Continuation of the explanation of Ibn Malik’s (may Allah have mercy on him) saying: “And raise with waw, and with ya’ you decline and you accuse *** a sound masculine plural, a proper name, and a verb.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Is it a proper name for a rational being that is free of the taa?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or does it have a taa?
The student: Free of it.
The Shaykh : Free of the taa, a proper name that has no taa. Do you know what “free of composition” means?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, free of composition. What is composition? Composition is either a blended composition, an attributive composition, or a predicative composition. The important thing is that it is free of composition. So it is a proper name for a rational masculine, free of the taa and free of composition. How many conditions are there? Five. Good. If it is not a proper name, if it is not a proper name but is masculine, like a garment, for example. A garment is masculine, but it is not a proper name. It cannot be a sound masculine plural because it is not a proper name. So if you named your son “Garment,” ah, it would be a sound masculine plural because it is a masculine proper name. But “garment” in the sense of something worn, this is not [a proper name], so it is not a sound masculine plural. Good.
A proper name for a masculine. If it is a proper name for a feminine, if it is a proper name for a feminine, then it is not a sound masculine plural. Like Sa’ad. We do not say “Sa’adun.” Why? Ah, because it is a proper name for a feminine. And ‘Aamir is a proper name for a masculine. Good.
If it is a proper name for a non-rational masculine, like Lahiq and Ashiq for a camel, then it is not a sound masculine plural. It is not a sound masculine plural because it is a proper name for a non-rational. Good. Talha is a proper name for a rational masculine, but it has the taa of femininity. It has the taa of femininity, so we do not say “Talhaun.” But the correct view in this is that it is a sound masculine plural because the taa in it is for the purpose of separation, so it is superfluous. And on this basis, we say: If we had three men named Talha, we would say “Talhaun came,” and there is no harm, because the taa is in the intention of separation since it is superfluous. Good.
Qatada is not pluralized according to the conditions we mentioned, but according to the stronger opinion, it is pluralized. So we say: “Qatadun” if we have three men named with this name.
If it is a compound, we said it is free of composition, a blended compound. A blended compound is combining two words with two others, combining two words with each other, not on the basis of attribution. Like Baalbek. If you named your son Baalbek, and your colleague named his son Baalbek, and your second colleague named his son Baalbek, and the Baalbeeks came, what do you say? “Baalbekun”? No, that is not correct because it is a blended compound. But what do you say if the three came? They said: You come with “Dhawu.” “Dhawu” means “owners of.” So you say: “Dhawu Baalbek came,” meaning: the owners of this name. The issue is easy. Instead of saying: “Baalbekiyyun came,” you say: “Baalbekun came.” You say: “Dhawu Baalbek came.” But some grammarians went to the permissibility of pluralizing a blended compound as a sound masculine plural. And on this basis, you say: “Baalbekun came” for the three. And this is based on the rule, the prevailing, dominant, towering rule, that when grammarians differ on an issue with two opinions, we take the easier one. So we say: According to the stronger opinion, “Baalbekun came,” and there is no objection.
We are left with the attributive composition. How do we pluralize the attributive composition? If you named my son ‘Abd Allah, and the second named his son ‘Abd Allah, and the third named his son ‘Abd Allah, and the three ‘Abd Allahs came, what do we say? If you say “‘Abd Allahun,” it is problematic. You pluralize the attributed-to, which is He, Glorified and Exalted is He. There is a distance in it, and there is a legal impediment. And if you say “‘Abdu Allah,” “‘Abdu Allah” came with the waw, as if they were a plural, it is as if you attributed all of these to one person. So the addressee does not know that they are a group. He may think that it is a collective word in the form of a plural, but it is for one person. But the correct view is that it is valid, and that the first part of it is pluralized and attributed to the second part. So you say: “‘Abdu Rabbihim came” or “‘Abdu Allah came,” just as you say: “‘Abda Allah” in the dual. And from this is the saying of al-Mulghiz in the dual: “Indeed, the two ‘Abd Allahs circumambulated the House for me seven times, and the noble, distinguished people performed Hajj”. A house nearby. “Indeed, the two ‘Abd Allahs circumambulated the House for me seven times, and from me the people, the noble, the distinguished, performed Hajj.” “From” is a preposition, and here it is raised. “The people, the noble, the distinguished.” I say: It is permissible to pluralize the beginning of an attributive compound and attribute it to its end, and there is no objection.
The third composition: the predicative composition. The predicative composition is the one whose pluralization is problematic, difficult. There is a man named Shabab Qurna. A man with this name, just as you name Khalid and ‘Amr. Named Shabab Qurna. So if you named my son Shabab Qurna, and you named your son Shabab Qurna, and the third named his son Shabab Qurna, and the three were present, what do we say?
The student: Shabab Qurna.
The Shaykh : No, this is not valid. We must come with “Dhawu.” “Dhawu Shabab Qurna came,” meaning: the owners of the named one, the owners of this name. Because you cannot pluralize in a verbal sentence.
And likewise, the predicative composition can be a nominal sentence, like al-Shan Fari. Al-Shan Fari, its name is al-Shan Fari. Al-Shan is the subject, and Fari is the predicate of the sentence. So if you named my son al-Shan Fari, and your son with this, and the third his son with this, it is not possible to pluralize except if we connect with the word “Dhawu.” “Dhawu al-Shan Fari.”
