Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And is there a young man among you, so we have no companion *** And a man from the noble ones is with us."

The Shaykh : Second, he said: "And is there a young man among you":
The subject is "young man," and it is fronted in its position, and the predicate is "among you," which is postponed in its position. So why is it permissible to begin with it when it is an indefinite noun that has not been postponed? We said: because a question particle preceded it. A question particle preceded it: "Is there a young man among you?" Is that correct?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, "Is there a man in the market?" Is that correct or not?
The student: It is correct.

The Shaykh : So we take a rule: "If a question particle precedes an indefinite noun, it is permissible to begin with it". It is permissible to begin with it. Why is it permissible to begin with it? It was said: because the question makes this indefinite noun general, and generality is a meaning added to the essence. "Young man" indicates youth, but: "Is there a young man," generality asks which young man, "Is there a young man among you", and generality is a meaning added to what?
The student: The essence.

The Shaykh : To the essence, meaning to the meaning understood from the word "young man." So it is permissible because it provided a meaning, which is generality. Okay.
"So we have no companion": "So we have no companion": Where is the indefinite noun that occurred as a subject?
The student: Companion.

The Shaykh : Companion, and Ibn Malik gave this example according to the language of Banu Tamim, because if he had intended the language of the Hijazis, it would have been: "Khalil": a name for "ma" (the Hijazi "ma"). Do you know the Hijazi "ma"? What does it do?
The student: It acts like "laysa" (is not).

The Shaykh : It acts like "laysa." If the author had intended to use "ma" here in that way, it would not have been from this chapter, meaning it would have been from the chapter of particles that negate and change the verb, but he intended "ma" in this example to be the language of Banu Tamim. The poet says:
"And Muhaffaf al-A'ataf, I said to him: State your lineage *** So he answered: 'The killing of the lover is not forbidden'"
"State your lineage," yes or no?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : "Ma": is it?
The student: Tamimi.

The Shaykh : Tamimi.
"And Muhaffaf al-A'ataf, I said to him: State your lineage *** So he answered: 'The killing of the lover is not forbidden'".
So the woman is Tamimi.
The student: Tamimi.

The Shaykh : Because her language is what? Neglecting "ma." And those who neglect "ma" are Banu Tamim. If she had said: "The killing of the lover is not forbidden", it would have been?
The student: Hijazi.

The Shaykh : Hijazi. Okay, Ibn Malik now in his saying: "So we have no companion", is it Tamimi or Hijazi?
The student: Tamimi.

The Shaykh : Tamimi. Okay: "So we have no companion". "Khalil" (companion) is the lover, and "khalalah" (intimate companionship) is the highest type of love, and the poet explained it with the best explanation, saying, addressing his beloved:
"You have penetrated the path of my soul *** And thus the intimate friend was named 'Khalil'".
"The path of the soul" means: the blood vessels that reach the depths of the heart. For this reason, Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned in his book *Rawdat al-Muhibbin*, which some people have doubted was attributed to Ibn al-Qayyim, that love has ten types: the highest is "khalalah." For this reason, I say now: For this reason, it has not been established, as far as we know, except for the two intimate friends, Muhammad and Ibrahim, unlike love, which is established for the believers, the just, the righteous, and others. And with this, we say to those who exalt the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and say: "Ibrahim is the intimate friend of Allah, and Muhammad is the beloved of Allah", we say: Woe to you, you have diminished the rank of the Messenger (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him), correct?
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : Because they lowered him. So Muhammad is the intimate friend of Allah just as Ibrahim is the intimate friend of Allah. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not take anyone as his intimate friend, but did he take a beloved or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : He did, he took a beloved. He loves Aisha, he loves her father, he loves Usamah, and others, but he did not take an intimate friend. Rather, he made his Lord his intimate friend, (Glorified and Exalted is He), He said: , yes. So the saying of Ibn Malik: "So we have no companion": Did he intend its meaning, that he made the highest love for Allah, and the meaning of his saying would be: So we have no companion except our Lord, or is it just an example given?
The student: Perhaps he intended the first.

The Shaykh : Which one, the first? The first, because he could have replaced the word with another word without disrupting the meter. Yes, if he said: "So we have no love for us", does the meter work?
The student: It works.

The Shaykh : It works, but it appears, and Allah knows best, and we ask Allah the Exalted for that: that he intended to say: We have no companion except our Lord, meaning: So we have no companion among people. The point is: "Khalil" is an indefinite noun and it was begun with. Why? Because it was preceded by a negation particle. And on this basis, we say: If an indefinite noun is preceded by a negation particle, it is permissible to begin with it. What is the meaning that justified beginning with it, when we said the indefinite noun is unknown and cannot be judged? Generality, because negation provides? First: Among the forms of generality is: an indefinite noun in the context of negation. So generality is a meaning added to the essence. For this reason, it is permissible to begin with the indefinite noun. And Hujaj knows when the time is up!
The student: Good news.

