Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it is common in proper names, the one with the genitive construction, like 'Abd al-Shams and Abu Qahafah."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And it is common in proper names, the one with the genitive construction". "It is common" means it is frequent. "In proper names" is the plural of "proper name." "The one with the genitive construction" means the one possessing the genitive construction, which is the compound genitive: "like 'Abd al-Shams and Abu Qahafah".
And what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said is clear to everyone and does not need clarification. So 'Abd Allah, 'Abd al-Rahman, 'Abd al-Shams, Abu Qahafah, and the like are numerous. But what is his intention? Is his intention to inform us that this exists in proper names? No, his intention is to clarify that the proper name with the genitive construction is declined in its first part according to the grammatical factors, and its second part is in the state of the genitive case. It is declined in the genitive case if it is a declined noun, and it is built on the kasrah if it is an indeclinable noun. This is the intention of the author (may Allah have mercy on him). And his saying: "like 'Abd al-Shams", who is this 'Abd al-Shams? The son of whom?
The student: The son of Hashim.
The Shaykh : No, the son of Munafiz, because he had four sons: Hashim, al-Muttalib, Nawfal, and 'Abd al-Shams. These four are brothers. But the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib supported each other. For this reason, the Banu al-Muttalib joined the Banu Hashim when the Quraysh besieged the Banu Hashim in the Sh'ib during the calling of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And in that, Abu Talib said in his famous Lamirah poem, about which Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "It is more eloquent than the seven Mu'allaqat that the Arabs hung in the Ka'bah". He said in it:
"May Allah reward us for 'Abd al-Shams and Nawfal *** With a punishment of immediate evil, not delayed"
Because they were their paternal uncles, and yet they sided with the Quraysh against them, while the Banu al-Muttalib sided with the Banu Hashim. But the question now is: Is it permissible to attribute to this man, 'Abd al-Shams, anyone from his descendants with this construction? That is, 'Abd al-Shams? So we say: So-and-so is from the Banu 'Abd al-Shams, or is it not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, it is permissible, because this is from the category of reporting (khabar), from the category of reporting and not from the category of speech acts (insha'). And there is a difference between reporting and speech acts. But if 'Abd al-Shams were in front of us now, we would say: change the name. Yes, but since he has died, no, the change is not possible, and attribution to him is permissible. For this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would recite a verse of poetry on the day of Hunayn and say:
"I am the Prophet, not a liar *** I am the son of 'Abd al-Muttalib".
So he attributes himself to his grandfather, even though he is called 'Abd al-Muttalib. "Abu Qahafah", who is he?
The student: The father of Abu Bakr.
The Shaykh : The father of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him). And here he said: "'Abd al-Shams and Abu Qahafah"!
Because in the first one, the second part is a declined noun that is movable, and the second part in the second one is a declined noun that is not movable. Good.
And what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said is clear to everyone and does not need clarification. So 'Abd Allah, 'Abd al-Rahman, 'Abd al-Shams, Abu Qahafah, and the like are numerous. But what is his intention? Is his intention to inform us that this exists in proper names? No, his intention is to clarify that the proper name with the genitive construction is declined in its first part according to the grammatical factors, and its second part is in the state of the genitive case. It is declined in the genitive case if it is a declined noun, and it is built on the kasrah if it is an indeclinable noun. This is the intention of the author (may Allah have mercy on him). And his saying: "like 'Abd al-Shams", who is this 'Abd al-Shams? The son of whom?
The student: The son of Hashim.
The Shaykh : No, the son of Munafiz, because he had four sons: Hashim, al-Muttalib, Nawfal, and 'Abd al-Shams. These four are brothers. But the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib supported each other. For this reason, the Banu al-Muttalib joined the Banu Hashim when the Quraysh besieged the Banu Hashim in the Sh'ib during the calling of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And in that, Abu Talib said in his famous Lamirah poem, about which Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "It is more eloquent than the seven Mu'allaqat that the Arabs hung in the Ka'bah". He said in it:
"May Allah reward us for 'Abd al-Shams and Nawfal *** With a punishment of immediate evil, not delayed"
Because they were their paternal uncles, and yet they sided with the Quraysh against them, while the Banu al-Muttalib sided with the Banu Hashim. But the question now is: Is it permissible to attribute to this man, 'Abd al-Shams, anyone from his descendants with this construction? That is, 'Abd al-Shams? So we say: So-and-so is from the Banu 'Abd al-Shams, or is it not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, it is permissible, because this is from the category of reporting (khabar), from the category of reporting and not from the category of speech acts (insha'). And there is a difference between reporting and speech acts. But if 'Abd al-Shams were in front of us now, we would say: change the name. Yes, but since he has died, no, the change is not possible, and attribution to him is permissible. For this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would recite a verse of poetry on the day of Hunayn and say:
"I am the Prophet, not a liar *** I am the son of 'Abd al-Muttalib".
So he attributes himself to his grandfather, even though he is called 'Abd al-Muttalib. "Abu Qahafah", who is he?
The student: The father of Abu Bakr.
The Shaykh : The father of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him). And here he said: "'Abd al-Shams and Abu Qahafah"!
Because in the first one, the second part is a declined noun that is movable, and the second part in the second one is a declined noun that is not movable. Good.