Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And all of them require a relative clause after them *** containing a suitable pronoun."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And all of them require a relative clause after them":
"All of them" means all ten of the relative pronouns. Are there ten relative pronouns?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Six are specific, and four are general. Three of them are used by all Arabs, and one by the Tayyi' tribe: *alladhi*, *allati*, *alladhani*, *allatani*, *alladhina*, *allati*, *man*, *ma*, *al*, and *dhu*. The author says regarding all ten: "require a relative clause after them": "Require after them" means after all of them, a relative clause is required. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that every relative pronoun must have a relative clause, because he said "require." This is because a relative pronoun is not complete without its relative clause. If I said, "The one who came," did the people benefit? Did they understand?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : They did not benefit. Its meaning cannot be complete without its relative clause. For this reason, he said "require." And his saying: "require a relative clause after them", whether that is in expression or in estimation, because the relative clause may be omitted and be estimated, as the poet said:
"We are those, so gather your troops *** then direct them toward us",
"We are those, so gather your troops *** then direct them toward us", and what do you estimate as the relative clause in this verse?
The student: The heroes.
The Shaykh : Huh? How?
The student: The heroes.
The Shaykh : No, "the heroes" did not become the relative clause, because the relative clause of a relative pronoun must be a sentence. "We are those": The grammarians said: The estimation is "known for bravery." Yes. And what Khalid said is also appropriate: "We are those who do not fear death, so gather your troops then direct them toward us". In any case, it is required: either in expression, or what? Or in estimation. But the omission of the relative clause is very rare, and it is not permissible to omit it except with an indication that it is omitted. Good.
And the author's saying: "require after them": He (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that it is a condition for the relative clause that it be after the relative pronoun, that it be after the relative pronoun, so it is not sufficient before it. If I said, "The one who stood up," and you intend to make "stood up" — yes — the relative clause, it is not correct. You say: "The one who came stood up," "The one who came stood up," and you intend to make "stood up" a preceding relative clause. We say: This is not correct. The relative clause must be what? Postponed. For this reason, it is called a relative clause, and the relative clause comes after the relative pronoun. Good. This relative clause, its type will be explained later. What is this relative clause? A sentence, a phrase, an attribute. What is it?! The author will explain it. He said:
"containing a suitable pronoun": There must be a pronoun in the relative clause, there must be a pronoun in it, and this pronoun must be suitable, meaning masculine if the relative pronoun is masculine, singular if the relative pronoun is singular, and so on according to the relative pronoun. So *alladhi*: its pronoun is singular masculine. *Allati*: singular feminine. *Alladhani*: dual masculine. *Allatani*: dual feminine. *Alladhina*: plural masculine. *Allati*: plural feminine. It is necessary. So you say: "The one who came stood up," and "The one who came stood up (fem.)," and "The two who came stood up (dual masc.)," and "The two who came stood up (dual fem.)," and "The ones who came stood up (pl. masc.)," and "The ones who came stood up (pl. fem.)." It must be suitable. If I said, "The two who came stood up (pl. masc.) came to me," we say: This is an error, because the pronoun here did not match, it is not suitable. If I said, "The two who came stood up (sing. masc.) came to me," only that, it is also an error. It is necessary to bring a suitable pronoun. Good. If I said, "The one whose father stood up came," is that correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Why? There is a pronoun: the *ha*, which refers back to *alladhi*. And if I said, "The one whose father stood up came"?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct, because the relative clause lacked a pronoun. So a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun is necessary, and this pronoun must be what? Suitable for the relative pronoun. If singular, then singular; if plural, then plural; if masculine, then masculine; if feminine, then feminine. Good. The general relative pronouns come to us, such as *ma* and *man*. So what pronoun is suitable for them? We say: If you consider the meaning, bring the pronoun agreeing with the meaning. If you consider the expression, bring the singular masculine pronoun. If you consider the meaning, bring what?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun matching the meaning you intend. And if you intend the expression, bring it singular masculine. Yes. Good. And the pronoun may be determined by the context. If I said, "The one who breastfed me came," "The one who breastfed me came," is this correct or not correct?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : We consider the expression. If we consider the expression, it is correct: "The one who breastfed you came." We considered the meaning: "The one who stood up came," and they are two?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct by considering what? The expression. If you want to consider the meaning, you say: "The two who stood up came." So it becomes clear. If someone asks: Is it permissible to consider the expression while the meaning is obscure? The answer: No, it is not permissible, except if generality is intended. For this reason, if you want to clarify the meaning, you must bring a matching pronoun, you must bring a matching pronoun. So if I said, "I honored the one who breastfed his child," with this expression, we say: Here, it is not suitable except to say what?
