Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And man, ma, and al equal what was mentioned *** And so does dhu, 'ind, Tayy, and shahr."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And man, ma, and al equal what was mentioned *** And so does dhu, 'ind, Tayy, and shahr"
What has preceded is called the specific relative pronoun, because a specific form was assigned for each thing: the singular masculine, the singular feminine, the dual masculine, the dual feminine, the plural of males, and the plural of females. Each one has a specific form. What is this called?
The student: The specific relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : The specific relative pronoun. There is a general relative pronoun that is suitable for all types of these forms. These are the ones he mentioned in his saying: "And man, ma, and al equal what was mentioned": they equal the previously mentioned forms. How many were the previously mentioned forms?
The student: Six.
The Shaykh : The ones that are "alladhi" and "allati," and "alladhani" and "allatani," and "alladhina" and "allalati." They equal all these mentioned forms. They are used for the singular masculine, the singular feminine, the dual masculine, the dual feminine, the plural of males, and the plural of females. If someone asks: What teaches us that it is for the singular masculine rather than the singular feminine, when their form is the same? We say: The relative clause is what specifies that. So if I say: "I like the one who stood up," is it for what?
The student: For the singular masculine.
The Shaykh : For the singular masculine. And if I say: "I like the one who stood up," is it for the feminine?
The student: The feminine.
The Shaykh : The feminine. And if I say: "I like the two who stood up," it is for the dual masculine. And if I say: "I like the two who stood up," it is for the dual feminine. And if I say: "I like the ones who stood up," it is for the plural of males. And if I say: "I like the ones who stood up," it is for the plural of females. —Put down your pens, everyone— So, its form and structure are one, whatever is intended by it. And what specifies what is intended by it is?
The student: The relative clause.
The Shaykh : The relative clause. It is the relative clause. And his saying: "And ma": We say about it what we said about "man." It is suitable for the singular masculine, the singular feminine, the dual masculine, the dual feminine, the plural of males, and the plural of females. And what specifies one of them is the relative clause. So if it is asked: Is "man" used generally, or does "man" come in the place of "ma," and "ma" in the place of "man," or does each have a place where the other does not come? The answer is: The original rule is that each has a place where the other does not come. This is the original rule. But it may deviate from this original rule for a reason. So what is the original rule for "man"? The original rule for "man" is that it is for what?
The student: For the rational being.
The Shaykh : For the rational being. This is how most grammarians expressed it. But Ibn Hisham said: We should say that it is for the knower, for the knower, because it is used —that is, "man"— to refer to the Lord, Mighty and Majestic. And the Lord is not described as a rational being. The Lord is not described as a rational being.[Al-Mulk 67:16] Who is it?
The student: Allah.
The Shaykh : Allah. Do you say: Is "man" here for the rational being? Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is not described with intellect. Therefore, Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) chose to express it as "the knower" instead of "the rational being." And Allah is described with knowledge. In any case, it is only for the knower, the knower who knows and acts by choice. This is "man." This is the original rule. "Ma": The original rule is that it is for? Here?
The student: For the non-rational.
The Shaykh : For the non-knower, according to the expression of Ibn Hisham, or for the non-rational, according to the expression of most grammarians. It is for the non-rational. It is used for inanimate objects and for meanings, because meanings are attributes. They are not tools of the rational. This is the original rule. But this may come in the place of that, and that may come in the place of this. So in His saying, the Exalted:[An-Nur 24:45] This is for whom? Here?
The student: For the knower.
The Shaykh : For the knower or for the non-knower?
The student: The non-knower.
The Shaykh : The non-knower, because the children of Adam do not walk on their bellies; they walk on their legs. Okay, "man" came here in the place of what?
The student: "Ma."
The Shaykh : In the place of. But why did it come? Some say: It came for the sake of similarity, and to elevate the knower above others, or to prioritize the knower over others. [An-Nur 24:45]. And His saying, the Exalted: [Ali 'Imran 3:109]. And in another verse: [Al-Hajj 22:18]. So "man" came, and "ma" came, and all of them are in the heavens and the earth. But look: "Those who prostrate" in the heavens, it came: . And in another verse: [An-Nahl 16:49]. So we understand from this: That each one comes in the place of the other. Why? They said: For prioritization. For prioritization. Prioritizing the knower over others, and prioritizing the majority over others. So if "ma" is used and the intention is all, it is a prioritization of what?
The student: The non-knower.
The Shaykh : The non-knower over the knower, because it is more numerous. Because it is more numerous, this is what we see. And knowledge is with Allah; there may be other creations that have more knowledge than this. And if "man" is used for generality, it is from the chapter of prioritizing the knower over others because of his nobility. Yes?
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : The time has ended?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay,[An-Nisa 4:3], "Marry what is pleasing to you." Do we marry the knowers or the non-knowers?
