Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "An indefinite noun is one that accepts the article with effect *** or is in the position of what has been mentioned."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"An indefinite noun is one that accepts the article with effect *** or is in the position of what has been mentioned"
This definition is a definition by marker; it is a definition by form. A definition by form is not a complete definition; rather, it is a formal definition, not an essential one. The essential definition of the indefinite noun is: "Every name that is common in its genus and does not specify one individual over another". The formal definition, which is the definition by marker, is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned. He said:
"An indefinite noun is one that accepts the article with effect". This means that an indefinite noun is every name that accepts the article, where the article has an effect in making it definite. If it accepts the article with an effect in making it definite, then it is an indefinite noun.
An example of this is: "rajul" (man). "Rajul" is a general name. If you add the article to it, you say "al-rajul" (the man). Did the article have an effect on it or not? It had an effect, because the concept of "al-rajul" is different from the concept of "rajul." The concept of "al-rajul" is a specific man. "Rajul" is a specific man. Now, "rasul" (messenger) is an indefinite noun, while "al-rasul" (the messenger) is a definite noun.
[Al-Muzzammil 73:15] messenger Look at the difference between the first and the second. The second, the rasul, means the one who was known and mentioned.
And his saying: "with effect" excludes his saying: "accepts the article". It excludes what does not accept the article. What does not accept the article is not an indefinite noun. An example is pronouns. Do pronouns accept the article? Is it correct to say "ana qayyum al-ana qayyum" (I am standing, the I am standing)? No, it is absolutely not correct. Therefore, pronouns are not indefinite nouns because they do not accept the article. "Akramak" (I honor you). What is the "kaf"?
The student: A pronoun.
The Shaykh : Does it accept the article? So it is not an indefinite noun because it does not accept the article. Good. "Zayd" does not accept the article. You do not say "al-Zayd." "Abbas"? Ah.
The student: It accepts the article.
The Shaykh : It accepts the article. You say "al-Abbas." But this article does not have an effect in making it definite, because "Abbas" is a proper name. Whether you add the article to it or not, it does not affect anything. So "Abbas" as a proper name is not an indefinite noun.
If someone asks: How is it not an indefinite noun? Does it not accept the article? You say: "Abdullah ibn Abbas" and "Abdullah ibn al-Abbas." "Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib." We say: Yes, it accepts the article, but the article does not have an effect in making it definite because it is a proper name. So it is a definite noun, whether the article is added to it or not. Good. If I say "Abbas" as a description, not as a proper name, is it an indefinite noun or not?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : It is an indefinite noun. That is why you describe an indefinite noun with it, saying: "rajul Abbas" (a man named Abbas). And if the article is added to it, it has an effect in making it definite.
So if a questioner asks you now: Is "Abbas" an indefinite noun or not? There is a detail: If you mean it as a proper name, it is not an indefinite noun. If you mean it as a description, it is an indefinite noun. Good.
"Dhahak"? Ah.
The student: It is like it.
The Shaykh : It is like it. Good. If I say "Dhahak" and the article is added to "Dhahak" as a description, then "Dhahak" without the article is an indefinite noun. And if the article is added to "Dhahak" as a proper name, it is not an indefinite noun. So every name that accepts the article and the article has an effect in making it definite is what? An indefinite noun. If it does not accept the article, answer: It is not an indefinite noun. And if it accepts the article but the article does not have an effect in making it definite because it is a definite noun from before the article was added, ah, it is not an indefinite noun. Good.
The word "dhu" (possessor) is an objection to this. It means "owner," it is an indefinite noun, and it does not accept the article.
You say: "A man came to me, dhu mal" (a man with wealth). "Dhu" is an indefinite noun. "Dhu" is a description for "rajul," and "rajul" is an indefinite noun. And an indefinite noun is not described except by an indefinite noun.
So what is the answer? Even though "dhu" does not accept the article. If all the people gathered to add the article to "dhu," they would not succeed. It refused them. Correct, it is not correct to say: "A man came to me, al-dhu mal." "Dhu" refuses you with the strongest refusal. So how can we answer this? We say: The grammarians, or the argument of the grammarians, is like a "naqqa' yarbii'" (a type of beetle). If you block its entrance, ah, it finds an exit from another side. They said: We say that "dhu" is in the position of what accepts the article. That is why Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), like other scholars, said:
"or is in the position of what has been mentioned". So they got rid of the objection, otherwise they could not. He said: "Dhu" means "owner." "A man came to me, dhu mal" means: a man who is the owner of wealth. And "sahib" (owner) accepts the article, or not? It accepts the article and the article has an effect in making it definite. You say: "This is a man, sahib" (a man, an owner). And you say: "This is the man, sahib fulan" (this is the man, the owner of so-and-so). So it accepts the article. It accepts the article with an effect in making it definite. So when it is in the position of what accepts the article with an effect in making it definite, it has its ruling, and it became an indefinite noun. Do you understand now? Good.
In summary, the indefinite noun has two definitions: an essential definition and a formal definition. The essential definition: The indefinite noun is every name that is common in its genus and does not specify one individual over another. And the formal definition: It is the definition by marker. Ah, it is every name that accepts the article with an effect in making it definite. This is the indefinite noun.
