Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the second is the subject, and this description is the predicate *** if in other than the singular, a pattern has settled."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said:
"And the second is the subject, and this description is the predicate *** if in other than the singular, a pattern has settled":
The description now is either singular and what follows it is singular, or dual and what follows it is dual, or plural and what follows it is plural, correct? Good: "Is Zayd standing?" The description is singular and what follows it is singular. "Are the two Zayds standing?" The description is dual and what follows it is dual. "Are the Zayds standing?" The description is plural and what follows it is plural. If the description is plural and what follows it is plural, or the description is dual and what follows it is dual, it is necessary that the description be a preceding predicate; it is necessary that the description be a preceding predicate—pay attention. If the description is singular and what follows it is singular, both options are permissible: that the description be a preceding predicate and what follows it be a delayed subject, or that the description be a subject and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Clear? This is clear Arabic, if Allah wills. The second time: If the description is singular and what follows it is singular, both options are permissible: what are they? That you make the description a preceding predicate and what follows it a delayed subject, or that you make the description a subject and what follows it an agent that suffices for the predicate. For example: "Is Zayd standing?" You may say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing" is a preceding predicate, and "Zayd" is a delayed subject, is that right or not? And the original form is: "Is Zayd standing?" And you may say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing" is a subject, and "Zayd" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. Complete? Good. If the description is dual and what follows it is dual, it is obligatory that the description be a preceding predicate, and what follows it be a delayed subject, obligatorily. So if you say: "Are the two men standing?" Say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing (dual)" is a preceding predicate, and "the two men" is a delayed subject; it is necessary. And likewise, if the description is plural and what follows it is plural, it is obligatory that the description be a preceding predicate and what follows it? And what follows it is a delayed subject. "Are the Muslims standing?" You say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing (plural)" is a preceding predicate, and "the Muslims" is a delayed subject. And the original form, if you return it to the order, is to say: "The Muslims are standing." Clear, everyone? And upon the sultan is reading!!
The student: O Shaykh, what are the Muslims?
The Shaykh : Yes, the Muslims are those who testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
The student: No, O Shaykh, you said: "the Muslims (accusative)."
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: But the original form is "the Muslims are standing."
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: Where is the interrogation?
The Shaykh : The interrogation was deleted for the sake of starting with the hamzat al-wasl, but here you say: "A-al-Muslimun".
The student: Do you pronounce the alif-lam?!
The Shaykh : Yes, and if you wish, you may delete it; there is leeway in it. Good, did we understand now? Good. If the description is singular and what follows it is dual, it is necessary that the description be a subject, if it is, it is necessary that the description be a subject and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. If the description is singular and what follows it is dual, it is necessary that the description be a subject, and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Its example is: "Is the two men standing?" We say: "Standing" is a subject, and "two men" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. Good, why do we not say: "Standing" is a predicate? Because if you said: "Standing" is a predicate, you would be informing with a singular about a dual, and informing with a singular about a dual is not permissible. Clear? I do not know!!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Clear. Good. "Is the two men standing?" What is necessary? That the description be a subject, and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Why do we not say: "Standing" is a preceding predicate?
The student: Because it is singular.
The Shaykh : Because it is singular, and a singular is not used to inform about a dual. Good, likewise, if the description is singular and what follows it is plural, it is necessary that the description be a subject and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. "Are the men standing?" Here we say: "Standing" is a subject, and "the men" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. And it is not permissible to say: "Standing" is a preceding predicate, and "the men" is a delayed subject. Why? Because if you said that, you would be informing with a singular about a plural, and this is not permissible in the Arabic language. Did you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, and for this reason, if the description is of the type where the singular and plural are equivalent, both options are permissible. "Are the two men in a state of ritual impurity?" Is that permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : That you make "in a state of ritual impurity" a preceding predicate, and "the two men" a delayed subject, or you say: "In a state of ritual impurity" is a subject, and "the two men" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. Both this and that are permissible. Good. "Are the men in a state of ritual impurity!"
The student: Similarly.
The Shaykh : And what about that? We do not want that "likewise."
The student: Both options are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both options are permissible: that you make "in a state of ritual impurity" a subject, and "the men" an agent that suffices for the predicate, or "in a state of ritual impurity" is a preceding predicate, and "the men" is a delayed subject. Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Ma'idah 5:6], so He informed with "in a state of ritual impurity," which is singular, about? About the group, because "in a state of ritual impurity" is of the type where the singular and others are equivalent. Good, when is it necessary that the description be a preceding predicate? When they are both dual, or when they are both plural. Here it is necessary that the description be a preceding predicate and what follows it be a delayed subject. Complete? Good. And when is it necessary that the description be a subject and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate?
The student: If the description is singular.
