العصا واليد وهما مؤنثان وإنما ذُكِّرَ المشارُ به إليهما المبتدأ لتذكير خبره" ...... لأن اليدين كما تعرف واحدة جناح والأخرى.. فإذا أدخلها في جيبه .......... وهذا الذي يمنع من القول .. سواء ..... وقوله: فذانك يقول:" بالتشديد والتخفيف" بالتشديد فَذَانِّك وبالتخفيف فذانِك نريد مِن غانم يستشهد لنا من كلام ابن مالك على هذين الوجهين.
الطالب: ....
الشيخ :
وَالْنّوْنُ مِنْ ذَيْنِ وَتَيْنِ شُدِّدَا أَيْضَاً -مثل النون من اللذان واللتان- وَتَعْوِيضٌ بِذَاكَ قُصِدَا
فذانك أي العصا واليد العصا مؤنث ولّا مذكر؟
الطالب: ...
الشيخ : مؤنث قال: هي عصاي أتوكَّأ عليها ولم يقل: هو عصاي أتوكَّأ عليه بل قال: هي عصاي أتوكَّأ عليها، طيب اليد مذكر ولّا مؤنث؟
الطالب: ....
الشيخ : .. اسلك يدك في جيبك تخرج بيضاء ولم يقل: يخرج أبيض، وقال تعالى: بل يداه مبسوطتان وقال: وقالت اليهود يد الله مغلولة .. المهم أنه مؤنث، إذاً العصا مؤنث واليد مؤنث والإشارة فذانك برهانان مذكر ولّا لا؟ .. الإشارة، لو كان بالتأنيث لقال: فتانِك برهانان. فلماذا جعله مذكرا يقول المؤلف: " وإنَّما ذُكِّر المشار به إليهما المبتدأ" لأن ذان المبتدأ والخبر برهانان" لِتذكير خبره برهانان مؤنث[كذا ويقصد مثنى] برهان، وبرهان مذكر ولّا مؤنث؟
الطالب: مذكر.
الشيخ : مذكر، ........ يا أيها الناس قد جاءكم برهان من ربكم وإذاً هذا مو هو بواضح .. لأنه مفصول بين الفعل والفاعل ما قال قد جاءتكم برهان. قد جاءكم برهان، طيب إذاً برهان مذكر واليد والعصا مؤنث، فهنا لُوحِظ الخبر ولّا لُوحِظ المُشار إليه؟ لُوحِظ الخبر، لأن برهانان مذكر فذُكِّر اسم الإشارة، برهانان ما هو البرهان؟ هو الدليل وقول المؤلف:" مُرسَلان من ربك " كلمة مرسلان ليست تفسيراً لـبرهانان ولكنَّها بيان لِمُتَعَلَّق قوله: من ربك لأن كلمة برهان اسم جامد لا يصح أن يكون مُتَعَلَّقاً للجار والمجرور فهمتم يا جماعة؟ ولّا لا؟ طيب مرة ثانية نقول: مرسلان قد يظن الظانّ أنها تفسير لـبرهانان والبرهان ليس معناه المُرسل البرهان معناه الدليل، الدليل الواضح يُسَمَّى برهاناً، وعند المتكلمين يقولون: إن البرهان هو الدليل القاطع .. لكن المؤلف أدخل مرسلان لِيُبيِّن أن قوله: من ربك متعلق به بـمرسلان المُقَدَّر، ولم يجعلْه مُتَعلِّقاً بـبرهانان، لأنَّ برهانان اسم جامد، والجار والمجرور ما يتعلق إلا بفعل أو مُشتَقّ كما قال الناظم هنا
لَا بُدَّ لِلجَارِ مِنَ التَّعَلُّقِ بِفِعْلٍ اَوْ مَعْنَاهُ نَحْوُ مُرْتَقِي
وَاسْتَثْنِ كُلَّ زَائِدٍ لَهُ عَمَلْ كَالْبَا وَمِنْ وَالكَافِ أيْضًا وَلَعَلْ
يعني قوله: لا بد للجار مِن التعُلُّق بفعل أو معناه يعني مرسلان لكن غير المؤلف قال: لا حاجة إلى أن نُقَدِّر مرسلان بل نقول: برهانان كائنان مِن ربك. فهو متعلق ب .. ولّا ب .. هنا الجار والمجرور ... الجار والمجرور وهذا الذي قاله مَن خالفوه أصح مما قاله المؤلف، لأن ما قاله المؤلف خاص وما قدّره غيره عام، ومتعلق الجار والمجرور إذا كان خاصاً لا يجوز تركه بل لا بُدَّ من ذِكْره فلا يُحذف متعلق الجار والمجرور إلا إذا كان عامًّا مثل كائن أو موجود أو ما أشبه ذلك، فالصواب إذاً أن نُبقِي الآية على ما هي عليه ونقول: مِن ربك متعلق بمحذوف تقديره: كائنان.