The student: Breastfed.
The Shaykh : Breastfed, so that the meaning is clarified — yes. So the result is that we say: The pronoun must be suitable. And in the specific relative pronouns, the specific relative pronouns, it must be what?
The student: Matching.
The Shaykh : Matching the expression, and the expression indicates the meaning. As for the general relative pronouns, which are four, it is permissible in them what? Considering the expression, and considering the meaning. Good. And the author's saying: "containing," "containing a suitable pronoun":
It includes the case where the pronoun is the object of the verb of the relative clause, such as: "The one whom I honored came." Or it has a connection to the object of the relative clause, such as: "The one whose father I honored came." Here, "honored," which is the relative clause, was not applied directly to the pronoun of the relative pronoun, but it was applied to its accompanying noun, which is the possessive.
The student: You did not finish, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: The last one remains.
The Shaykh : The last one! Meaning, the pronoun may be the direct object of the relative clause, such as: "The one whom I honored came." The *ha*: is the object of "honored," which is the relative clause directly. And it may be connected to its accompanying noun, such as: "The one whose father I honored," what?
The student: His father.
The Shaykh : His father. So here, the pronoun was not connected to the relative clause directly, but it was connected to the object of the relative clause. And Allah knows best.
"All of them" means all ten of the relative pronouns. Are there ten relative pronouns?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Six are specific, and four are general. Three of them are used by all Arabs, and one by the Tayyi' tribe: *alladhi*, *allati*, *alladhani*, *allatani*, *alladhina*, *allati*, *man*, *ma*, *al*, and *dhu*. The author says regarding all ten: "require a relative clause after them": "Require after them" means after all of them, a relative clause is required. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that every relative pronoun must have a relative clause, because he said "require." This is because a relative pronoun is not complete without its relative clause. If I said, "The one who came," did the people benefit? Did they understand?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : They did not benefit. Its meaning cannot be complete without its relative clause. For this reason, he said "require." And his saying: "require a relative clause after them", whether that is in expression or in estimation, because the relative clause may be omitted and be estimated, as the poet said:
"We are those, so gather your troops *** then direct them toward us",
"We are those, so gather your troops *** then direct them toward us", and what do you estimate as the relative clause in this verse?
The student: The heroes.
The Shaykh : Huh? How?
The student: The heroes.
The Shaykh : No, "the heroes" did not become the relative clause, because the relative clause of a relative pronoun must be a sentence. "We are those": The grammarians said: The estimation is "known for bravery." Yes. And what Khalid said is also appropriate: "We are those who do not fear death, so gather your troops then direct them toward us". In any case, it is required: either in expression, or what? Or in estimation. But the omission of the relative clause is very rare, and it is not permissible to omit it except with an indication that it is omitted. Good.
