Review of the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And raise with waw, and with ya' you decline and you accuse *** a sound masculine plural of a proper noun and a description."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"And raise with waw, and with ya' you decline and you accuse *** a sound masculine plural of a proper noun and a description"
We have previously discussed 'Amir, and if you examine it, you will find that it is a proper name for a male rational being, free from the letter taa and from being a compound. We have spoken about this both in its explicit meaning and its implied meaning.
As for his saying: "Mudhnaab", it is an active participle from the verb *adhnama* (to sin), and it is a description, not a proper name. No one names their son Mudhnaab. Yes, Mudhnaab is a description, meaning one who commits sins. When we examine this description, we find that it is for a male rational being, because those described as sinners are the rational ones; the insane have no sins. Thus, Mudhnaab is for a rational male, free from the taa of femininity.
Being a compound is not applicable, because there is no compounding in descriptions.
They say: It is not of the pattern *Af'alu Fa'laat*, nor *Fa'laan Fa'laat*, nor of the type where the masculine and feminine are equal. I see that we should delete this. It is a description for a male rational being, free from the taa of femininity, that is all. It is not of the pattern *Af'alu Fa'laat*, nor of the pattern *Fa'laan Fa'laat*, nor of the type where the masculine and feminine are equal. All of this is a matter of disagreement, and we are beginners; there is no need for us to enter into the depths of a weak disagreement. Mudhnaab is a description for a male rational being, free from the taa of femininity. Here, we stop.
An example of this: Mudhnaab, you say: Mudhnaaboon. Qa'im, qa'imoon. Raaki', raaki'oon. Saajid, saajidoon, and so on. Haamil, not haamil... he means a pregnant woman, so this is not pluralized as a sound masculine plural because it is not for a male. Does he mean a man carrying something? Then it is pluralized.
Therefore, if someone asks you: Do you pluralize *haamil* as a sound masculine plural? I say: It depends on the detail. If you mean the pregnant woman, then no, because it is a description for a female. If you mean *haamil* in the sense of one who actually carries, for example, one who carries luggage or the like, then it is for a male, and it is permissible to pluralize it as a sound masculine plural.
Free from the taa. If it is accompanied by the taa, it is not pluralized as a sound masculine plural. Even if it is a description for a male rational being, like *'Allaamah* (a man who is an *'Allaamah*). Yes, you do not say: *'Allaamoon*. If, for example, three scholars come to you, all of them good in knowledge, each deserving to be called *'Allaamah*, and three of those whose description is this come to you, do you say: "Three *'Allaamoon* scholars came to me"? Yes, no, you do not say that. But there is disagreement in this as well. Some grammarians say: It is permissible if the intended meaning is known, even if it is accompanied by the taa. Okay, *Naabighah*.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Why? Because it has the taa, so you do not say *Naabighoon*. Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, why? Because it is closed with the taa. But we say: The condition that it not be closed with the taa has no evidence for it, neither from the Qur'an, nor from the Sunnah, nor from consensus. Yes, if that is not the case, then it is not considered. The correct view is that it is permissible. The important thing is that we understand the meaning, that we understand the meaning. Okay.
Those who said: It is not permissible, said that if you say *'Allaamoon* for *'Allaamah*, you have not articulated the taa which contains an increase of exaggeration. Because *'Allaam* and *'Allaamah*, which is more intense? *'Allaamah*. So they say: If you say *'Allaamoon*, the listener thinks it is the plural of *'Allaam*, which is of a lower rank than *'Allaamah*. Okay.
The author says: "A sound masculine plural of a proper noun and a description". If it is not a proper name and not a description, is it pluralized as a sound masculine plural? No. If it is not a proper name and not a description, it is not pluralized as a sound masculine plural, even if it is for a rational being, even if it is for a rational being.
So if you say: *Rajul*, *rajul* like this, you do not pluralize it as *Rajuloon*. Why? It is not a proper name and not a description. It is not a proper name and not a description. *Insan*, *insan* is pluralized, it is said *Insanoon*. No, why? It is not a proper name and not a description. *Bashar*, likewise, you do not say: *Basharoon*. If you name your son *Rajul*, you named him *Rajul*, and your colleague named his son *Rajul*, and the second colleague named him *Rajul*, and these sons came and attended at your place, do you say: "Three *Rajuloon* came to me"?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Knowledge.