برهانان مِن ربك إلى فرعون وملإيْه وهذا الذي أوجب للمؤلف أن يُقَدِّر مُرسلان لأجل قوله: إلى فرعون ولكنه ليس مرسلا .. المُرسل في الحقيقة موسى لكنْ معه دليلان، دليلان إلى فرعون وملئه أي قومه، فرعون هو حاكِمُ مِصرَ وقد قيل: إنه علمٌ جنس لِكل مَن حكم مصر كافِراً فإنه يُسَمى فِرعون، وكل مَن ملك الفُرْس كافراً فإنه يُسَمى كِسْرَى، وكل من ملك الروم كافراً فإنه يسمى قَيْصَر.
وقوله: إنهم كانوا قوماً فاسقين الجملة تعليل لِما قبلها يعني أننا أرسلناك بهاتين الآيتين إلى هؤلاء القوم لأنهم كانوا قوماً فاسقين، كانوا فيما مضى أو كانوا في عِلْم الله؟
الطالب: ...
الشيخ : طيب نحن قررنا قبل أن كان مفصولة الزمن مفصولة الدَّلالة عن الزمن لأنه ما دلَّ على ماضٍ ولا على غيره، فمعنى كانوا قوماً فاسقين أي: مُتَّصِفِين بالفِسْق، وقرَّرنا هذا بأن كان ما تدل على .. المُضِيّ وقررنا هذا لأنّ الله تعالى يقول عن نفسه دائماً: وكان الله بِكُلِّ شيء عليماً وكان اللهُ غفوراً رحيماً إلى آخره، ومعلومٌ أنه ليس المراد الزمن الماضي بل المراد أنه مُتَّصِفٌ بهذه الصفات، لكنَّها قد تدل على الزمن الماضي بِقرينة بقرينة غير لفظ الفعل، وقوله: فاسقين أيُّ الفِسْقَيْن منهما؟ فسق الكفر ولّا الطاعة؟ ... طاعة هذا الفسق قد مرَّ علينا أن الفسق ينقسم إلى قسمين: قسم مخرِج عن الملة وهو فسق الكفر، وفسق مخرج عن الاستقامة وهو فسق المعصية ...... أفمن كان مؤمناً كمن كان فاسقاً لا يستوون * أما الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات .... ومثال الفسق الذي لا يُخرج عن الإيمان يا أيها الذين آمنوا إن جاءكم فاسق بنبأ فتبينوا أن تصيبوا قوماً بجهالة .
الطالب: ...
الشيخ : الملأ ... والضابط والله أعلم أنه كما أن ......
It is the collar of the shirt ... the pocket .... His statement: "And He brought it out" — the author assumed a request to fit the answer, because it is not merely putting it in ... but if He brought it out, it came out white. However, the truth is that there is no need for that, because there is no obstacle to it being an answer to His statement: "Put it in." For if you say "Put it in" and then "Bring it out," it necessarily follows ... and the original rule is not to omit. Therefore, "takhruj" (it comes out) here is in the jussive case as an answer to the request in his statement: "Put it in." Because if the fā' is omitted from the answer to a request, it becomes jussive, and if the fā' is present with it, it becomes accusative with "an." Ibn Malik said: "And after the fā' of the answer to negation or pure request, 'an' is required, and its concealment is inevitable, causing the accusative." This means that "an" causes the accusative after the fā' that occurs as an answer to pure negation or request. But if the fā' is absent, it becomes jussive. "And the condition for the jussive after a prohibition is that you place 'an' if before 'lā' there is no disagreement occurring ... meaning a request, a command request." "Takhruj" is the opposite of what it was of the "adimah." "Adimah" is brownness, meaning the color between white and black is called "adimah." And Musa (peace be upon him) was "adam" (brown). He put his hand in and it came out white "without defect," meaning without blemish. And the blemish ... what is the whiteness that distresses a person? It is leprosy. Therefore, the author said: "Meaning leprosy." And his statement: "White" — its grammatical position is a "hal" (state) from where? From the subject of "takhruj." "White without defect." He said: "So He put it in and brought it out, shining like the rays of the sun, blinding the sight" ... it suffices for us to say what Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: "White without defect," rather than a whiteness that ... and ... As for it being "shining," Allah would have said: "It comes out shining." Because shining is more eloquent than mere whiteness, and likewise stronger for the verse. And we ... Allah's statement: "White." "And gather your wing to you from fear" — with the fathah of the two letters and the sukun of the second with the fathah of the first and its dammah. "And 'sukun of the second' which is the hā' 'with the fathah of the first' which is the rā' 'and its dammah.' So the recitation is with three: al-rahab, al-rahb, and al-ruhb. "And gather your wing to you from al-rahab," "And gather your wing to you from al-ruhb," "And gather your wing to you from al-rahb." And his statement: "Your wing" — the intended meaning of the wing is the hand, because for the human it is in the position of the wing for the bird. And his statement: "From al-rahab" — "min" is causal ... He said: "Meaning fear." This is an explanation of "al-rahab." "Al-rahab" means fear. The meaning, the author says: "Meaning the fear resulting from the shining of the hand, so that you put it in your pocket and it returns to its original state." Meaning, if he said ... and you wanted it to return to its original state, gather it to you a second time ... it returns to its state. So if he put it in his pocket and brought it out, it became white, and if he wanted to return it to its state, he gathered it to himself and it returned to its state. This is the meaning of the author's words. And some scholars said that this sentence is separate from the first, and that Allah ... if he fears, he gathers his hand to his chest until the fear leaves him. And is this a sign specific to Musa only, that if he fears something, he gathers his hand to himself ... or is it general for everyone? In any case, regarding Musa ... that if he fears from Pharaoh or from others, he gathers his hand to himself. But it is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and him) that he said: "There is no fearful person who places his hand on his chest except that his fear is removed." ........ In any case, regarding Musa, there are now two opinions among the scholars of knowledge: The first opinion is that this ..... And this weakens it because Allah said: "Gather your wing to you from fear," and Musa did not fear, because as long as Allah said to him: "White without defect," he will not fear. And the second opinion is that when fear occurs in him ... you know from the verse "And he turned his back, fleeing and afraid." Allah guided him that if ... fear from something, he gathers his hand to it, to himself, "And gather your wing to you from fear." And he described it as a wing because for the human it is like the wing for the bird." And this is correct, and it is a wing also, because the human has ... he spreads his hands .... And it is undoubtedly that it adorns the human, just as the wing of the bird adorns it. "Fadhanik" with the shaddah and the takhfif (lightening) — meaning the staff and the hand, and both are feminine. And the subject referring to them was made masculine because of the masculinity of its predicate "...... Because the two hands, as you know, one is a wing and the other ... So if he put it in his pocket .......... And this prevents the saying ... whether ..... And his statement: "Fadhanik" — he says: "With the shaddah and the takhfif." With the shaddah: "Fadhan-nik," and with the takhfif: "Fadhanik." We want from Ghanim to cite for us from the words of Ibn Malik on these two ways. The student: .... The Shaykh: "And the nūn of dhayn and tayn were also shaddah'd — like the nūn of alladhīn and allatayn — and compensation with dhāka was intended." "Fadhanik" means the staff and the hand. Is the staff feminine or masculine? The student: ... The Shaykh: Feminine. He said: "It is my staff upon which I lean," and he did not say: "It is my staff upon which I lean" (masculine form), but he said: "It is my staff upon which I lean" (feminine form). Okay, is the hand masculine or feminine? The student: .... The Shaykh: .. Put your hand in your pocket, it comes out white, and he did not say: "It comes out white" (masculine form). And He said: "But his two hands are outstretched," and He said: "And the Jews said: The hand of Allah is closed" ... The important thing is that it is feminine. So the staff is feminine and the hand is feminine, and the reference "fadhanik" — are the two proofs masculine or not? .. The reference, if it were with the feminine, he would have said: "Fatanik" (feminine form) two proofs. So why did he make it masculine? The author says: "And the subject referring to them was made masculine" because "dhān" is the subject and the predicate is "two proofs" "for the masculinity of its predicate." "Two proofs" is feminine [sic, and he means dual]. "Burhan" (proof), and is "burhan" masculine or feminine? The student: Masculine. The Shaykh: Masculine, ........ O mankind, a proof has come to you from your Lord. And so this is not clear .. because it is separated between the verb and the subject; he did not say "A proof has come to you" (feminine verb). "A proof has come to you." Okay, so "burhan" is masculine and the hand and the staff are feminine, so here was the predicate considered or was the referred-to thing considered? The predicate was considered, because "two proofs" is masculine, so the demonstrative noun was made masculine. What is "burhan"? It is the evidence. And the author's statement: "Sent from your Lord" — the word "sent" is not an explanation of "two proofs," but it is a clarification of the connection of his statement: "From your Lord." Because the word "burhan" is a static noun, and it is not correct for it to be the connection of the preposition and its object. Did you understand, everyone? Or not? Okay, let's say it a second time: "Sent" — one might think it is an explanation of "two proofs," and "burhan" does not mean "sent." "Burhan" means evidence. The clear evidence is called a "burhan." And among the theologians, they say: The "burhan" is the conclusive evidence .. But the author introduced "sent" to clarify that his statement: "From your Lord" is connected to it with "sent" which is implied, and he did not make it connected to "two proofs," because "two