Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Al is the definite article, or just the lam *** So if you have a pattern you want to define, say in it: the pattern."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "Al is the definite article, or just the lam":
Or: Here, "or" indicates a variation in opinion, a variation in scholarly disagreement, meaning that the grammarians differed: Is the definite article "al" or just the lam? Some said it is "al," and some said it is just the lam. As for those who said it is "al," they said that a person pronounces it as "al," like al-qamar (the moon), al-layl (the night), al-shams (the sun), al-nahar (the day), and the like.
Those who said it is just the lam said that the hamzah here was not included as part of the original tool, but was included to make it possible to pronounce "al," because if "al" is static, it cannot be pronounced except through the hamzah of connection. Accordingly, if you say, "I came from the mosque," do we say that the hamzah was deleted due to the meeting of two static letters? Or do we say that the original hamzah is not present now, because we do not include it except for what? Except for necessity, and here there is no necessity.
In writing, if you want to write: min al-masjid (from the mosque), if we consider the hamzah part of the tool, do you write the hamzah or not? And if we say the hamzah is not part of the tool and that it is dropped when we do not need it, then do not write it. The disagreement on this point is actually not of great benefit, not of great benefit. And what is followed now is to include the hamzah and write it in script, even if you do not need it. He said: "So if you have a pattern you want to define, say in it: the pattern":
A pattern you defined: The meaning of "defined" is: you intended to define it. And his saying: "A pattern you defined", may be difficult to understand: why was it not put in the accusative case? We say: because "defined" did not take its object. We say: because "defined" is not, meaning, applied to "pattern," but the meaning is: So a pattern you intended to define. Thus, the intended meaning of "definition" here is intention, and its object is omitted, and the estimation is: you intended to define it. For this reason, "pattern" came in the nominative case, so: a pattern you defined. And "pattern" (namut) is a type of cloth, and its plural is: anmut, like sabab (cause) and asbab (causes). So if you want to define a pattern, say: "the pattern", and if you want to define a camel, say: the camel. For this reason, you find the difference between saying to your son: give me a pattern, or give me the pattern. If you say: give me a pattern, he gives you any pattern. If you say: the pattern, he gives you the known pattern.
If you say: give me a carpet I want to pray on, and there are several carpets in the house, what does he give you?
The student: Any carpet.
The Shaykh : Any carpet. And if you say: give me the carpet, he brings you the carpet you were accustomed to praying on. The difference is because "al" defines and specifies the intended thing. Good.
"So if you have a pattern you want to define, say in it: the pattern".
Or: Here, "or" indicates a variation in opinion, a variation in scholarly disagreement, meaning that the grammarians differed: Is the definite article "al" or just the lam? Some said it is "al," and some said it is just the lam. As for those who said it is "al," they said that a person pronounces it as "al," like al-qamar (the moon), al-layl (the night), al-shams (the sun), al-nahar (the day), and the like.
Those who said it is just the lam said that the hamzah here was not included as part of the original tool, but was included to make it possible to pronounce "al," because if "al" is static, it cannot be pronounced except through the hamzah of connection. Accordingly, if you say, "I came from the mosque," do we say that the hamzah was deleted due to the meeting of two static letters? Or do we say that the original hamzah is not present now, because we do not include it except for what? Except for necessity, and here there is no necessity.
In writing, if you want to write: min al-masjid (from the mosque), if we consider the hamzah part of the tool, do you write the hamzah or not? And if we say the hamzah is not part of the tool and that it is dropped when we do not need it, then do not write it. The disagreement on this point is actually not of great benefit, not of great benefit. And what is followed now is to include the hamzah and write it in script, even if you do not need it. He said: "So if you have a pattern you want to define, say in it: the pattern":
A pattern you defined: The meaning of "defined" is: you intended to define it. And his saying: "A pattern you defined", may be difficult to understand: why was it not put in the accusative case? We say: because "defined" did not take its object. We say: because "defined" is not, meaning, applied to "pattern," but the meaning is: So a pattern you intended to define. Thus, the intended meaning of "definition" here is intention, and its object is omitted, and the estimation is: you intended to define it. For this reason, "pattern" came in the nominative case, so: a pattern you defined. And "pattern" (namut) is a type of cloth, and its plural is: anmut, like sabab (cause) and asbab (causes). So if you want to define a pattern, say: "the pattern", and if you want to define a camel, say: the camel. For this reason, you find the difference between saying to your son: give me a pattern, or give me the pattern. If you say: give me a pattern, he gives you any pattern. If you say: the pattern, he gives you the known pattern.
If you say: give me a carpet I want to pray on, and there are several carpets in the house, what does he give you?
The student: Any carpet.
The Shaykh : Any carpet. And if you say: give me the carpet, he brings you the carpet you were accustomed to praying on. The difference is because "al" defines and specifies the intended thing. Good.
"So if you have a pattern you want to define, say in it: the pattern".