And the author's saying: "require after them": He (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that it is a condition for the relative clause that it be after the relative pronoun, that it be after the relative pronoun, so it is not sufficient before it. If I said, "The one who stood up," and you intend to make "stood up" — yes — the relative clause, it is not correct. You say: "The one who came stood up," "The one who came stood up," and you intend to make "stood up" a preceding relative clause. We say: This is not correct. The relative clause must be what? Postponed. For this reason, it is called a relative clause, and the relative clause comes after the relative pronoun. Good. This relative clause, its type will be explained later. What is this relative clause? A sentence, a phrase, an attribute. What is it?! The author will explain it. He said:
"containing a suitable pronoun": There must be a pronoun in the relative clause, there must be a pronoun in it, and this pronoun must be suitable, meaning masculine if the relative pronoun is masculine, singular if the relative pronoun is singular, and so on according to the relative pronoun. So *alladhi*: its pronoun is singular masculine. *Allati*: singular feminine. *Alladhani*: dual masculine. *Allatani*: dual feminine. *Alladhina*: plural masculine. *Allati*: plural feminine. It is necessary. So you say: "The one who came stood up," and "The one who came stood up (fem.)," and "The two who came stood up (dual masc.)," and "The two who came stood up (dual fem.)," and "The ones who came stood up (pl. masc.)," and "The ones who came stood up (pl. fem.)." It must be suitable. If I said, "The two who came stood up (pl. masc.) came to me," we say: This is an error, because the pronoun here did not match, it is not suitable. If I said, "The two who came stood up (sing. masc.) came to me," only that, it is also an error. It is necessary to bring a suitable pronoun. Good. If I said, "The one whose father stood up came," is that correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Why? There is a pronoun: the *ha*, which refers back to *alladhi*. And if I said, "The one whose father stood up came"?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct, because the relative clause lacked a pronoun. So a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun is necessary, and this pronoun must be what? Suitable for the relative pronoun. If singular, then singular; if plural, then plural; if masculine, then masculine; if feminine, then feminine. Good. The general relative pronouns come to us, such as *ma* and *man*. So what pronoun is suitable for them? We say: If you consider the meaning, bring the pronoun agreeing with the meaning. If you consider the expression, bring the singular masculine pronoun. If you consider the meaning, bring what?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun matching the meaning you intend. And if you intend the expression, bring it singular masculine. Yes. Good. And the pronoun may be determined by the context. If I said, "The one who breastfed me came," "The one who breastfed me came," is this correct or not correct?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : We consider the expression. If we consider the expression, it is correct: "The one who breastfed you came." We considered the meaning: "The one who stood up came," and they are two?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct by considering what? The expression. If you want to consider the meaning, you say: "The two who stood up came." So it becomes clear. If someone asks: Is it permissible to consider the expression while the meaning is obscure? The answer: No, it is not permissible, except if generality is intended. For this reason, if you want to clarify the meaning, you must bring a matching pronoun, you must bring a matching pronoun. So if I said, "I honored the one who breastfed his child," with this expression, we say: Here, it is not suitable except to say what?
The student: Breastfed.
The Shaykh : Breastfed, so that the meaning is clarified — yes. So the result is that we say: The pronoun must be suitable. And in the specific relative pronouns, the specific relative pronouns, it must be what?
The student: Matching.
The Shaykh : Matching the expression, and the expression indicates the meaning. As for the general relative pronouns, which are four, it is permissible in them what? Considering the expression, and considering the meaning. Good. And the author's saying: "containing," "containing a suitable pronoun":
It includes the case where the pronoun is the object of the verb of the relative clause, such as: "The one whom I honored came." Or it has a connection to the object of the relative clause, such as: "The one whose father I honored came." Here, "honored," which is the relative clause, was not applied directly to the pronoun of the relative pronoun, but it was applied to its accompanying noun, which is the possessive.
The student: You did not finish, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: The last one remains.
The Shaykh : The last one! Meaning, the pronoun may be the direct object of the relative clause, such as: "The one whom I honored came." The *ha*: is the object of "honored," which is the relative clause directly. And it may be connected to its accompanying noun, such as: "The one whose father I honored," what?
The student: His father.
The Shaykh : His father. So here, the pronoun was not connected to the relative clause directly, but it was connected to the object of the relative clause. And Allah knows best.