proofs" is a static noun, and the preposition and its object are not connected except to a verb or a derived word, as the poet said here: "The preposition must be connected to a verb or its meaning, like 'murtaqi' (one who ascends), and exclude every addition for it, like 'ba' and 'min' and the kāf also, and 'la' (perhaps)." Meaning his statement: "The preposition must be connected to a verb or its meaning" means "sent." But the author said: There is no need to assume "sent," but we say: "Two proofs existing from your Lord." So it is connected to .. or to .. Here the preposition and its object ... the preposition and its object. And this is what those who opposed him said is more correct than what the author said, because what the author said is specific, and what the others assumed is general. And the connection of the preposition and its object, if it is specific, it is not permissible to leave it out, but it must be mentioned. So the connection of the preposition and its object is not omitted except when it is general, like "existing" or "present" or the like. So the correct thing is that we keep the verse as it is and say: "From your Lord" is connected to an omitted word, the assumption of which is: "Existing." "Two proofs from your Lord to Pharaoh and his elite." And this is what necessitated the author to assume "sent" for the sake of his statement: "To Pharaoh." But he is not sent ... the one actually sent is Musa, but with him are two proofs, two proofs to Pharaoh and his elite, meaning his people. Pharaoh is the ruler of Egypt, and it has been said: It is a generic term for everyone who ruled Egypt as a disbeliever, for he is called Pharaoh. And everyone who ruled the Persians as a disbeliever is called Kisra. And everyone who ruled the Romans as a disbeliever is called Caesar. And his statement: "Indeed they were a corrupt people" — the sentence is an explanation for what came before it, meaning that We sent you with these two signs to these people because they were a corrupt people. Were they in the past or were they in the knowledge of Allah? The student: ... The Shaykh: Okay, we have established before that "kāna" is separated in time, separated in meaning from time, because it did not indicate the past or anything else. So the meaning of "they were a corrupt people" is: characterized by corruption. And we established this by "kāna" not indicating ... the past, and we established this because Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) always says about Himself: "And Allah was Knowing of all things," "And Allah was Forgiving, Merciful," and so on. And it is known that the intended meaning is not the past time, but that He is characterized by these attributes. But it may indicate the past time by a circumstance, a circumstance other than the word of the verb. And his statement: "Corrupt" — which of the two corruptions? The corruption of disbelief or of obedience? ... Obedience. This corruption has passed to us that corruption is divided into two sections: a section that expels from the religion, which is the corruption of disbelief, and a corruption that expels from uprightness, which is the corruption of sin ...... Is one who is a believer like one who is corrupt? They are not equal * But as for those who believed and did righteous deeds .... And an example of the corruption that does not expel from faith: "O you who believe, if there comes to you a corrupt person with news, verify it, lest you strike a people out of ignorance." The student: ... The Shaykh: The elite ... And the rule, and Allah knows best, is that just as ......
Insert your hand into the opening of your garment
اسلك يدك في جيبك[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands
والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيديهماwash your faces and your forearms to the elbows
فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم إلى المرافقand wipe over your faces and hands with it
فامسحوا بوجوهكم وأيديكم منهinto your bosom
في جيبكوَبَعْدَ فَا جَوَابِ نَفْيٍ أَو طَلَبْ مَحْضَيْنِ أَنْ وَسَتْرُهَا حَتْمٌ نَصَبْ
يعني معناه أنَّ أنْ تنصب بعد فاء التي وقعت جواباً لنفي أو طلب محضين، ولكنه إذا فقدت الفاء فإنه يجزم
وَشَرْطُ جَزْمٍ بَعْدَ نَهْي أَنْ تَضَعْ إِنْ قَبْلَ لاَ دُونَ تَخَالُفٍ يَقَعْ
... بمعنى طلب، طلب أمر.
تخرج خلاف ما كانت عليه من الأُدمة" الأدمة السمرة يعني اللون اللي بين البياض والسواد يُسَمَّى أدمة، وكان موسى صلى الله عليه وسلم آدَم، أدخل يده فخرجت بيضاء مِن غير سوءأي مِن غير عيب، وأن العيب.. والبياض الذي يسوء المرء ما هو؟ البرص ولهذا قال المؤلف:" أي برص" وقوله: بيضاء محلها من الإعراب حال من أين؟ من فاعل تخرج.
بيضاء من غير سوء قال: فأدخلها وأخرجها تضيء كشعاع الشمس تغشي البصر" ... يكفينا أن نقول ما قال الله سبحانه وتعالى:بيضاء من غير سوء بل بياضا لا .. ولا.. وأما أن تكون تضيء كان الله يقول: تخرج مضيئة. لأن الإضاءة أبلغ من مجرد البياض، كذلك أيضاً أقوى للآية ونحن .. قول الله: بيضاء.