So it is clear by this that the stronger opinion is that a blended or attributive compound cannot be a sound masculine plural. And as for a predicative compound, this is not possible. We have finished speaking on the sound masculine plural when it is a plural of a proper name, and we are left with the adjective. And I think the time has ended.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or does it have a taa?
The student: Free of it.
The Shaykh : Free of the taa, a proper name that has no taa. Do you know what “free of composition” means?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, free of composition. What is composition? Composition is either a blended composition, an attributive composition, or a predicative composition. The important thing is that it is free of composition. So it is a proper name for a rational masculine, free of the taa and free of composition. How many conditions are there? Five. Good. If it is not a proper name, if it is not a proper name but is masculine, like a garment, for example. A garment is masculine, but it is not a proper name. It cannot be a sound masculine plural because it is not a proper name. So if you named your son “Garment,” ah, it would be a sound masculine plural because it is a masculine proper name. But “garment” in the sense of something worn, this is not [a proper name], so it is not a sound masculine plural. Good.
A proper name for a masculine. If it is a proper name for a feminine, if it is a proper name for a feminine, then it is not a sound masculine plural. Like Sa’ad. We do not say “Sa’adun.” Why? Ah, because it is a proper name for a feminine. And ‘Aamir is a proper name for a masculine. Good.
If it is a proper name for a non-rational masculine, like Lahiq and Ashiq for a camel, then it is not a sound masculine plural. It is not a sound masculine plural because it is a proper name for a non-rational. Good. Talha is a proper name for a rational masculine, but it has the taa of femininity. It has the taa of femininity, so we do not say “Talhaun.” But the correct view in this is that it is a sound masculine plural because the taa in it is for the purpose of separation, so it is superfluous. And on this basis, we say: If we had three men named Talha, we would say “Talhaun came,” and there is no harm, because the taa is in the intention of separation since it is superfluous. Good.
Qatada is not pluralized according to the conditions we mentioned, but according to the stronger opinion, it is pluralized. So we say: “Qatadun” if we have three men named with this name.
If it is a compound, we said it is free of composition, a blended compound. A blended compound is combining two words with two others, combining two words with each other, not on the basis of attribution. Like Baalbek. If you named your son Baalbek, and your colleague named his son Baalbek, and your second colleague named his son Baalbek, and the Baalbeeks came, what do you say? “Baalbekun”? No, that is not correct because it is a blended compound. But what do you say if the three came? They said: You come with “Dhawu.” “Dhawu” means “owners of.” So you say: “Dhawu Baalbek came,” meaning: the owners of this name. The issue is easy. Instead of saying: “Baalbekiyyun came,” you say: “Baalbekun came.” You say: “Dhawu Baalbek came.” But some grammarians went to the permissibility of pluralizing a blended compound as a sound masculine plural. And on this basis, you say: “Baalbekun came” for the three. And this is based on the rule, the prevailing, dominant, towering rule, that when grammarians differ on an issue with two opinions, we take the easier one. So we say: According to the stronger opinion, “Baalbekun came,” and there is no objection.
We are left with the attributive composition. How do we pluralize the attributive composition? If you named my son ‘Abd Allah, and the second named his son ‘Abd Allah, and the third named his son ‘Abd Allah, and the three ‘Abd Allahs came, what do we say? If you say “‘Abd Allahun,” it is problematic. You pluralize the attributed-to, which is He, Glorified and Exalted is He. There is a distance in it, and there is a legal impediment. And if you say “‘Abdu Allah,” “‘Abdu Allah” came with the waw, as if they were a plural, it is as if you attributed all of these to one person. So the addressee does not know that they are a group. He may think that it is a collective word in the form of a plural, but it is for one person. But the correct view is that it is valid, and that the first part of it is pluralized and attributed to the second part. So you say: “‘Abdu Rabbihim came” or “‘Abdu Allah came,” just as you say: “‘Abda Allah” in the dual. And from this is the saying of al-Mulghiz in the dual: “Indeed, the two ‘Abd Allahs circumambulated the House for me seven times, and the noble, distinguished people performed Hajj”. A house nearby. “Indeed, the two ‘Abd Allahs circumambulated the House for me seven times, and from me the people, the noble, the distinguished, performed Hajj.” “From” is a preposition, and here it is raised. “The people, the noble, the distinguished.” I say: It is permissible to pluralize the beginning of an attributive compound and attribute it to its end, and there is no objection.
The third composition: the predicative composition. The predicative composition is the one whose pluralization is problematic, difficult. There is a man named Shabab Qurna. A man with this name, just as you name Khalid and ‘Amr. Named Shabab Qurna. So if you named my son Shabab Qurna, and you named your son Shabab Qurna, and the third named his son Shabab Qurna, and the three were present, what do we say?
The student: Shabab Qurna.
The Shaykh : No, this is not valid. We must come with “Dhawu.” “Dhawu Shabab Qurna came,” meaning: the owners of the named one, the owners of this name. Because you cannot pluralize in a verbal sentence.
And likewise, the predicative composition can be a nominal sentence, like al-Shan Fari. Al-Shan Fari, its name is al-Shan Fari. Al-Shan is the subject, and Fari is the predicate of the sentence. So if you named my son al-Shan Fari, and your son with this, and the third his son with this, it is not possible to pluralize except if we connect with the word “Dhawu.” “Dhawu al-Shan Fari.”
So it is clear by this that the stronger opinion is that a blended or attributive compound cannot be a sound masculine plural. And as for a predicative compound, this is not possible. We have finished speaking on the sound masculine plural when it is a plural of a proper name, and we are left with the adjective. And I think the time has ended.