Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And make it explicit, absolutely, where it follows *** what its meaning is not established for."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Here he says:
"And make it explicit, absolutely, where it follows *** what its meaning is not established for":
The reality is that there is no preceding or following condition, yes, but the intended meaning of "absolutely" here is: make it explicit in every case, make it explicit in every case. And if you know that it is made explicit in every case, it means: whether the meaning is clear or not clear.
"Where it follows": The pronoun refers to what? To the derived word. And the meaning of "follows" is: it accompanied.
"... *** what its meaning is not established for": "What its meaning is not": meaning the meaning of the predicate, "for it": meaning for the subject, "established".
And his saying: "what," refers to the subject. For this reason, it is possible not to parse it as a relative pronoun, but to parse it as an indefinite described noun. Meaning: make it explicit: make the hidden pronoun in the predicate explicit, absolutely, where the predicate follows a subject, and the meaning of the predicate is not established for the subject. Yes?
The student: There is scattering.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is scattering of pronouns. For this reason, this verse is considered far from eloquence, meaning it has no eloquence. Make it explicit: the pronoun refers to what?
The student: The hidden pronoun.
The Shaykh : The hidden pronoun. Where it follows: meaning it accompanied. What: meaning the subject. Its meaning is not: meaning the meaning of the predicate. For it: meaning for the subject. Look, the pronouns are scattered. Established: meaning understood by it. Meaning: if the description follows the subject and its meaning does not refer back to it, then it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit. Its example: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker. 'Amr, his striker. "Striker" is a predicate for what?
The student: For 'Amr.
Another student: For Zayd.
The student: For 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Zayd is 'Amr, his striker?
The student: For 'Amr.
The Shaykh : For 'Amr. If we limit it to this: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker, there is no problem, the sentence is complete. And the description now, which is the predicate, follows what is not for it or not?
The student: What is not for it.
The Shaykh : What is not for it. The description, which is: his striker, and it is the predicate of 'Amr, follows what is for it. So the one described as striking is: 'Amr. But if you want the striker to be Zayd, if you want to inform that the striker is Zayd, then say: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker. If you say: his striker, it is not 'Amr, Zayd is the striker. You must say: his striker is he, his striker is he. Why? Because the description now follows what its meaning is not for it. So when it follows what its meaning is not for it, it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit. So the striker in your saying: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker, is he?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd. Zayd is 'Amr, his striker? 'Amr. So Zayd in the second sentence: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker? Zayd in the second sentence?
The student: Struck.
The Shaykh : Struck. And Zayd in your saying: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker, is he?
The student: Striker.
The Shaykh : Striker. So this is the ruling. Meaning, if it follows—the issue is easy, it is not difficult, you see, leave Ibn Malik's verse—meaning: "If the description is a predicate for what its meaning does not refer back to it, then it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit". This is the rule: "If the description is a predicate for what its meaning does not refer back to it, then it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit, absolutely". Absolutely. Okay: Zayd is Hind, her striker. It is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit if I want?
The student: Zayd struck Hind!
The Shaykh : People, do not rush. It is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit if I want Zayd to be the striker. Ibn Malik says: absolutely. Ibn Malik says: absolutely. And we want now to establish what Ibn Malik said. According to Ibn Malik's opinion: Zayd is Hind, her striker is he. It is obligatory. Why? Because he said: "Make it explicit, absolutely". Is this reasonable?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and some grammarians went to the opinion that it is not obligatory to make it explicit, except if ambiguity is feared, such that we do not know who the striker is, or if it suggests the opposite of what is intended. And on this, if I say: Zayd is 'Amr, her striker!!
The student: Zayd!!
The Shaykh : 'Amr. Yes: Zayd is Hind, her striker!!
The student: It is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory. According to the second opinion, which distinguishes between the possibility of ambiguity and its absence, it says: If you say: Zayd is Hind, her striker, it does not need to make the pronoun explicit, right or not?! Because here "striker" has no feminization, so if there is no feminization and Hind is feminine and Zayd is masculine, it refers to what? To Zayd or to Hind?
The student: To Zayd.