واضمم إليك جناحك من الرهب بفتح الحرفين وسكون الثاني مع فتح الأول وضمه" و"سكون الثاني" اللي هو الهاء "مع فتح الأول" اللي هو الراء "وضمه" فتكون القراءة بثلاثة الرَهَبوالرَهْبوالرُهْب واضمم إليك جناحك من الرَهَب واضمم إليك جناحك من الرُهْب واضمم إليك جناحك من الرَهْب وقوله: جناحك المراد بالجناح اليد لأنها للإنسان بمنزلة الجناح للطائر، وقوله:مِن الرهبمِن السببية ... قال: "أي الخوف" هذا تفسير للرهب الرهب معناه الخوف، المعنى يقول المؤلِّف:" أي الخوف الحاصل من إضاءة اليد بأن تدخلها في جيبك فتعود إلى حالتها الأولى" يعني معناه إذا قال ... وأردت أن تعود إلى حالها الأولى فاضمم إليك مرة ثانية .. تعود إلى حالها فإذا أدخلها في جيبه وأخرجها صارت بيضاء، وإذا أراد أن يعيدها إلى حالتها ضمَّها إليه فعادت إلى حالها. هذا معنى كلام المؤلف، وقال بعض العلماء إن الجملة هذه منفصلة عن الأولى وأن الله .. إذا خاف أن يضم يده إلى صدره حتى يزول عنه الخوف، وهل هذه آية خاصة لموسى فقط أنه إذا خاف من شيء فإنه يضم يده إليه .. أو أنها عامة لكل أحد، هي على كل حال بالنسبة لموسى.. أنه إذا خاف مِن فرعون أو مِن غيره يضم إليه يده، لكنَّ غيره رُوِي عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أنه قال: " ما من خائف يضع يده على صدره إلا زال خوفه " ........ على كل حال هي بالنسبة لموسى الآن فيها قولان لأهل العلم: القول الأول أن هذه ..... وهذا يُضعِفه أن الله قال: اضمم إليك جناحك من الرهب وموسى لم يرهب لأن الله ما دام قال له: بيضاء من غير سوء فإنه لن يرهب، والقول الثاني أنه عندما يحصل منه خوف .. عرفت مِن الآية ولَّى مدبراً ولا مدعى خائفا أرشده الله أنه إذا .. الخوف من شيء فإنه يضم يده إليها إلى نفسه واضمم إليك جناحك من الرهب ، وعبَّر عنها بالجناح لأنها للإنسان كالجناح للطائر" وهذا صحيح وهي جناح أيضاً حتى الإنسان عنده ... يفرد يديه .... وهي لا شك أنها تزين الإنسان كما أن جناح الطائر يزينه.
فَذَانِكَ بالتشديد والتخفيف أي العصا واليد وهما مؤنثان وإنما ذُكِّرَ المشارُ به إليهما المبتدأ لتذكير خبره" ...... لأن اليدين كما تعرف واحدة جناح والأخرى.. فإذا أدخلها في جيبه .......... وهذا الذي يمنع من القول .. سواء ..... وقوله: فذانك يقول:" بالتشديد والتخفيف" بالتشديد فَذَانِّك وبالتخفيف فذانِك نريد مِن غانم يستشهد لنا من كلام ابن مالك على هذين الوجهين.
الطالب: ....
الشيخ :
وَالْنّوْنُ مِنْ ذَيْنِ وَتَيْنِ شُدِّدَا أَيْضَاً -مثل النون من اللذان واللتان- وَتَعْوِيضٌ بِذَاكَ قُصِدَا
فذانك أي العصا واليد العصا مؤنث ولّا مذكر؟
الطالب: ...
الشيخ : مؤنث قال: هي عصاي أتوكَّأ عليها ولم يقل: هو عصاي أتوكَّأ عليه بل قال: هي عصاي أتوكَّأ عليها، طيب اليد مذكر ولّا مؤنث؟
الطالب: ....
الشيخ : .. اسلك يدك في جيبك تخرج بيضاء ولم يقل: يخرج أبيض، وقال تعالى: بل يداه مبسوطتان وقال: وقالت اليهود يد الله مغلولة .. المهم أنه مؤنث، إذاً العصا مؤنث واليد مؤنث والإشارة فذانك برهانان مذكر ولّا لا؟ .. الإشارة، لو كان بالتأنيث لقال: فتانِك برهانان. فلماذا جعله مذكرا يقول المؤلف: " وإنَّما ذُكِّر المشار به إليهما المبتدأ" لأن ذان المبتدأ والخبر برهانان" لِتذكير خبره برهانان مؤنث[كذا ويقصد مثنى] برهان، وبرهان مذكر ولّا مؤنث؟
الطالب: مذكر.
