Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And qas, and as a negation of interrogation, and it *** may be permissible, like 'Fayyizan awl al-rushd.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And qas": The word "qas" — we might say that he intended for us to analogize from this example to what is equivalent to it, so we would say: "Asar than", "Adi' dan", "Aqaym al-rijal". It is also possible to say that "qas" means: we want to analogize the passive participle to the active participle, which would include "Mudrib al-rijal" (the two men were struck). Which is more appropriate? The second is more appropriate, because it includes the first, but not vice versa. "Qas" means: analogize to this description whatever resembles it.
"And as a negation of interrogation": And as a negation of interrogation. What is the interrogation?
The student: Asar.
The Shaykh : Asar of negation, meaning that if the description relies on a negation, it is satisfied by its nominative case just as if it relied on an interrogation. This is the meaning of the statement. If the description relies on a negation, it is satisfied by its nominative case without needing a predicate, just as if it relied on an interrogation. Now, if I said "ma" instead of the hamza: "Ma sarin than?"
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Correct. We say: "ma" is a negation, "sar" is the subject, and "than" is the subject (fa'il) that suffices for the predicate. Now, if I said: "Ghayr sarin than," instead of "Asar than," deleting the hamza, saying: "Ghayr sarin than?"
The student: Correct, correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because "ghayr" is a negation. If I said to you: "Ghayr sarin than," do you understand that they walked or not?
The student: They did not walk.
The Shaykh : They did not walk. So: "Ghayr sarin than" is like saying: "Asarin than." Is this Arabic speech?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If I said: "Laysa sarin than?"
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Laysa?!
The student: Correct, without a doubt.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is a negation, and "sar" is the name of "laysa," and "than" is the subject (fa'il) that suffices for the predicate. So the negation is now: either with "ma," or with "ghayr," or with "laysa." The author says:
"And as a negation of interrogation": And the meaning of his saying "as a negation of interrogation" is: that the negation takes the place of the interrogation. Based on this, we erase the hamza and bring after it what indicates negation, and the negation takes the place of the interrogation. Now:
"And it *** may be permissible, like 'Fayyizan awl al-rushd'": "And it *** may be permissible, like 'Fayyizan awl al-rushd'": What took this out of the rule so that he says: it may be permissible?
The student: The answer to the interrogation; there is no interrogation.
The Shaykh : Because the description here, which is "fayyiz," did not rely on an interrogation or a negation, and yet we say in its parsing: "Fayyiz" is the subject, and "awl" is the predicate of the subject — pay attention to my words — "Fayyiz" is the subject, and "awl" is the predicate of the subject.
The student: Subject (fa'il), subject (fa'il).
The Shaykh : No, that is wrong. My statement was wrong. We say: "Fayyiz" is the subject, and "awl" is the subject (fa'il) that suffices for the predicate, even though it did not rely on an interrogation or a negation. However, it may be permissible. "Qad" may indicate diminution, as they say: "Qad yajudd al-bakhil" (The miser may be generous), "Wa qad yakuwn al-jabban shuja'an" (And the coward may be brave). "Qad" is for diminution. Now, is there a proof from the speech of the Arabs for this? Yes, the poet said:
"Khabirun banu Lihabin fa la taku mulghiyaa *** maqalata Lihabiyyin idha al-tayru marrati",
Banu Lihab: These are the Hudhali, famous for taking omens, for superstition. People bring them and say: Come, drive away this bird and see where it goes. He drives it away and it goes right or left, and he says: That is enough, do not travel, your journey is inauspicious; do not marry, your marriage is inauspicious; do not enter the house, your entry is inauspicious, and so on. The proof is his saying:
"Khabirun banu Lihab": Here he said: "Khabir" is the subject, and "banu" is the subject (fa'il) that filled the place of the predicate, even though "Khabir" did not rely on an interrogation or a negation. Did you understand or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, so it is permissible in the Arabic language to be satisfied by the nominative of the predicate, even if it did not rely on an interrogation or a negation, even if it did not rely on an interrogation or a negation. And the proof is this verse:
"Khabirun banu Lihabin fa la taku mulghiyaa *** maqalata Lihabiyyin idha al-tayru marrati".
