Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And in a state of choice, the separated [pronoun] does not come *** if it is possible for the attached [pronoun] to come."

The Shaykh : The author said:
"And in a state of choice, the separated [pronoun] does not come *** if it is possible for the attached [pronoun] to come"
In the phrase "in a state of choice," the preposition "in" and its object are connected to the word "comes". This means that in a state of choice, the separated [pronoun], i.e., the separated pronoun, does not come if it is possible, i.e., if it is feasible, for the attached [pronoun] to come. So his phrase "in a state of choice" is the opposite of necessity. What is necessity here? Necessity is the exigency of poetry. Accordingly, the meaning of his phrase "in a state of choice" is in the state of prose. In the state of prose, the separated [pronoun] does not come if it is possible for the attached [pronoun] to come. Why? First, because the attached [pronoun] is more concise. Second, because it is clearer in meaning. If you say "I hit you," it is clearer than saying "I hit you [object pronoun]" because it is more specific, and the more specific is more indicative of the intended meaning than the more general. Therefore, the attached pronoun is more specific and closer to the verb than the separated pronoun, making it more indicative of the intended meaning. Thus, the reasoning for this ruling is that in a state of choice, the separated [pronoun] does not come if it is possible for the attached [pronoun] to come, because the attached [pronoun] is more concise, and second, it is clearer in indicating the subject because it is attached to the verb like one of its letters. For example, if you say "I honored you, O man," here it is not permissible for me to say "I honored you [object pronoun], O man," because it is possible to use what? An attached [pronoun]. And if it is possible to use the attached [pronoun], it is obligatory. It is understood from his words that if it is not possible to use the attached [pronoun], we use the separated [pronoun]. This returns to the rules of grammar: when it is possible to use it and when it is not. For example, in the beginning of a sentence, it is not possible for the attached [pronoun] to come. In the beginning, it is not possible to use the attached [pronoun] because the meaning of the attached [pronoun] is that it is connected to its governor, and the pronoun is attached to it. If we place the pronoun at the beginning, it means there is no governor for the pronoun to attach to. Consequently, the attached [pronoun] is not feasible, so we must use what? The separated [pronoun]. For example, the saying of Allah the Exalted: . The word uses the separated pronoun because the attached pronoun is not possible. If you said "We worship [attached pronoun]," it would not be correct. Well, he said: "It is you I mean, and listen, O neighbor." "It is you I mean, and listen, O neighbor." Here, it is not possible for the attached [pronoun] to come because the attached [pronoun] is never used to begin a sentence. It is clear, so it is not correct for me to say "I mean [attached pronoun]," but we say: "It is you I mean, and listen, O neighbor." If someone says: "It is possible to use the attached [pronoun]," we say: "I mean you," and the speech is correct. We say: This is correct, this is possible. But if we use the attached [pronoun] in this form, we miss the intended purpose of fronting, which is restriction. The intended restriction is by the speaker. If you said: "I mean you, and listen, O neighbor," the speech is correct, but it misses what the speaker wants regarding restriction. If you said: "We worship You, O our Lord," the speech is correct, but it misses what the speaker wants, which is restriction. Thus, necessity does not mean that it is impossible to speak except in that way. No, that is not what necessity is. Necessity is that if we commit it, the intended purpose of the speaker is missed. This is the necessity where, if committed, the speaker's intended purpose is missed. It is not like the necessity of eating carrion, which is that if he did not eat what? He would die. This is what we said about necessity here, or in choice: it is that if we commit it, the speaker's intended purpose is missed. So we prioritize the speaker's intended purpose and commit separation in place of attachment. Among such examples is the saying of Allah the Exalted: . Here, the pronoun is a separated [pronoun]. If it were not in the Qur'an, we would say: "They drive out you and the Messenger," and the speech would be correct. But why did he say: ? In order to front the Messenger, because driving out the Messenger is a greater evil than driving out them. So he began with the greater in terms of negation, which is driving out the Messenger. Well, if someone says: "Why is it not said: 'They drive out the Messenger'?" We have said that the attached pronoun must be connected to its governor. Here, the "waw" is a conjunction, and conjunction requires separation, the separation of the conjoined from the conjoined upon. It is not possible for the attached pronoun to follow a letter of conjunction at all, because the letter of conjunction requires what? Separation. And the attached pronoun must be connected to its governor and cannot be separated from it. Summary of the verse: Whenever it is possible to use the attached pronoun, it is not permissible to use the separated pronoun. And by "possible," we mean what? That which does not cause the speaker's intended purpose to be missed. So whenever it is possible to use the attached pronoun without missing the speaker's intended purpose, attachment is obligatory. And if it is not possible except by missing the speaker's intended purpose, then separation is permissible. Then he said, by way of exception to this rule, which is that it is not possible to use the separated [pronoun] when the attached [pronoun] is possible, he excepted three issues from this. The first is what he indicated by his saying: "Attach or separate the haa of 'ask me' and what *** resembles it".