الشيخ : مذكر، ........ يا أيها الناس قد جاءكم برهان من ربكم وإذاً هذا مو هو بواضح .. لأنه مفصول بين الفعل والفاعل ما قال قد جاءتكم برهان. قد جاءكم برهان، طيب إذاً برهان مذكر واليد والعصا مؤنث، فهنا لُوحِظ الخبر ولّا لُوحِظ المُشار إليه؟ لُوحِظ الخبر، لأن برهانان مذكر فذُكِّر اسم الإشارة، برهانان ما هو البرهان؟ هو الدليل وقول المؤلف:" مُرسَلان من ربك " كلمة مرسلان ليست تفسيراً لـبرهانان ولكنَّها بيان لِمُتَعَلَّق قوله: من ربك لأن كلمة برهان اسم جامد لا يصح أن يكون مُتَعَلَّقاً للجار والمجرور فهمتم يا جماعة؟ ولّا لا؟ طيب مرة ثانية نقول: مرسلان قد يظن الظانّ أنها تفسير لـبرهانان والبرهان ليس معناه المُرسل البرهان معناه الدليل، الدليل الواضح يُسَمَّى برهاناً، وعند المتكلمين يقولون: إن البرهان هو الدليل القاطع .. لكن المؤلف أدخل مرسلان لِيُبيِّن أن قوله: من ربك متعلق به بـمرسلان المُقَدَّر، ولم يجعلْه مُتَعلِّقاً بـبرهانان، لأنَّ برهانان اسم جامد، والجار والمجرور ما يتعلق إلا بفعل أو مُشتَقّ كما قال الناظم هنا
لَا بُدَّ لِلجَارِ مِنَ التَّعَلُّقِ بِفِعْلٍ اَوْ مَعْنَاهُ نَحْوُ مُرْتَقِي
وَاسْتَثْنِ كُلَّ زَائِدٍ لَهُ عَمَلْ كَالْبَا وَمِنْ وَالكَافِ أيْضًا وَلَعَلْ
يعني قوله: لا بد للجار مِن التعُلُّق بفعل أو معناه يعني مرسلان لكن غير المؤلف قال: لا حاجة إلى أن نُقَدِّر مرسلان بل نقول: برهانان كائنان مِن ربك. فهو متعلق ب .. ولّا ب .. هنا الجار والمجرور ... الجار والمجرور وهذا الذي قاله مَن خالفوه أصح مما قاله المؤلف، لأن ما قاله المؤلف خاص وما قدّره غيره عام، ومتعلق الجار والمجرور إذا كان خاصاً لا يجوز تركه بل لا بُدَّ من ذِكْره فلا يُحذف متعلق الجار والمجرور إلا إذا كان عامًّا مثل كائن أو موجود أو ما أشبه ذلك، فالصواب إذاً أن نُبقِي الآية على ما هي عليه ونقول: مِن ربك متعلق بمحذوف تقديره: كائنان.
برهانان مِن ربك إلى فرعون وملإيْه وهذا الذي أوجب للمؤلف أن يُقَدِّر مُرسلان لأجل قوله: إلى فرعون ولكنه ليس مرسلا .. المُرسل في الحقيقة موسى لكنْ معه دليلان، دليلان إلى فرعون وملئه أي قومه، فرعون هو حاكِمُ مِصرَ وقد قيل: إنه علمٌ جنس لِكل مَن حكم مصر كافِراً فإنه يُسَمى فِرعون، وكل مَن ملك الفُرْس كافراً فإنه يُسَمى كِسْرَى، وكل من ملك الروم كافراً فإنه يسمى قَيْصَر.
وقوله: إنهم كانوا قوماً فاسقين الجملة تعليل لِما قبلها يعني أننا أرسلناك بهاتين الآيتين إلى هؤلاء القوم لأنهم كانوا قوماً فاسقين، كانوا فيما مضى أو كانوا في عِلْم الله؟
الطالب: ...
الشيخ : طيب نحن قررنا قبل أن كان مفصولة الزمن مفصولة الدَّلالة عن الزمن لأنه ما دلَّ على ماضٍ ولا على غيره، فمعنى كانوا قوماً فاسقين أي: مُتَّصِفِين بالفِسْق، وقرَّرنا هذا بأن كان ما تدل على .. المُضِيّ وقررنا هذا لأنّ الله تعالى يقول عن نفسه دائماً: وكان الله بِكُلِّ شيء عليماً وكان اللهُ غفوراً رحيماً إلى آخره، ومعلومٌ أنه ليس المراد الزمن الماضي بل المراد أنه مُتَّصِفٌ بهذه الصفات، لكنَّها قد تدل على الزمن الماضي بِقرينة بقرينة غير لفظ الفعل، وقوله: فاسقين أيُّ الفِسْقَيْن منهما؟ فسق الكفر ولّا الطاعة؟ ... طاعة هذا الفسق قد مرَّ علينا أن الفسق ينقسم إلى قسمين: قسم مخرِج عن الملة وهو فسق الكفر، وفسق مخرج عن الاستقامة وهو فسق المعصية ...... أفمن كان مؤمناً كمن كان فاسقاً لا يستوون * أما الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات .... ومثال الفسق الذي لا يُخرج عن الإيمان يا أيها الذين آمنوا إن جاءكم فاسق بنبأ فتبينوا أن تصيبوا قوماً بجهالة .
الطالب: ...
الشيخ : الملأ ... والضابط والله أعلم أنه كما أن ......