The student: The knowers.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The knowers.
The Shaykh : How did he say:?
The student: Description.
The Shaykh : Yes, we say: "Ma" came in the place of "man." But why? Because a woman is only married for her attributes, and attributes are non-rational meanings. Does a person marry a woman only for the woman herself? A woman is married for what?
The student: For four things.
The Shaykh : For four things. So "ma" came in the place of "man" for this rhetorical point: That a woman is only married for her attributes, not because she is a human creature made of flesh and bone and nerves and the like. Okay, "Al": "Al" comes to us. And what is the problem with: "Al"? Does "Al" come as a relative pronoun? They say: Yes. Every "Al" in a present participle or a past participle is a relative pronoun. Every "Al," yes, it comes in a present participle or a past participle, and it is a relative pronoun.[Al-Fatihah 1:7]: This is in a past participle. : In a present participle. But if it comes in a static word, it is not a relative pronoun. So if I say: "The man stood up," then "Al" here is not a relative pronoun. But: "I honored the student," is it a relative pronoun or not?
The student: A relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : A relative pronoun?
The student: A relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it entered a present participle.
The Shaykh : Because it entered a present participle, right? "I helped the oppressed"?
The student: A relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : A relative pronoun, because it came in a past participle. But how is the grammatical case? If we make "Al" a relative pronoun, how do we parse it when it is in the form of a particle? They said: Its grammatical case is transferred to its relative clause, because it is difficult for the grammatical case to appear on it, because it is in the form of what?
The student: A particle.
The Shaykh : A particle. So if I say: "I helped the oppressed," meaning: the one who was oppressed, you say: "Al": Object of "helped." And its grammatical case is transferred to what follows it, because it is difficult for it to appear on it. Did you understand?
The student: The school of the Basrans.
The Shaykh : This is it. This is the school of the Basrans. And the school of the Basrans is always here?
The student: More difficult.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: More difficult.
The Shaykh : More difficult. It is a seat, meaning it is closer to the rules, but it has difficulty and complexity. If I say: "I helped the oppressed," you say: "Helped": Verb and subject. "Al": Object. You do not say: "The oppressed": Object. "Al": Object, accusative for being an object. But the grammatical case is transferred to what follows it. Why? Because it is difficult to parse it on it, because it is in the form of a particle. But the easy, good, and lenient school says: "Helped": Verb and subject. "The oppressed": Object, accusative. And we do not be pedantic and go deep. And this opinion is what? It is the correct one. This opinion is the correct one: That this "Al," although it indicates a relative pronoun, does not have a grammatical case on it, and it is not possible for the grammatical case to appear on it. So the grammatical case is parsed and transferred directly to the present participle itself, or the past participle. Yes.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : Finished?!
What has preceded is called the specific relative pronoun, because a specific form was assigned for each thing: the singular masculine, the singular feminine, the dual masculine, the dual feminine, the plural of males, and the plural of females. Each one has a specific form. What is this called?
The student: The specific relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : The specific relative pronoun. There is a general relative pronoun that is suitable for all types of these forms. These are the ones he mentioned in his saying: "And man, ma, and al equal what was mentioned": they equal the previously mentioned forms. How many were the previously mentioned forms?
The student: Six.
The Shaykh : The ones that are "alladhi" and "allati," and "alladhani" and "allatani," and "alladhina" and "allalati." They equal all these mentioned forms. They are used for the singular masculine, the singular feminine, the dual masculine, the dual feminine, the plural of males, and the plural of females. If someone asks: What teaches us that it is for the singular masculine rather than the singular feminine, when their form is the same? We say: The relative clause is what specifies that. So if I say: "I like the one who stood up," is it for what?
The student: For the singular masculine.
The Shaykh : For the singular masculine. And if I say: "I like the one who stood up," is it for the feminine?
The student: The feminine.
The Shaykh : The feminine. And if I say: "I like the two who stood up," it is for the dual masculine. And if I say: "I like the two who stood up," it is for the dual feminine. And if I say: "I like the ones who stood up," it is for the plural of males. And if I say: "I like the ones who stood up," it is for the plural of females. —Put down your pens, everyone— So,
Whoever
مَنThe student: The relative clause.
The Shaykh : The relative clause. It is the relative clause. And his saying: "And ma": We say about it what we said about "man." It is suitable for the singular masculine, the singular feminine, the dual masculine, the dual feminine, the plural of males, and the plural of females. And what specifies one of them is the relative clause. So if it is asked: Is "man" used generally, or does "man" come in the place of "ma," and "ma" in the place of "man," or does each have a place where the other does not come? The answer is: The original rule is that each has a place where the other does not come. This is the original rule. But it may deviate from this original rule for a reason. So what is the original rule for "man"? The original rule for "man" is that it is for what?
The student: For the rational being.