The Shaykh : To Zayd the masculine. So here we know that the striker is Zayd, even though the predicate now runs on what is not for it, because the striking is not done by Hind, it is done by Zayd. But since the meaning is clear, we did not need to make the pronoun explicit. And this opinion is the stronger position, based on what? Based on the strong grammatical rule, which is: "Whenever the matter revolves between facilitation and difficulty, you must choose facilitation". Okay, so if I say: Zayd is Hind, her striker, only, am I wrong according to Ibn Malik's school or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : According to Ibn Malik's school, I am wrong, because it is obligatory for me to say: her striker is he. Okay, am I wrong according to the stronger position?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because the meaning is clear, explicit, that the striking is done by Zayd. Okay, if I say: Zayd is Hind, she struck him, do I need to say "she"?
The student: Yes.
Another student: No.
The student: Yes, according to Ibn Malik's school.
The Shaykh : According to Ibn Malik's school?
The student: Yes.
Another student: You must say it.
The Shaykh : Okay, Zayd is Hind, she struck him. Is it obligatory to make the pronoun explicit so I say: she struck him, she?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : According to Ibn Malik's school?
The student: Even according to Ibn Malik's school.
The Shaykh : Even according to Ibn Malik's school?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, because the predicate occurred as a description for what it is for. So "she struck him": the predicate of Hind, so it occurred as a description for her, so it does not need to make the pronoun explicit even according to Ibn Malik's opinion. And Khalid ibn Hamid finds the matter difficult!!
The student: It is not difficult.
The Shaykh : It is not difficult?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Okay, let us proceed now. So the meaning of his saying:
"And make it explicit, absolutely, where it follows *** what its meaning is not established for"
And we hope that one of you will bring a verse in place of it that is clearer in meaning. And you have until the next lesson, if Allah wills. Yes, each one should make a verse that conveys the meaning without this complexity.
The student: The Kafiyyah?
The Shaykh : No, not from the Kafiyyah. Do not answer from the Kafiyyah. The Kafiyyah, everyone goes and reads it and brings it. Yes, okay. The meaning of Ibn Malik's words: that it is obligatory to make the pronoun of the predicate explicit if it carries the pronoun, if it follows what is not for it. This is its meaning. Yes?
The student: O Shaykh, do we give the verse according to the stronger position, or according to Ibn Malik's opinion?
The Shaykh : No, according to Ibn Malik's opinion. And if you bring it according to both opinions, there is no harm. The hemistich, no no, one verse. The first hemistich for one opinion, and the second for the other. Okay.
The student: Ibn Malik, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : He said: "And inform with a circumstantial"—we are finished.
"And make it explicit, absolutely, where it follows *** what its meaning is not established for":
The reality is that there is no preceding or following condition, yes, but the intended meaning of "absolutely" here is: make it explicit in every case, make it explicit in every case. And if you know that it is made explicit in every case, it means: whether the meaning is clear or not clear.
"Where it follows": The pronoun refers to what? To the derived word. And the meaning of "follows" is: it accompanied.
"... *** what its meaning is not established for": "What its meaning is not": meaning the meaning of the predicate, "for it": meaning for the subject, "established".
And his saying: "what," refers to the subject. For this reason, it is possible not to parse it as a relative pronoun, but to parse it as an indefinite described noun. Meaning: make it explicit: make the hidden pronoun in the predicate explicit, absolutely, where the predicate follows a subject, and the meaning of the predicate is not established for the subject. Yes?
The student: There is scattering.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is scattering of pronouns. For this reason, this verse is considered far from eloquence, meaning it has no eloquence. Make it explicit: the pronoun refers to what?
The student: The hidden pronoun.
The Shaykh : The hidden pronoun. Where it follows: meaning it accompanied. What: meaning the subject. Its meaning is not: meaning the meaning of the predicate. For it: meaning for the subject. Look, the pronouns are scattered. Established: meaning understood by it. Meaning: if the description follows the subject and its meaning does not refer back to it, then it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit. Its example: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker. 'Amr, his striker. "Striker" is a predicate for what?
The student: For 'Amr.
Another student: For Zayd.
The student: For 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Zayd is 'Amr, his striker?
The student: For 'Amr.
The Shaykh : For 'Amr. If we limit it to this: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker, there is no problem, the sentence is complete. And the description now, which is the predicate, follows what is not for it or not?
The student: What is not for it.
The Shaykh : What is not for it. The description, which is: his striker, and it is the predicate of 'Amr, follows what is for it. So the one described as striking is: 'Amr. But if you want the striker to be Zayd, if you want to inform that the striker is Zayd, then say: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker. If you say: his striker, it is not 'Amr, Zayd is the striker. You must say: his striker is he, his striker is he. Why? Because the description now follows what its meaning is not for it. So when it follows what its meaning is not for it, it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit. So the striker in your saying: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker, is he?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd. Zayd is 'Amr, his striker? 'Amr. So Zayd in the second sentence: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker? Zayd in the second sentence?