It is the collar of the shirt ... the pocket .... His statement: "And He brought it out" — the author assumed a request to fit the answer, because it is not merely putting it in ... but if He brought it out, it came out white. However, the truth is that there is no need for that, because there is no obstacle to it being an answer to His statement: "Put it in." For if you say "Put it in" and then "Bring it out," it necessarily follows ... and the original rule is not to omit. Therefore, "takhruj" (it comes out) here is in the jussive case as an answer to the request in his statement: "Put it in." Because if the fā' is omitted from the answer to a request, it becomes jussive, and if the fā' is present with it, it becomes accusative with "an." Ibn Malik said: "And after the fā' of the answer to negation or pure request, 'an' is required, and its concealment is inevitable, causing the accusative." This means that "an" causes the accusative after the fā' that occurs as an answer to pure negation or request. But if the fā' is absent, it becomes jussive. "And the condition for the jussive after a prohibition is that you place 'an' if before 'lā' there is no disagreement occurring ... meaning a request, a command request." "Takhruj" is the opposite of what it was of the "adimah." "Adimah" is brownness, meaning the color between white and black is called "adimah." And Musa (peace be upon him) was "adam" (brown). He put his hand in and it came out white "without defect," meaning without blemish. And the blemish ... what is the whiteness that distresses a person? It is leprosy. Therefore, the author said: "Meaning leprosy." And his statement: "White" — its grammatical position is a "hal" (state) from where? From the subject of "takhruj." "White without defect." He said: "So He put it in and brought it out, shining like the rays of the sun, blinding the sight" ... it suffices for us to say what Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: "White without defect," rather than a whiteness that ... and ... As for it being "shining," Allah would have said: "It comes out shining." Because shining is more eloquent than mere whiteness, and likewise stronger for the verse. And we ... Allah's statement: "White." "And gather your wing to you from fear" — with the fathah of the two letters and the sukun of the second with the fathah of the first and its dammah. "And 'sukun of the second' which is the hā' 'with the fathah of the first' which is the rā' 'and its dammah.' So the recitation is with three: al-rahab, al-rahb, and al-ruhb. "And gather your wing to you from al-rahab," "And gather your wing to you from al-ruhb," "And gather your wing to you from al-rahb." And his statement: "Your wing" — the intended meaning of the wing is the hand, because for the human it is in the position of the wing for the bird. And his statement: "From al-rahab" — "min" is causal ... He said: "Meaning fear." This is an explanation of "al-rahab." "Al-rahab" means fear. The meaning, the author says: "Meaning the fear resulting from the shining of the hand, so that you put it in your pocket and it returns to its original state." Meaning, if he said ... and you wanted it to return to its original state, gather it to you a second time ... it returns to its state. So if he put it in his pocket and brought it out, it became white, and if he wanted to return it to its state, he gathered it to himself and it returned to its state. This is the meaning of the author's words. And some scholars said that this sentence is separate from the first, and that Allah ... if he fears, he gathers his hand to his chest until the fear leaves him. And is this a sign specific to Musa only, that if he fears something, he gathers his hand to himself ... or is it general for everyone? In any case, regarding Musa ... that if he fears from Pharaoh or from others, he gathers his hand to himself. But it is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and him) that he said: "There is no fearful person who places his hand on his chest except that his fear is removed." ........ In any case, regarding Musa, there are now two opinions among the scholars of knowledge: The first opinion is that this ..... And this weakens it because Allah said: "Gather your wing to you from fear," and Musa did not fear, because as long as Allah said to him: "White without defect," he will not fear. And the second opinion is that when fear occurs in him ... you know from the verse "And he turned his back, fleeing and afraid." Allah guided him that if ... fear from something, he gathers his hand to it, to himself, "And gather your wing to you from fear." And he described it as a wing because for the human it is like the wing for the bird." And this is correct, and it is a wing also, because the human has ... he spreads his hands .... And it is undoubtedly that it adorns the human, just as the wing of the bird adorns it. "Fadhanik" with the shaddah and the takhfif (lightening) — meaning the staff and the hand, and both are feminine. And the subject referring to them was made masculine because of the masculinity of its predicate "...... Because the two hands, as you know, one is a wing and the other ... So if he put it in his pocket .......... And this prevents the saying ... whether ..... And his statement: "Fadhanik" — he says: "With the shaddah and the takhfif." With the shaddah: "Fadhan-nik," and with the takhfif: "Fadhanik." We want from Ghanim to cite for us from the words of Ibn Malik on these two ways. The student: .... The Shaykh: "And the nūn of dhayn and tayn were also shaddah'd — like the nūn of alladhīn and allatayn — and compensation with dhāka was intended." "Fadhanik" means the staff and the hand. Is the staff feminine or masculine? The student: ... The Shaykh: Feminine. He said: "It is my staff upon which I lean," and he did not say: "It is my staff upon which I lean" (masculine form), but he said: "It is