Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Likewise, I left it as a noun, and connected it *** I choose, while others choose separation."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says: "Likewise, I left it as a noun, and connected it". Now, "I left it as a noun": "Likewise" is a prepositional phrase that serves as a fronted predicate, and "I left it as a noun" is a delayed subject. Every instance of "I left it as a noun" is a delayed subject, even though it consists of a verb, a subject, and two objects. How can "I left it as a noun" be a subject? We say: because the intended meaning is its form, because the intended meaning is its form. And since the intended meaning is its form, it is permissible for it to be a subject even if it is a sentence. For this reason, the grammarians of the *Alfiyyah* said: The object of the verb "said" in Ibn Malik's statement, "Muhammad said, he is Ibn Malik", is the entire *Alfiyyah*. Yes.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : He said: It is a past tense verb, and Muhammad is the subject, and Ibn Malik is an apposition or a clarifying conjunction. "I praise my Lord": You cannot answer what the object of the verb "said" is until you read the entire *Alfiyyah* from beginning to end. The entire *Alfiyyah* is the object of the verb "said". Yes, so you say: "I praise my Lord, Allah, the best Master" up to his statement at the end of the second half of the *Alfiyyah*. All of this is an object in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative case is a hidden fathah on its end, prevented from appearing by the narration. The narration. Yes.
The student: What is this fathah?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: How long is the fathah?
The Shaykh : How?
The student: The fathah is for elongation!
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right. Anyway, "I left it as a noun" is the subject, and "Likewise" is the fronted predicate. That is to say, "Likewise" is where the disagreement among grammarians lies regarding "I left it as a noun." "And connected it, I choose".
"Connected it" is a fronted object for "I choose," meaning I prefer connection. The reason for this preference is clear, because what is it?
The student: The original rule.
The Shaykh : The original rule, because it is the original rule, and because it is more concise. More concise: "And the best of speech is what is brief and conveys meaning". So as long as it is the original rule and more concise, choosing it is sound. But he said: "Others choose separation".
"Others" chose separation. "Others"! Who is other than the person? All people, all people. Because if you say: "I and others testify that there is no god but Allah," who is other than you? All people. So Ibn Malik contradicted the consensus, because he said: "I choose connection," and "others" clearly chose separation. All who are other than him. But this is a general statement intended to mean a specific one, or a general statement intended to mean a particular one. Who is meant by "others"? They said: He means Sibawayhi. He means Sibawayhi. And on this basis, the "otherness" here is specific, not for all grammarians, but for one of them. It is permissible for a general term to mean one of its individuals. Even in the Qur'an:[Ali 'Imran 3:173]. Do you imagine that all people from the east and west of the earth came to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: "The people have gathered against you"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, one person.[Ali 'Imran 3:173] Who are the people?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : One person, Abu Sufyan. They have gathered against you. So "others" means one person, and that is Sibawayhi, who chose separation. So now we have spoken, let us see if we can apply it to the opinion of Ibn Malik or Sibawayhi: "The scholar I left as a noun," "The scholar I left him as a noun."
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first is Ibn Malik, and the second is Sibawayhi. Now, "The scholar I left as a noun," "The scholar I left him as a noun"?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first is Ibn Malik, and the second is Sibawayhi. That is to say, I suspected him of being a scholar and he was not a scholar. So we know that Sibawayhi says: Separate, and Ibn Malik says: Connect. Now, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, when permission was sought to kill Ibn Sayyad:. According to whose school?
The student: Ibn Malik.
The Shaykh : Ibn Malik, or Ibn Malik according to this school?
The student: Ibn Malik according to this school.
The Shaykh : Pay attention, here. Ibn Malik according to this school. Yes. Is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) a Hanbali or a Shafi'i? How can he be Hanbali? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is before the schools of jurisprudence. So we now say:. We say: Ibn Malik followed this, followed this hadith. And Allah knows best.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : Is the time over?!
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah.
The student: Are we going back now?
The Shaykh : No, no, we will go back later. Let us finish the explanation.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : He said: It is a past tense verb, and Muhammad is the subject, and Ibn Malik is an apposition or a clarifying conjunction. "I praise my Lord": You cannot answer what the object of the verb "said" is until you read the entire *Alfiyyah* from beginning to end. The entire *Alfiyyah* is the object of the verb "said". Yes, so you say: "I praise my Lord, Allah, the best Master" up to his statement at the end of the second half of the *Alfiyyah*. All of this is an object in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative case is a hidden fathah on its end, prevented from appearing by the narration. The narration. Yes.
The student: What is this fathah?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: How long is the fathah?
The Shaykh : How?
The student: The fathah is for elongation!
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right. Anyway, "I left it as a noun" is the subject, and "Likewise" is the fronted predicate. That is to say, "Likewise" is where the disagreement among grammarians lies regarding "I left it as a noun." "And connected it, I choose".
"Connected it" is a fronted object for "I choose," meaning I prefer connection. The reason for this preference is clear, because what is it?
The student: The original rule.
The Shaykh : The original rule, because it is the original rule, and because it is more concise. More concise: "And the best of speech is what is brief and conveys meaning". So as long as it is the original rule and more concise, choosing it is sound. But he said: "Others choose separation".
"Others" chose separation. "Others"! Who is other than the person? All people, all people. Because if you say: "I and others testify that there is no god but Allah," who is other than you? All people. So Ibn Malik contradicted the consensus, because he said: "I choose connection," and "others" clearly chose separation. All who are other than him. But this is a general statement intended to mean a specific one, or a general statement intended to mean a particular one. Who is meant by "others"? They said: He means Sibawayhi. He means Sibawayhi. And on this basis, the "otherness" here is specific, not for all grammarians, but for one of them. It is permissible for a general term to mean one of its individuals. Even in the Qur'an:
Those to whom hypocrites said, "Indeed, the people have gathered against you
الذين قال لهم الناس إن الناس قد جمعوا لكمThe student: No.
The Shaykh : No, one person.
the people have gathered against you
إن الناس قد جمعوا لكمThe student: One.
The Shaykh : One person, Abu Sufyan. They have gathered against you. So "others" means one person, and that is Sibawayhi, who chose separation. So now we have spoken, let us see if we can apply it to the opinion of Ibn Malik or Sibawayhi: "The scholar I left as a noun," "The scholar I left him as a noun."
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first is Ibn Malik, and the second is Sibawayhi. Now, "The scholar I left as a noun," "The scholar I left him as a noun"?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first is Ibn Malik, and the second is Sibawayhi. That is to say, I suspected him of being a scholar and he was not a scholar. So we know that Sibawayhi says: Separate, and Ibn Malik says: Connect. Now, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, when permission was sought to kill Ibn Sayyad:
If it is he, you will not be able to overpower him, and if it is not he, there is no good for you in killing him
إنْ يكنْهُ فلن تسلط عليه ، وإلّا يكنه فلا خير لك في قتلهThe student: Ibn Malik.
The Shaykh : Ibn Malik, or Ibn Malik according to this school?
The student: Ibn Malik according to this school.
The Shaykh : Pay attention, here. Ibn Malik according to this school. Yes. Is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) a Hanbali or a Shafi'i? How can he be Hanbali? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is before the schools of jurisprudence. So we now say:
If it is he, you will not be able to overpower him, and if it is not he, there is no good for you in killing him
إن يكنه فلن تسلط عليه ، وإلا يكنه فلا خير لك في قتلهThe student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : Is the time over?!
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah.
The student: Are we going back now?
The Shaykh : No, no, we will go back later. Let us finish the explanation.