The student: Struck.
The Shaykh : Struck. And Zayd in your saying: Zayd is 'Amr, his striker, is he?
The student: Striker.
The Shaykh : Striker. So this is the ruling. Meaning, if it follows—the issue is easy, it is not difficult, you see, leave Ibn Malik's verse—meaning: "If the description is a predicate for what its meaning does not refer back to it, then it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit". This is the rule: "If the description is a predicate for what its meaning does not refer back to it, then it is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit, absolutely". Absolutely. Okay: Zayd is Hind, her striker. It is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit if I want?
The student: Zayd struck Hind!
The Shaykh : People, do not rush. It is obligatory to make the pronoun explicit if I want Zayd to be the striker. Ibn Malik says: absolutely. Ibn Malik says: absolutely. And we want now to establish what Ibn Malik said. According to Ibn Malik's opinion: Zayd is Hind, her striker is he. It is obligatory. Why? Because he said: "Make it explicit, absolutely". Is this reasonable?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and some grammarians went to the opinion that it is not obligatory to make it explicit, except if ambiguity is feared, such that we do not know who the striker is, or if it suggests the opposite of what is intended. And on this, if I say: Zayd is 'Amr, her striker!!
The student: Zayd!!
The Shaykh : 'Amr. Yes: Zayd is Hind, her striker!!
The student: It is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory. According to the second opinion, which distinguishes between the possibility of ambiguity and its absence, it says: If you say: Zayd is Hind, her striker, it does not need to make the pronoun explicit, right or not?! Because here "striker" has no feminization, so if there is no feminization and Hind is feminine and Zayd is masculine, it refers to what? To Zayd or to Hind?
The student: To Zayd.
The Shaykh : To Zayd the masculine. So here we know that the striker is Zayd, even though the predicate now runs on what is not for it, because the striking is not done by Hind, it is done by Zayd. But since the meaning is clear, we did not need to make the pronoun explicit. And this opinion is the stronger position, based on what? Based on the strong grammatical rule, which is: "Whenever the matter revolves between facilitation and difficulty, you must choose facilitation". Okay, so if I say: Zayd is Hind, her striker, only, am I wrong according to Ibn Malik's school or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : According to Ibn Malik's school, I am wrong, because it is obligatory for me to say: her striker is he. Okay, am I wrong according to the stronger position?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because the meaning is clear, explicit, that the striking is done by Zayd. Okay, if I say: Zayd is Hind, she struck him, do I need to say "she"?
The student: Yes.
Another student: No.
The student: Yes, according to Ibn Malik's school.
The Shaykh : According to Ibn Malik's school?
The student: Yes.
Another student: You must say it.
The Shaykh : Okay, Zayd is Hind, she struck him. Is it obligatory to make the pronoun explicit so I say: she struck him, she?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : According to Ibn Malik's school?
The student: Even according to Ibn Malik's school.
The Shaykh : Even according to Ibn Malik's school?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, because the predicate occurred as a description for what it is for. So "she struck him": the predicate of Hind, so it occurred as a description for her, so it does not need to make the pronoun explicit even according to Ibn Malik's opinion. And Khalid ibn Hamid finds the matter difficult!!
The student: It is not difficult.
The Shaykh : It is not difficult?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Okay, let us proceed now. So the meaning of his saying:
"And make it explicit, absolutely, where it follows *** what its meaning is not established for"
And we hope that one of you will bring a verse in place of it that is clearer in meaning. And you have until the next lesson, if Allah wills. Yes, each one should make a verse that conveys the meaning without this complexity.
The student: The Kafiyyah?
The Shaykh : No, not from the Kafiyyah. Do not answer from the Kafiyyah. The Kafiyyah, everyone goes and reads it and brings it. Yes, okay. The meaning of Ibn Malik's words: that it is obligatory to make the pronoun of the predicate explicit if it carries the pronoun, if it follows what is not for it. This is its meaning. Yes?
The student: O Shaykh, do we give the verse according to the stronger position, or according to Ibn Malik's opinion?
The Shaykh : No, according to Ibn Malik's opinion. And if you bring it according to both opinions, there is no harm. The hemistich, no no, one verse. The first hemistich for one opinion, and the second for the other. Okay.
The student: Ibn Malik, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : He said: "And inform with a circumstantial"—we are finished.