my staff upon which I lean" (feminine form). Okay, is the hand masculine or feminine? The student: .... The Shaykh: .. Put your hand in your pocket, it comes out white, and he did not say: "It comes out white" (masculine form). And He said: "But his two hands are outstretched," and He said: "And the Jews said: The hand of Allah is closed" ... The important thing is that it is feminine. So the staff is feminine and the hand is feminine, and the reference "fadhanik" — are the two proofs masculine or not? .. The reference, if it were with the feminine, he would have said: "Fatanik" (feminine form) two proofs. So why did he make it masculine? The author says: "And the subject referring to them was made masculine" because "dhān" is the subject and the predicate is "two proofs" "for the masculinity of its predicate." "Two proofs" is feminine [sic, and he means dual]. "Burhan" (proof), and is "burhan" masculine or feminine? The student: Masculine. The Shaykh: Masculine, ........ O mankind, a proof has come to you from your Lord. And so this is not clear .. because it is separated between the verb and the subject; he did not say "A proof has come to you" (feminine verb). "A proof has come to you." Okay, so "burhan" is masculine and the hand and the staff are feminine, so here was the predicate considered or was the referred-to thing considered? The predicate was considered, because "two proofs" is masculine, so the demonstrative noun was made masculine. What is "burhan"? It is the evidence. And the author's statement: "Sent from your Lord" — the word "sent" is not an explanation of "two proofs," but it is a clarification of the connection of his statement: "From your Lord." Because the word "burhan" is a static noun, and it is not correct for it to be the connection of the preposition and its object. Did you understand, everyone? Or not? Okay, let's say it a second time: "Sent" — one might think it is an explanation of "two proofs," and "burhan" does not mean "sent." "Burhan" means evidence. The clear evidence is called a "burhan." And among the theologians, they say: The "burhan" is the conclusive evidence .. But the author introduced "sent" to clarify that his statement: "From your Lord" is connected to it with "sent" which is implied, and he did not make it connected to "two proofs," because "two proofs" is a static noun, and the preposition and its object are not connected except to a verb or a derived word, as the poet said here: "The preposition must be connected to a verb or its meaning, like 'murtaqi' (one who ascends), and exclude every addition for it, like 'ba' and 'min' and the kāf also, and 'la' (perhaps)." Meaning his statement: "The preposition must be connected to a verb or its meaning" means "sent." But the author said: There is no need to assume "sent," but we say: "Two proofs existing from your Lord." So it is connected to .. or to .. Here the preposition and its object ... the preposition and its object. And this is what those who opposed him said is more correct than what the author said, because what the author said is specific, and what the others assumed is general. And the connection of the preposition and its object, if it is specific, it is not permissible to leave it out, but it must be mentioned. So the connection of the preposition and its object is not omitted except when it is general, like "existing" or "present" or the like. So the correct thing is that we keep the verse as it is and say: "From your Lord" is connected to an omitted word, the assumption of which is: "Existing." "Two proofs from your Lord to Pharaoh and his elite." And this is what necessitated the author to assume "sent" for the sake of his statement: "To Pharaoh." But he is not sent ... the one actually sent is Musa, but with him are two proofs, two proofs to Pharaoh and his elite, meaning his people. Pharaoh is the ruler of Egypt, and it has been said: It is a generic term for everyone who ruled Egypt as a disbeliever, for he is called Pharaoh. And everyone who ruled the Persians as a disbeliever is called Kisra. And everyone who ruled the Romans as a disbeliever is called Caesar. And his statement: "Indeed they were a corrupt people" — the sentence is an explanation for what came before it, meaning that We sent you with these two signs to these people because they were a corrupt people. Were they in the past or were they in the knowledge of Allah? The student: ... The Shaykh: Okay, we have established before that "kāna" is separated in time, separated in meaning from time, because it did not indicate the past or anything else. So the meaning of "they were a corrupt people" is: characterized by corruption. And we established this by "kāna" not indicating ... the past, and we established this because Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) always says about Himself: "And Allah was Knowing of all things," "And Allah was Forgiving, Merciful," and so on. And it is known that the intended meaning is not the past time, but that He is characterized by these attributes. But it may indicate the past time by a circumstance, a circumstance other than the word of the verb. And his statement: "Corrupt" — which of the two corruptions? The corruption of disbelief or of obedience? ... Obedience. This corruption has passed to us that corruption is divided into two sections: a section that expels from the religion, which is the corruption of disbelief, and a corruption that expels from uprightness, which is the corruption of sin ...... Is one who is a believer like one who is corrupt? They are not equal * But as for those who believed and did righteous deeds .... And an example of the corruption that does not expel from faith: "O you who believe, if there comes to you a corrupt person with news, verify it, lest you strike a people out of ignorance." The student: ... The Shaykh: The elite ... And the rule, and Allah knows best, is that just as ......