Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And of it is that which is derived, like Fadl and Asad *** And that which is improvised, like Sa'ad and Udd."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, he says: "And of it is that which is derived". The grammatical analysis: "of it" is a predicate placed before the subject, and "derived" is a subject placed after the predicate.
"And that which is improvised": The "waw" is a conjunction. "Dhu" (that which) is conjoined to what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no.
The student: Fadl, Fadl.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: To Fadl.
The Shaykh : To Fadl?! You should have said: "And Dhu Irtijal" (And that which is improvised).
The student: To a deleted word.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: A subject whose predicate is deleted.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A subject whose predicate is deleted.
The Shaykh : All right, a subject whose predicate is deleted. This is necessary because this is a counterpart to the first. Since it is a counterpart to it, it is not permissible to conjoin it to it, because if it were permissible to conjoin it to it, it would be a companion to it. There is an example of this in the Qur'an, where Allah the Exalted said:[Hud 11:105] It is not permissible to make "Sa'id" (happy) conjoined to "Shaqi" (unhappy), because the unhappy one is the opposite of the happy one. Rather, we say: "Sa'id" is a subject whose predicate is deleted, and the implied meaning is: "And of them is a happy one." This is the division, meaning: "And of it is that which is improvised." Therefore, "Dhu" is a subject, and its predicate is deleted. The conjunction here is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence.
"Like Sa'ad and Udd": The author has informed us here that proper names are divided into two categories: a category that is derived, meaning derived from something previous, like "Fadl": the origin of "Fadl" is a verbal noun (masdar), "fadhala, yafdhulu, fadlan" (to excel, excellence), like al-Fadl ibn Abbas. This is derived from the verbal noun. And "Asad" is derived from a generic name (ism jins); the lion is the known predatory animal, and this is the origin, and humans are named with it, so it is said: Asad ibn Abdullah. Also, from the derived are those transferred from the passive participle, like "Mansur" (the one who is helped) and "Mas'ud" (the one who is blessed), and those transferred from the active participle, like "Salih" (the righteous one) and "Hamid" (the one who praises), and those transferred from the intensive form, like "Hammad" and "Abbas." The important point is that proper names are divided into: those derived from something else, and the second: those that are improvised (irtijal), meaning nothing was named with them before, like "Sa'ad": Sa'ad is the name of a woman, and "Udd": is it the name of a man or the name of a woman? Yes?
The student: Both.
The Shaykh : If we name a woman with it, it is correct, and if we name a man with it, it is correct. But it refers to a well-known name; do you not have it in the commentary? Hmm?
The student: Udd is the name of a man and Sa'ad is the name of a woman.
The Shaykh : Yes, perfect. Udd is the name of a man, and Sa'ad is the name of a woman. This is not derived, meaning it was named with it improvisationally. All right, if we name someone "Hajar" (stone)?
The student: Derived.
The Shaykh : Derived?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : From where?
The student: A generic name.
The Shaykh : From a generic name. Sakhr, the father of Abu Sufyan, Sakhr ibn Harb.
The student: A generic name.
The Shaykh : Also?
The student: Derived.
The Shaykh : Derived. All right, he says: "And that which is improvised, like Sa'ad and Udd". Abdullah? This is a compound, because "Abd" (servant) is a name derived from a generic name, and "Allah" is from a previous proper name. But it is not suitable, it is not correct, because the name belongs to the whole, so this falls under the category of improvised, and of it is: "like Sa'ad and Udd".
"And that which is improvised": The "waw" is a conjunction. "Dhu" (that which) is conjoined to what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no.
The student: Fadl, Fadl.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: To Fadl.
The Shaykh : To Fadl?! You should have said: "And Dhu Irtijal" (And that which is improvised).
The student: To a deleted word.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: A subject whose predicate is deleted.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A subject whose predicate is deleted.
The Shaykh : All right, a subject whose predicate is deleted. This is necessary because this is a counterpart to the first. Since it is a counterpart to it, it is not permissible to conjoin it to it, because if it were permissible to conjoin it to it, it would be a companion to it. There is an example of this in the Qur'an, where Allah the Exalted said:
And among them will be the wretched and the prosperous.
فمنهم شقيٌ وسعيدٌ"Like Sa'ad and Udd": The author has informed us here that proper names are divided into two categories: a category that is derived, meaning derived from something previous, like "Fadl": the origin of "Fadl" is a verbal noun (masdar), "fadhala, yafdhulu, fadlan" (to excel, excellence), like al-Fadl ibn Abbas. This is derived from the verbal noun. And "Asad" is derived from a generic name (ism jins); the lion is the known predatory animal, and this is the origin, and humans are named with it, so it is said: Asad ibn Abdullah. Also, from the derived are those transferred from the passive participle, like "Mansur" (the one who is helped) and "Mas'ud" (the one who is blessed), and those transferred from the active participle, like "Salih" (the righteous one) and "Hamid" (the one who praises), and those transferred from the intensive form, like "Hammad" and "Abbas." The important point is that proper names are divided into: those derived from something else, and the second: those that are improvised (irtijal), meaning nothing was named with them before, like "Sa'ad": Sa'ad is the name of a woman, and "Udd": is it the name of a man or the name of a woman? Yes?
The student: Both.
The Shaykh : If we name a woman with it, it is correct, and if we name a man with it, it is correct. But it refers to a well-known name; do you not have it in the commentary? Hmm?
The student: Udd is the name of a man and Sa'ad is the name of a woman.
The Shaykh : Yes, perfect. Udd is the name of a man, and Sa'ad is the name of a woman. This is not derived, meaning it was named with it improvisationally. All right, if we name someone "Hajar" (stone)?
The student: Derived.
The Shaykh : Derived?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : From where?
The student: A generic name.
The Shaykh : From a generic name. Sakhr, the father of Abu Sufyan, Sakhr ibn Harb.
The student: A generic name.
The Shaykh : Also?
The student: Derived.
The Shaykh : Derived. All right, he says: "And that which is improvised, like Sa'ad and Udd". Abdullah? This is a compound, because "Abd" (servant) is a name derived from a generic name, and "Allah" is from a previous proper name. But it is not suitable, it is not correct, because the name belongs to the whole, so this falls under the category of improvised, and of it is: "like Sa'ad and Udd".