The Shaykh : For the rational being. This is how most grammarians expressed it. But Ibn Hisham said: We should say that it is for the knower, for the knower, because it is used —that is, "man"— to refer to the Lord, Mighty and Majestic. And the Lord is not described as a rational being. The Lord is not described as a rational being.
Do you feel secure that He who [holds authority] in the heaven
ءَأمنتم مَنْ في السماءThe student: Allah.
The Shaykh : Allah. Do you say: Is "man" here for the rational being? Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is not described with intellect. Therefore, Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) chose to express it as "the knower" instead of "the rational being." And Allah is described with knowledge. In any case, it is only for the knower, the knower who knows and acts by choice. This is "man." This is the original rule. "Ma": The original rule is that it is for? Here?
The student: For the non-rational.
The Shaykh : For the non-knower, according to the expression of Ibn Hisham, or for the non-rational, according to the expression of most grammarians. It is for the non-rational. It is used for inanimate objects and for meanings, because meanings are attributes. They are not tools of the rational. This is the original rule. But this may come in the place of that, and that may come in the place of this. So in His saying, the Exalted:
Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies
والله خلق كلَّ دابةٍ مِن ماء فمنهم مَنْ يمشي على بطنهThe student: For the knower.
The Shaykh : For the knower or for the non-knower?
The student: The non-knower.
The Shaykh : The non-knower, because the children of Adam do not walk on their bellies; they walk on their legs. Okay, "man" came here in the place of what?
The student: "Ma."
The Shaykh : In the place of
not
ماof them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four
من يمشي على بطنه ومنهم من يمشي على رجلين ومنهم من يمشي على أربعTo Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth
ولله مافي السماوات ومافي الأرضto Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth
ولله يسجد مَنْ في السماوات ومَنْ في الأرضWhoever
مَنAnd to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth
ولله يسجد ما في السماوات وما في الأرضThe student: The non-knower.
The Shaykh : The non-knower over the knower, because it is more numerous. Because it is more numerous, this is what we see. And knowledge is with Allah; there may be other creations that have more knowledge than this. And if "man" is used for generality, it is from the chapter of prioritizing the knower over others because of his nobility. Yes?
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : The time has ended?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay,
marry those that please you of [other] women
انكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساءThe student: The knowers.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The knowers.
The Shaykh : How did he say:
what is agreeable
ما طابThe student: Description.
The Shaykh : Yes, we say: "Ma" came in the place of "man." But why? Because a woman is only married for her attributes, and attributes are non-rational meanings. Does a person marry a woman only for the woman herself? A woman is married for what?
The student: For four things.
The Shaykh : For four things. So "ma" came in the place of "man" for this rhetorical point: That a woman is only married for her attributes, not because she is a human creature made of flesh and bone and nerves and the like. Okay, "Al": "Al" comes to us. And what is the problem with: "Al"? Does "Al" come as a relative pronoun? They say: Yes. Every "Al" in a present participle or a past participle is a relative pronoun. Every "Al," yes, it comes in a present participle or a past participle, and it is a relative pronoun.
not of those who have evoked [Your] anger
غير المغضوب عليهمnor those who go astray
ولا الضالينThe student: A relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : A relative pronoun?
The student: A relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it entered a present participle.
The Shaykh : Because it entered a present participle, right? "I helped the oppressed"?
The student: A relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : A relative pronoun, because it came in a past participle. But how is the grammatical case? If we make "Al" a relative pronoun, how do we parse it when it is in the form of a particle? They said: Its grammatical case is transferred to its relative clause, because it is difficult for the grammatical case to appear on it, because it is in the form of what?
The student: A particle.
The Shaykh : A particle. So if I say: "I helped the oppressed," meaning: the one who was oppressed, you say: "Al": Object of "helped." And its grammatical case is transferred to what follows it, because it is difficult for it to appear on it. Did you understand?
The student: The school of the Basrans.
The Shaykh : This is it. This is the school of the Basrans. And the school of the Basrans is always here?
The student: More difficult.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: More difficult.
The Shaykh : More difficult. It is a seat, meaning it is closer to the rules, but it has difficulty and complexity. If I say: "I helped the oppressed," you say: "Helped": Verb and subject. "Al": Object. You do not say: "The oppressed": Object. "Al": Object, accusative for being an object. But the grammatical case is transferred to what follows it. Why? Because it is difficult to parse it on it, because it is in the form of a particle. But the easy, good, and lenient school says: "Helped": Verb and subject. "The oppressed": Object, accusative. And we do not be pedantic and go deep. And this opinion is what? It is the correct one. This opinion is the correct one: That this "Al," although it indicates a relative pronoun, does not have a grammatical case on it, and it is not possible for the grammatical case to appear on it. So the grammatical case is parsed and transferred directly to the present participle itself, or the past participle. Yes.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : Finished?!