This definition is a definition by marker; it is a definition by form. A definition by form is not a complete definition; rather, it is a formal definition, not an essential one. The essential definition of the indefinite noun is: "Every name that is common in its genus and does not specify one individual over another". The formal definition, which is the definition by marker, is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned. He said:
"An indefinite noun is one that accepts the article with effect". This means that an indefinite noun is every name that accepts the article, where the article has an effect in making it definite. If it accepts the article with an effect in making it definite, then it is an indefinite noun.
An example of this is: "rajul" (man). "Rajul" is a general name. If you add the article to it, you say "al-rajul" (the man). Did the article have an effect on it or not? It had an effect, because the concept of "al-rajul" is different from the concept of "rajul." The concept of "al-rajul" is a specific man. "Rajul" is a specific man. Now, "rasul" (messenger) is an indefinite noun, while "al-rasul" (the messenger) is a definite noun.
Indeed, We have sent to you a Messenger as a witness upon you just as We sent to Pharaoh a messenger.
إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْكُمْ رَسُولًا شَاهِدًا عَلَيْكُمْ كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَى فِرْعَوْنَ رَسُولًاBut Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger
فَعَصَى فِرْعَوْنُ الرَّسُولَAnd his saying: "with effect" excludes his saying: "accepts the article". It excludes what does not accept the article. What does not accept the article is not an indefinite noun. An example is pronouns. Do pronouns accept the article? Is it correct to say "ana qayyum al-ana qayyum" (I am standing, the I am standing)? No, it is absolutely not correct. Therefore, pronouns are not indefinite nouns because they do not accept the article. "Akramak" (I honor you). What is the "kaf"?
The student: A pronoun.
The Shaykh : Does it accept the article? So it is not an indefinite noun because it does not accept the article. Good. "Zayd" does not accept the article. You do not say "al-Zayd." "Abbas"? Ah.
The student: It accepts the article.
The Shaykh : It accepts the article. You say "al-Abbas." But this article does not have an effect in making it definite, because "Abbas" is a proper name. Whether you add the article to it or not, it does not affect anything. So "Abbas" as a proper name is not an indefinite noun.
If someone asks: How is it not an indefinite noun? Does it not accept the article? You say: "Abdullah ibn Abbas" and "Abdullah ibn al-Abbas." "Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib." We say: Yes, it accepts the article, but the article does not have an effect in making it definite because it is a proper name. So it is a definite noun, whether the article is added to it or not. Good. If I say "Abbas" as a description, not as a proper name, is it an indefinite noun or not?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : It is an indefinite noun. That is why you describe an indefinite noun with it, saying: "rajul Abbas" (a man named Abbas). And if the article is added to it, it has an effect in making it definite.
So if a questioner asks you now: Is "Abbas" an indefinite noun or not? There is a detail: If you mean it as a proper name, it is not an indefinite noun. If you mean it as a description, it is an indefinite noun. Good.
"Dhahak"? Ah.
The student: It is like it.
The Shaykh : It is like it. Good. If I say "Dhahak" and the article is added to "Dhahak" as a description, then "Dhahak" without the article is an indefinite noun. And if the article is added to "Dhahak" as a proper name, it is not an indefinite noun. So every name that accepts the article and the article has an effect in making it definite is what? An indefinite noun. If it does not accept the article, answer: It is not an indefinite noun. And if it accepts the article but the article does not have an effect in making it definite because it is a definite noun from before the article was added, ah, it is not an indefinite noun. Good.
The word "dhu" (possessor) is an objection to this. It means "owner," it is an indefinite noun, and it does not accept the article.
You say: "A man came to me, dhu mal" (a man with wealth). "Dhu" is an indefinite noun. "Dhu" is a description for "rajul," and "rajul" is an indefinite noun. And an indefinite noun is not described except by an indefinite noun.
So what is the answer? Even though "dhu" does not accept the article. If all the people gathered to add the article to "dhu," they would not succeed. It refused them. Correct, it is not correct to say: "A man came to me, al-dhu mal." "Dhu" refuses you with the strongest refusal. So how can we answer this? We say: The grammarians, or the argument of the grammarians, is like a "naqqa' yarbii'" (a type of beetle). If you block its entrance, ah, it finds an exit from another side. They said: We say that "dhu" is in the position of what accepts the article. That is why Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), like other scholars, said:
"or is in the position of what has been mentioned". So they got rid of the objection, otherwise they could not. He said: "Dhu" means "owner." "A man came to me, dhu mal" means: a man who is the owner of wealth. And "sahib" (owner) accepts the article, or not? It accepts the article and the article has an effect in making it definite. You say: "This is a man, sahib" (a man, an owner). And you say: "This is the man, sahib fulan" (this is the man, the owner of so-and-so). So it accepts the article. It accepts the article with an effect in making it definite. So when it is in the position of what accepts the article with an effect in making it definite, it has its ruling, and it became an indefinite noun. Do you understand now? Good.
In summary, the indefinite noun has two definitions: an essential definition and a formal definition. The essential definition: The indefinite noun is every name that is common in its genus and does not specify one individual over another. And the formal definition: It is the definition by marker. Ah, it is every name that accepts the article with an effect in making it definite. This is the indefinite noun.