The Shaykh : Because it became a proper name. Okay, okay. You named your son *Bashar*, and your colleague did the same, and the second colleague did the same. Do you say: *Basharoon*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it became a proper name. But if it is a generic name, you do not pluralize it as a sound masculine plural.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"And raise with waw, and with ya' you decline and you accuse *** a sound masculine plural of a proper noun and a description"
We have previously discussed 'Amir, and if you examine it, you will find that it is a proper name for a male rational being, free from the letter taa and from being a compound. We have spoken about this both in its explicit meaning and its implied meaning.
As for his saying: "Mudhnaab", it is an active participle from the verb *adhnama* (to sin), and it is a description, not a proper name. No one names their son Mudhnaab. Yes, Mudhnaab is a description, meaning one who commits sins. When we examine this description, we find that it is for a male rational being, because those described as sinners are the rational ones; the insane have no sins. Thus, Mudhnaab is for a rational male, free from the taa of femininity.
Being a compound is not applicable, because there is no compounding in descriptions.
They say: It is not of the pattern *Af'alu Fa'laat*, nor *Fa'laan Fa'laat*, nor of the type where the masculine and feminine are equal. I see that we should delete this. It is a description for a male rational being, free from the taa of femininity, that is all. It is not of the pattern *Af'alu Fa'laat*, nor of the pattern *Fa'laan Fa'laat*, nor of the type where the masculine and feminine are equal. All of this is a matter of disagreement, and we are beginners; there is no need for us to enter into the depths of a weak disagreement. Mudhnaab is a description for a male rational being, free from the taa of femininity. Here, we stop.
An example of this: Mudhnaab, you say: Mudhnaaboon. Qa'im, qa'imoon. Raaki', raaki'oon. Saajid, saajidoon, and so on. Haamil, not haamil... he means a pregnant woman, so this is not pluralized as a sound masculine plural because it is not for a male. Does he mean a man carrying something? Then it is pluralized.
Therefore, if someone asks you: Do you pluralize *haamil* as a sound masculine plural? I say: It depends on the detail. If you mean the pregnant woman, then no, because it is a description for a female. If you mean *haamil* in the sense of one who actually carries, for example, one who carries luggage or the like, then it is for a male, and it is permissible to pluralize it as a sound masculine plural.
Free from the taa. If it is accompanied by the taa, it is not pluralized as a sound masculine plural. Even if it is a description for a male rational being, like *'Allaamah* (a man who is an *'Allaamah*). Yes, you do not say: *'Allaamoon*. If, for example, three scholars come to you, all of them good in knowledge, each deserving to be called *'Allaamah*, and three of those whose description is this come to you, do you say: "Three *'Allaamoon* scholars came to me"? Yes, no, you do not say that. But there is disagreement in this as well. Some grammarians say: It is permissible if the intended meaning is known, even if it is accompanied by the taa. Okay, *Naabighah*.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Why? Because it has the taa, so you do not say *Naabighoon*. Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, why? Because it is closed with the taa. But we say: The condition that it not be closed with the taa has no evidence for it, neither from the Qur'an, nor from the Sunnah, nor from consensus. Yes, if that is not the case, then it is not considered. The correct view is that it is permissible. The important thing is that we understand the meaning, that we understand the meaning. Okay.
Those who said: It is not permissible, said that if you say *'Allaamoon* for *'Allaamah*, you have not articulated the taa which contains an increase of exaggeration. Because *'Allaam* and *'Allaamah*, which is more intense? *'Allaamah*. So they say: If you say *'Allaamoon*, the listener thinks it is the plural of *'Allaam*, which is of a lower rank than *'Allaamah*. Okay.
The author says: "A sound masculine plural of a proper noun and a description". If it is not a proper name and not a description, is it pluralized as a sound masculine plural? No. If it is not a proper name and not a description, it is not pluralized as a sound masculine plural, even if it is for a rational being, even if it is for a rational being.
So if you say: *Rajul*, *rajul* like this, you do not pluralize it as *Rajuloon*. Why? It is not a proper name and not a description. It is not a proper name and not a description. *Insan*, *insan* is pluralized, it is said *Insanoon*. No, why? It is not a proper name and not a description. *Bashar*, likewise, you do not say: *Basharoon*. If you name your son *Rajul*, you named him *Rajul*, and your colleague named his son *Rajul*, and the second colleague named him *Rajul*, and these sons came and attended at your place, do you say: "Three *Rajuloon* came to me"?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Knowledge.
The Shaykh : Because it became a proper name. Okay, okay. You named your son *Bashar*, and your colleague did the same, and the second colleague did the same. Do you say: *Basharoon*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it became a proper name. But if it is a generic name, you do not pluralize it as a sound masculine plural.