Did you understand?! And the words of Ibn Malik now indicate that the original rule is that one is not satisfied by the nominative, by the nominative of the subject, without a predicate, except if it relies on what? An interrogation or a negation. But it may be permissible in a rare case — yes — and this statement is a middle ground between the statement of the lenient, easy-going Kufans who say: it is permissible to be satisfied by the nominative of the subject, even if it does not rely on anything at all, and the strict Basrans who say: it is never permissible. How is it not permissible when the Arabs say: "Khabir banu Lihab"?!
They said: "Khabir" is a preceding predicate. Glory be to Allah!! "Khabir" is singular, and "banu Lihab" is plural. How can a singular be a predicate for a plural?!
The student: It is a predicate.
The Shaykh : They said: "Khabir" is a word that can be a predicate for a plural. And from this is the saying of Allah the Exalted:, and He did not say: "Dhahirun" (they are manifest). Yes, but the correct view is what the Kufans held, based on the broad rule with us, which is: facilitation. When the grammarians differ on two statements, we take the easier one. Praise be to Allah, there is no sin on us. And as long as there is no sin on us: "Faman yassir yassir Allah 'alayh" (Whoever facilitates, Allah will facilitate for him). The summary now: The subject needs a predicate. Every subject must have a predicate. And one may be satisfied by the nominative of the subject without a predicate if it is a description relying on an interrogation or a negation, on an interrogation or a negation. Put the interrogation first because Ibn Malik put it first, on an interrogation or a negation. Yes, and it may be permissible for the subject to be satisfied by its nominative even if no interrogation or negation preceded it. And if you wish, shall we explain the second verse, or has the time ended?! Yes?
The questioner : May Allah reward you. If the nominative of the subject is a predicate, they make the subject a noun. If its nominative is a subject (fa'il) or a passive subject (na'ib fa'il), they make the subject a description!
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : If the nominative of the subject is a predicate.
The Shaykh : If it is?
The questioner : If the nominative of the subject is a predicate!
The Shaykh : The nominative of the subject is a predicate!!
The questioner : Yes, I do.
The Shaykh : What do you mean?
The questioner : Meaning if it is a subject and a predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : They make the subject a noun, and if its nominative is a subject (fa'il) or a passive subject (na'ib fa'il), they make it a description.
The Shaykh : Yes, give an example!
The questioner : It is not clear.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. We did not visualize the issue, so we cannot say it is clear!
The questioner : Now they — may Allah reward you —
The Shaykh : Perhaps you say: If it is static, it is the subject, and the derived word is the predicate, because the original nature of the predicate is that it is a description of the subject, so it must be derived. Is this what you want?
The questioner : No, may Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : Now, do the grammarians not distinguish between the subject when it is in the nominative case, and when it is — there is no god but Allah — when it is, sometimes they make the subject a noun, and sometimes they make the subject a description.
The Shaykh : How?
"And as a negation of interrogation": And as a negation of interrogation. What is the interrogation?
The student: Asar.
The Shaykh : Asar of negation, meaning that if the description relies on a negation, it is satisfied by its nominative case just as if it relied on an interrogation. This is the meaning of the statement. If the description relies on a negation, it is satisfied by its nominative case without needing a predicate, just as if it relied on an interrogation. Now, if I said "ma" instead of the hamza: "Ma sarin than?"
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Correct. We say: "ma" is a negation, "sar" is the subject, and "than" is the subject (fa'il) that suffices for the predicate. Now, if I said: "Ghayr sarin than," instead of "Asar than," deleting the hamza, saying: "Ghayr sarin than?"
The student: Correct, correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because "ghayr" is a negation. If I said to you: "Ghayr sarin than," do you understand that they walked or not?
The student: They did not walk.
The Shaykh : They did not walk. So: "Ghayr sarin than" is like saying: "Asarin than." Is this Arabic speech?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If I said: "Laysa sarin than?"
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Laysa?!
The student: Correct, without a doubt.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is a negation, and "sar" is the name of "laysa," and "than" is the subject (fa'il) that suffices for the predicate. So the negation is now: either with "ma," or with "ghayr," or with "laysa." The author says:
"And as a negation of interrogation": And the meaning of his saying "as a negation of interrogation" is: that the negation takes the place of the interrogation. Based on this, we erase the hamza and bring after it what indicates negation, and the negation takes the place of the interrogation. Now:
"And it *** may be permissible, like 'Fayyizan awl al-rushd'": "And it *** may be permissible, like 'Fayyizan awl al-rushd'": What took this out of the rule so that he says: it may be permissible?
