A review with a completion of the explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author says -may Allah have mercy on him-: " And if they are two singulars, then add ", if they are: meaning the name and the laqab (nickname), and we understood that to mean the name and the laqab, because a kunya (patronymic) must be in the construct state, it cannot come as a singular, since a kunya is prefixed with Ab, Umm, Ibn, 'Am, Khaal, and the like, so it cannot be anything but compound, and the meaning of singular here: it is not the singular in the chapter of inflection, because the singular in the chapter of inflection is what is not dual or plural or annexed to them, but here the singular is what is not compound, what is not compound, so if they are two singulars he said: " then add *** necessarily ": meaning it is obligatory that the first be added to the second, it is obligatory that the first be added to the second, its example: Ali al-Qaffah came, al-Qaffah is a laqab, Ali is a name, and Ali is singular, and al-Qaffah is singular, according to the author's statement I must say: Ali al-Qaffah came, so the first is added to the second, but the correct view is the opposite, and that the addition here is permissible, and not obligatory, rather it will come to us -if Allah wills- in the chapter of addition: that a name is not added to what it shares a meaning with, Ibn Malik said:
" And a name is not added to what it shares *** a meaning with, and interpret a confusing one when it comes "
So here we do not make it obligatory to add the first to the second, rather the most we say: it is permissible to add the first to the second, and that is because addition requires two things: the first: the mudaf (the added word), and the second: the mudaf ilayh (the word to which it is added), and the original state for them is difference, so a thing is not added to itself, okay, so if we add and say: Ali al-Qaffah came, how is it? He says: it is interpreted, it is said: the one named with this name came, or the one called with this laqab came, yes, so that the meaning is correct, he said: " And otherwise follow the one that came after ": and otherwise: meaning and otherwise they are two singulars, it includes what if they are two compounds, or if the first is compound and the second is singular, or if the first is singular and the second is compound, and his saying: follow: is a command verb that implies obligation, and his saying: follow, and he did not mention the type of the tabi' (the follower), but it is parsed as a 'atf bayan (explanatory apposition) or badal (substitution), it is parsed as a 'atf bayan of what came before it, or a badal from it, and his saying: " the one that came after ":
Is it the first or the second?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, meaning follow the second with the first, and the three forms are included under his saying: " And otherwise ", but it should be that the form which is the singling out of the first and the compounding of the second, is like the form in which the two are singulars, if the first is singular and the second is added, so the correct view: that its ruling is the ruling of what if they are two singulars, and that is because if they are two compounds it is difficult to add the first to the second, and if the first is compound and the second is singular it is difficult to add the first to the second, and if the first is singular and the second is compound it is not difficult to add the first to the second, just as it is not difficult to add the first to the second in what if they are two singulars, and on this analogy: that if the first is singular and the second is compound both ways are permissible, the addition, and the second? What?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : The following, so if you say: Ali Zayn al-Abidin came, so here this example first what?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : Singular, and the second?
The student: Compound.
The Shaykh : Compound, so it is permissible on the analogy that you say: Ali Zayn al-Abidin came, and the estimation is: the one called with this laqab came, and that is because the addition of the first if it is singular to the second is permissible and there is no objection in it, okay, and if you say: Abdullah Zayn al-Abidin came, is it necessary?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : The following, because each of them is compound, and if you say: Abdullah al-Qaffah came, here?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : The following also, because the first is difficult to add to the second, so the forms became four: that they are two singulars, and that the first is singular and the second is compound, and that they are two compounds, and that the first is compound and the second is singular, okay, he said: " And otherwise follow the one that came after ", " And from it ": meaning from the 'alam (proper name)
" Transferred like Fadl and Asad *** and one with improvisation ": meaning and from it one with improvisation, no okay?
The student: The detail?
The Shaykh : How did we complete the detail?!
The student: The detail of the sections.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Considering the division!
The Shaykh : Division of what?
The student: I mentioned it.
The Shaykh : Yes, we said if they are two singulars, or if the first is singular and the second is compound then both ways are permissible, the following and the addition, and if the first is compound and the second is singular or if they are two compounds then here the following is necessary due to the difficulty of the addition.
" And a name is not added to what it shares *** a meaning with, and interpret a confusing one when it comes "
So here we do not make it obligatory to add the first to the second, rather the most we say: it is permissible to add the first to the second, and that is because addition requires two things: the first: the mudaf (the added word), and the second: the mudaf ilayh (the word to which it is added), and the original state for them is difference, so a thing is not added to itself, okay, so if we add and say: Ali al-Qaffah came, how is it? He says: it is interpreted, it is said: the one named with this name came, or the one called with this laqab came, yes, so that the meaning is correct, he said: " And otherwise follow the one that came after ": and otherwise: meaning and otherwise they are two singulars, it includes what if they are two compounds, or if the first is compound and the second is singular, or if the first is singular and the second is compound, and his saying: follow: is a command verb that implies obligation, and his saying: follow, and he did not mention the type of the tabi' (the follower), but it is parsed as a 'atf bayan (explanatory apposition) or badal (substitution), it is parsed as a 'atf bayan of what came before it, or a badal from it, and his saying: " the one that came after ":
Is it the first or the second?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, meaning follow the second with the first, and the three forms are included under his saying: " And otherwise ", but it should be that the form which is the singling out of the first and the compounding of the second, is like the form in which the two are singulars, if the first is singular and the second is added, so the correct view: that its ruling is the ruling of what if they are two singulars, and that is because if they are two compounds it is difficult to add the first to the second, and if the first is compound and the second is singular it is difficult to add the first to the second, and if the first is singular and the second is compound it is not difficult to add the first to the second, just as it is not difficult to add the first to the second in what if they are two singulars, and on this analogy: that if the first is singular and the second is compound both ways are permissible, the addition, and the second? What?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : The following, so if you say: Ali Zayn al-Abidin came, so here this example first what?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : Singular, and the second?
The student: Compound.
The Shaykh : Compound, so it is permissible on the analogy that you say: Ali Zayn al-Abidin came, and the estimation is: the one called with this laqab came, and that is because the addition of the first if it is singular to the second is permissible and there is no objection in it, okay, and if you say: Abdullah Zayn al-Abidin came, is it necessary?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : The following, because each of them is compound, and if you say: Abdullah al-Qaffah came, here?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : The following also, because the first is difficult to add to the second, so the forms became four: that they are two singulars, and that the first is singular and the second is compound, and that they are two compounds, and that the first is compound and the second is singular, okay, he said: " And otherwise follow the one that came after ", " And from it ": meaning from the 'alam (proper name)
" Transferred like Fadl and Asad *** and one with improvisation ": meaning and from it one with improvisation, no okay?
The student: The detail?
The Shaykh : How did we complete the detail?!
The student: The detail of the sections.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Considering the division!
The Shaykh : Division of what?
The student: I mentioned it.
The Shaykh : Yes, we said if they are two singulars, or if the first is singular and the second is compound then both ways are permissible, the following and the addition, and if the first is compound and the second is singular or if they are two compounds then here the following is necessary due to the difficulty of the addition.