The Shaykh : If the description is singular and what follows it is not singular, but dual or plural. Complete. Good, except, it is excluded from this last case, except if the description is of the type where the plural and singular are equivalent, then both options are permissible. And when are both options permissible in all cases?
The student: If they agree in the singular.
The Shaykh : If they agree in the singular, meaning: if they are both singular, correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Good. "Is Zayd standing?" It is permissible to say: "Standing" is a preceding predicate, and "Zayd" is a delayed subject, or you say: "Standing" is a subject, and "Zayd" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. (If Allah wills) clear now?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Good, what do you say about this construction: "Are the Zayds standing?"
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Are we standing, Zayd?
The student: This construction is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. "Are the Zayds standing" is not valid, it is not permissible. Is that right? Good. "Are the men standing?" If a person wanted to say it, are both options permissible according to the language of "The locusts ate us"? Is it permissible or not?
The student: Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : According to the language of "The locusts ate us," but we leave the locusts and their language. Yes, I am afraid it will confuse you a little. Fine, he said: "Are the two Zayds standing?"
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Due to lack of agreement.
The Shaykh : Good, due to lack of agreement. "Are the two Zayds standing": Here you cannot say that "standing (dual)" is a preceding predicate for "Zayd," and you cannot say: "Standing" is a description, and "Zayd" is an agent, because this contains the marker of duality, and "Zayd" is singular. The important thing is that some constructions are not linguistically valid, and what is valid is what was previously discussed. We return a second time to the summary of the lesson: If they agree in the singular?
The student: Both options are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both options are permissible. If they agree in the dual? It is obligatory that the description be a preceding predicate, and what follows it be a delayed subject. If they agree in the plural?
The student: Similarly.
The Shaykh : Likewise?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Likewise.
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Good, the first is a preceding predicate, and the second: a delayed subject. Complete. Good, if the first is singular, and the second is dual or plural?
The student: It is obligatory that it be a subject!
The Shaykh : It is necessary that the description be a subject, and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Yes, but if the first is singular, and the second is plural or dual, this is necessary: that the description be a subject, and what follows it be a predicate, except if the description is of the type where the masculine and feminine are suitable, then both options are permissible in it. And let us return to the words of Ibn Malik. He says:
"And the second is a subject, and this description": meaning, and this description. So "this" is a demonstrative noun, and "description" is an attribute or a substitute or an explanatory apposition. (Yes) the predicate of "this," meaning: the second is a subject, and this description is a predicate: "if in other than the singular, a pattern has settled": What is in other than the singular?
"And the second is the subject, and this description is the predicate *** if in other than the singular, a pattern has settled":
The description now is either singular and what follows it is singular, or dual and what follows it is dual, or plural and what follows it is plural, correct? Good: "Is Zayd standing?" The description is singular and what follows it is singular. "Are the two Zayds standing?" The description is dual and what follows it is dual. "Are the Zayds standing?" The description is plural and what follows it is plural. If the description is plural and what follows it is plural, or the description is dual and what follows it is dual, it is necessary that the description be a preceding predicate; it is necessary that the description be a preceding predicate—pay attention. If the description is singular and what follows it is singular, both options are permissible: that the description be a preceding predicate and what follows it be a delayed subject, or that the description be a subject and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Clear? This is clear Arabic, if Allah wills. The second time: If the description is singular and what follows it is singular, both options are permissible: what are they? That you make the description a preceding predicate and what follows it a delayed subject, or that you make the description a subject and what follows it an agent that suffices for the predicate. For example: "Is Zayd standing?" You may say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing" is a preceding predicate, and "Zayd" is a delayed subject, is that right or not? And the original form is: "Is Zayd standing?" And you may say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing" is a subject, and "Zayd" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. Complete? Good. If the description is dual and what follows it is dual, it is obligatory that the description be a preceding predicate, and what follows it be a delayed subject, obligatorily. So if you say: "Are the two men standing?" Say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing (dual)" is a preceding predicate, and "the two men" is a delayed subject; it is necessary. And likewise, if the description is plural and what follows it is plural, it is obligatory that the description be a preceding predicate and what follows it? And what follows it is a delayed subject. "Are the Muslims standing?" You say: The hamza is for interrogation, and "standing (plural)" is a preceding predicate, and "the Muslims" is a delayed subject. And the original form, if you return it to the order, is to say: "The Muslims are standing." Clear, everyone? And upon the sultan is reading!!
The student: O Shaykh, what are the Muslims?
The Shaykh : Yes, the Muslims are those who testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
The student: No, O Shaykh, you said: "the Muslims (accusative)."
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: But the original form is "the Muslims are standing."
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: Where is the interrogation?