The student: The answer to the interrogation; there is no interrogation.
The Shaykh : Because the description here, which is "fayyiz," did not rely on an interrogation or a negation, and yet we say in its parsing: "Fayyiz" is the subject, and "awl" is the predicate of the subject — pay attention to my words — "Fayyiz" is the subject, and "awl" is the predicate of the subject.
The student: Subject (fa'il), subject (fa'il).
The Shaykh : No, that is wrong. My statement was wrong. We say: "Fayyiz" is the subject, and "awl" is the subject (fa'il) that suffices for the predicate, even though it did not rely on an interrogation or a negation. However, it may be permissible. "Qad" may indicate diminution, as they say: "Qad yajudd al-bakhil" (The miser may be generous), "Wa qad yakuwn al-jabban shuja'an" (And the coward may be brave). "Qad" is for diminution. Now, is there a proof from the speech of the Arabs for this? Yes, the poet said:
"Khabirun banu Lihabin fa la taku mulghiyaa *** maqalata Lihabiyyin idha al-tayru marrati",
Banu Lihab: These are the Hudhali, famous for taking omens, for superstition. People bring them and say: Come, drive away this bird and see where it goes. He drives it away and it goes right or left, and he says: That is enough, do not travel, your journey is inauspicious; do not marry, your marriage is inauspicious; do not enter the house, your entry is inauspicious, and so on. The proof is his saying:
"Khabirun banu Lihab": Here he said: "Khabir" is the subject, and "banu" is the subject (fa'il) that filled the place of the predicate, even though "Khabir" did not rely on an interrogation or a negation. Did you understand or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, so it is permissible in the Arabic language to be satisfied by the nominative of the predicate, even if it did not rely on an interrogation or a negation, even if it did not rely on an interrogation or a negation. And the proof is this verse:
"Khabirun banu Lihabin fa la taku mulghiyaa *** maqalata Lihabiyyin idha al-tayru marrati".
Did you understand?! And the words of Ibn Malik now indicate that the original rule is that one is not satisfied by the nominative, by the nominative of the subject, without a predicate, except if it relies on what? An interrogation or a negation. But it may be permissible in a rare case — yes — and this statement is a middle ground between the statement of the lenient, easy-going Kufans who say: it is permissible to be satisfied by the nominative of the subject, even if it does not rely on anything at all, and the strict Basrans who say: it is never permissible. How is it not permissible when the Arabs say: "Khabir banu Lihab"?!
They said: "Khabir" is a preceding predicate. Glory be to Allah!! "Khabir" is singular, and "banu Lihab" is plural. How can a singular be a predicate for a plural?!
The student: It is a predicate.
The Shaykh : They said: "Khabir" is a word that can be a predicate for a plural. And from this is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And the angels are, after that, helpers.
والملائكة بعد ذلك ظهيرThe questioner : May Allah reward you. If the nominative of the subject is a predicate, they make the subject a noun. If its nominative is a subject (fa'il) or a passive subject (na'ib fa'il), they make the subject a description!
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : If the nominative of the subject is a predicate.
The Shaykh : If it is?
The questioner : If the nominative of the subject is a predicate!
The Shaykh : The nominative of the subject is a predicate!!
The questioner : Yes, I do.
The Shaykh : What do you mean?
The questioner : Meaning if it is a subject and a predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : They make the subject a noun, and if its nominative is a subject (fa'il) or a passive subject (na'ib fa'il), they make it a description.
The Shaykh : Yes, give an example!
The questioner : It is not clear.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. We did not visualize the issue, so we cannot say it is clear!
The questioner : Now they — may Allah reward you —
The Shaykh : Perhaps you say: If it is static, it is the subject, and the derived word is the predicate, because the original nature of the predicate is that it is a description of the subject, so it must be derived. Is this what you want?
The questioner : No, may Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : Now, do the grammarians not distinguish between the subject when it is in the nominative case, and when it is — there is no god but Allah — when it is, sometimes they make the subject a noun, and sometimes they make the subject a description.
The Shaykh : How?