The Shaykh : Okay, "And a man from the noble ones is with us":
"A man from the noble ones is with us." "Man" is an indefinite noun, but it was described by his saying: "from the noble ones", right? No.
"With us" is the predicate. Okay, when it was described, it became specific, so we benefited from a meaning added to the mere what? The essence. We did not say: "A man is with us": "A man from the noble ones", by which the man who is from the base ones, or the man who is neither base nor noble, is excluded. "A man from the noble ones is with us". Okay, if I said: "And a student from the noble ones is with us," replacing "man" with "student," and I intended by "student" to mean "students," is that correct?
The student: It is correct.

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: It is correct.

The Shaykh : Pay attention!!
The student: It is correct.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not correct.

The Shaykh : You see, the one that is not correct is not a noble student.
The student: The preposition and its object are connected to "student."

The Shaykh : No, no, no, I say: "Students from the noble ones are with us."
The student: Correct.

The Shaykh : Students!
The student: Correct.

The Shaykh : It is correct, and if Allah wills it must be correct, all of you are noble. They say that Ibn Malik recited this verse and al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) was with him, he was with him, so he said: "And a man from the noble ones is with us": meaning al-Nawawi. And whether this is true or not, the important thing is that in this example, the indefinite noun occurred as a subject. Why? Because it was described, so it became specific by the description, so we benefited from a meaning added to the mere essence. Okay, we will leave this verse which contains a pronoun, we will leave it for the female student - if Allah wills -.
The student: The time is up.

The Shaykh : Okay, wait, it doesn't seem to be possible, it doesn't seem to be possible, right? Okay, yes?
The student: The book *Kitab al-Ruh* by Ibn al-Qayyim!

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Do you have the book *Kitab al-Ruh* by Ibn al-Qayyim?

The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: What is your opinion of those who criticize it?

The Shaykh : By Allah, the criticism does not appear to be valid. In any case: it and *Rawdat al-Muhibbin* contain speech that is strange from Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), it is strange, but in it, its context, wording, and style are the speech of Ibn al-Qayyim. And Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) had, meaning, he had stages in his life. He was a Sufi at first, always embodying the saying of the poet:
"The wolf howled, and I felt safe when the wolf howled *** And a human cried out, and I almost flew"
He loved seclusion and solitude, and he had, meaning, what the Sufis have, until Allah granted him this great light which Allah led him to through the hand of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on them all), and he saved him. And Ibn al-Qayyim said about him: "Indeed, whatever I do, my hand and my tongue cannot suffice for it", out of his favor upon him. And he became upright, may Allah have mercy on him. So perhaps this is *Kitab al-Ruh* which he wrote in the beginning of his seeking, and likewise *Rawdat al-Muhibbin*. Yes, and praise be to Allah.
The student: *Kitab al-Ruh*, may Allah reward you, the editor!

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The one who edited it has knowledge, he has it.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Meaning, he mentioned evidence for the authenticity of the book to him.

The Shaykh : Fine, okay.
The student: Shaykh al-Islam was mentioned in *Rawdat al-Muhibbin*.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: *Rawdat al-Muhibbin*, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was mentioned in it.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The student: So did he write it in his lifetime or after?

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, he may have added to it later. Authors sometimes add to their books. Look at *Al-Radd 'ala al-Mantiqiyyin* which has the annotations of Shaykh al-Islam in his own hand. You see many annotations, and perhaps it was also in the first coming of Shaykh al-Islam.
The student: ... here also the original in the news.

The Shaykh : Yes, is it not possible that a thing can be described twice: "A man from the noble ones is with us" this is described!
The student: A man is sitting, described.

The Shaykh : Yes, if I said: "A man is sitting with us"? That is correct.
The student: A man with us?

The Shaykh : No, no: "A man with us" is not acceptable. This is from the attributes of nobility, and "with us" comes after the news, meaning it is described twice: once by the news and once by the attribute.
The student: Described twice?

The Shaykh : Yes, necessarily.
It is not considered valid. Good, this one, here, okay. Another verse from 'Uraymah as well:
"And make the pronoun explicit in that news, *** If it is an attribute, then look deeply
If he returns in meaning to what differs from it, *** like how 'Amr excused Zayd after him.
No, this one, the first one is better. Do you have a copy, or should I give it to you?