The Shaykh : The interrogation was deleted for the sake of starting with the hamzat al-wasl, but here you say: "A-al-Muslimun".
The student: Do you pronounce the alif-lam?!
The Shaykh : Yes, and if you wish, you may delete it; there is leeway in it. Good, did we understand now? Good. If the description is singular and what follows it is dual, it is necessary that the description be a subject, if it is, it is necessary that the description be a subject and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. If the description is singular and what follows it is dual, it is necessary that the description be a subject, and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Its example is: "Is the two men standing?" We say: "Standing" is a subject, and "two men" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. Good, why do we not say: "Standing" is a predicate? Because if you said: "Standing" is a predicate, you would be informing with a singular about a dual, and informing with a singular about a dual is not permissible. Clear? I do not know!!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Clear. Good. "Is the two men standing?" What is necessary? That the description be a subject, and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Why do we not say: "Standing" is a preceding predicate?
The student: Because it is singular.
The Shaykh : Because it is singular, and a singular is not used to inform about a dual. Good, likewise, if the description is singular and what follows it is plural, it is necessary that the description be a subject and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. "Are the men standing?" Here we say: "Standing" is a subject, and "the men" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. And it is not permissible to say: "Standing" is a preceding predicate, and "the men" is a delayed subject. Why? Because if you said that, you would be informing with a singular about a plural, and this is not permissible in the Arabic language. Did you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, and for this reason, if the description is of the type where the singular and plural are equivalent, both options are permissible. "Are the two men in a state of ritual impurity?" Is that permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : That you make "in a state of ritual impurity" a preceding predicate, and "the two men" a delayed subject, or you say: "In a state of ritual impurity" is a subject, and "the two men" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. Both this and that are permissible. Good. "Are the men in a state of ritual impurity!"
The student: Similarly.
The Shaykh : And what about that? We do not want that "likewise."
The student: Both options are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both options are permissible: that you make "in a state of ritual impurity" a subject, and "the men" an agent that suffices for the predicate, or "in a state of ritual impurity" is a preceding predicate, and "the men" is a delayed subject. Allah the Exalted said:
And if you are in a state of janabah
وإن كنتم جنبًاThe student: If the description is singular.
The Shaykh : If the description is singular and what follows it is not singular, but dual or plural. Complete. Good, except, it is excluded from this last case, except if the description is of the type where the plural and singular are equivalent, then both options are permissible. And when are both options permissible in all cases?
The student: If they agree in the singular.
The Shaykh : If they agree in the singular, meaning: if they are both singular, correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Good. "Is Zayd standing?" It is permissible to say: "Standing" is a preceding predicate, and "Zayd" is a delayed subject, or you say: "Standing" is a subject, and "Zayd" is an agent that suffices for the predicate. (If Allah wills) clear now?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Good, what do you say about this construction: "Are the Zayds standing?"
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Are we standing, Zayd?
The student: This construction is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. "Are the Zayds standing" is not valid, it is not permissible. Is that right? Good. "Are the men standing?" If a person wanted to say it, are both options permissible according to the language of "The locusts ate us"? Is it permissible or not?
The student: Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : According to the language of "The locusts ate us," but we leave the locusts and their language. Yes, I am afraid it will confuse you a little. Fine, he said: "Are the two Zayds standing?"
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Due to lack of agreement.
The Shaykh : Good, due to lack of agreement. "Are the two Zayds standing": Here you cannot say that "standing (dual)" is a preceding predicate for "Zayd," and you cannot say: "Standing" is a description, and "Zayd" is an agent, because this contains the marker of duality, and "Zayd" is singular. The important thing is that some constructions are not linguistically valid, and what is valid is what was previously discussed. We return a second time to the summary of the lesson: If they agree in the singular?
The student: Both options are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both options are permissible. If they agree in the dual? It is obligatory that the description be a preceding predicate, and what follows it be a delayed subject. If they agree in the plural?
The student: Similarly.
The Shaykh : Likewise?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Likewise.
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Good, the first is a preceding predicate, and the second: a delayed subject. Complete. Good, if the first is singular, and the second is dual or plural?
The student: It is obligatory that it be a subject!
The Shaykh : It is necessary that the description be a subject, and what follows it be an agent that suffices for the predicate. Yes, but if the first is singular, and the second is plural or dual, this is necessary: that the description be a subject, and what follows it be a predicate, except if the description is of the type where the masculine and feminine are suitable, then both options are permissible in it. And let us return to the words of Ibn Malik. He says:
"And the second is a subject, and this description": meaning, and this description. So "this" is a demonstrative noun, and "description" is an attribute or a substitute or an explanatory apposition. (Yes) the predicate of "this," meaning: the second is a subject, and this description is a predicate: "if in other than the singular, a pattern has settled": What is in other than the singular?