Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a desire for good is good, and a righteous deed that adorns, and let one analogize what has not been stated"

The Shaykh :"A desire for good":
"Desire" is the subject, and its predicate is "good." If you said, "A desire is good," the sentence would not be valid, because we would not know which desire he means. So when he says, "A desire for good," he specifies it as a particular desire that is better than a desire for evil, or a desire for something that has neither good nor evil. Now, is "A man striking a standing man" valid? "A man striking a standing man"?
The student: It is correct.

The Shaykh : It is valid, why? Because it has a function, and when it has a function, its function specifies it, so it is permissible to begin with it.
"And a righteous deed that adorns":
"Deed" is the subject, and the clause "that adorns" is the predicate of the subject. The deed here is indefinite, even though it is attached to something, because what is attached to an indefinite noun does not become definite. Here, the deed is attached to an indefinite noun, so it remains indefinite, but it is specified in that not every deed is intended, but rather what is intended is what? A righteous deed. By this, it conveys meaning. If someone were to ask: Is there not an attachment in it, with the attached noun and the noun it is attached to? We say: Yes. Does this require Ibn Malik to repeat the example with what came before it, because what came before it was "a desire for good," and this is a deed,
"A righteous deed that adorns", this is also a deed, so it is said: First, the scholars differ regarding the noun it is attached to: is it the one in which the attached noun functions, or the one in which the preposition implied by the attachment functions? Because the attachment can be based on the implied "lam" (to), the implied "fi" (in), or the implied "min" (from). If a thing is attached to a type, the implication is "min"; if it is attached to its time or place, the implication is "fi"; and for everything else, the implication is "lam." Is that clear? Yes. If I say, "A silver ring," what is the implication?
The student: Who?

The Shaykh : It is "min" because it is a type. His saying, the Exalted: , the implication is "fi," it is attached to a time. And for everything else, it is "lam." Some of the scholars say that the one functioning in the noun it is attached to is the implied preposition. And if we adopt the other opinion, that the one functioning in the noun it is attached to is the attached noun itself, then the function of the attached noun is not like the function of the one cut off from attachment in his saying: "And a desire for good", because "desire" functions in his saying: "for good", the functioning of the one that causes the accusative case, yes.
"And a righteous deed that adorns, and let one analogize what has not been stated":
And let him measure: the lam here is for command, meaning it is as if he said: "And measure what I did not say by what I did say". So, what is the common cause (‘illah) by which the branch can be attached to the original? What is the cause? The cause is conveying benefit, because he said: "what does not convey benefit". So, if he gave us a cause, which is benefit, we say: whatever in which benefit is achieved, it is valid for it to be a subject (mubtada'). And in this is the establishment of analogical reasoning (qiyas) in the science of grammar, or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And it is one of the proofs, is it a legal proof or a grammatical proof?
The student: A grammatical proof.

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: A legal proof.

The Shaykh : What do you say, O 'Abd Allah?
The student: Legal.

The Shaykh : Legal?!
The student: Legal and grammatical.

The Shaykh : No, no, analogical reasoning in grammar.
The student: Grammatical.

The Shaykh : Grammatical, good, "And let one analogize what has not been stated". Then he said:
The student: And "analogize" is for questioning.

The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: And "analogize" is a question!?

The Shaykh : What?
The student: And "analogize": a question!

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, he said:
"And the root in news is that they be delayed, *** And they permitted advancing them when there is no harm".
The student: "What has not been stated", what is this?

The Shaykh : What I have not stated from the justifications.
The student: Do you mean I analogize to this?

The Shaykh : Yes, analogize to it examples like it.
The student: Like: "Amr is a lion"?

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, or other things like: , "Peace" is the subject, and "upon the messengers" is its predicate, even though "Peace" is...
The student: A predicate.

The Shaykh : Be patient, my brother, even though "Peace" is indefinite, it is beneficial, because the word "Peace" conveys the supplication: . The important thing is that some of them have brought the justifications to thirty, but they all fall under his saying: "What does not convey meaning". And Ibn Hisham said: "If it is general or specific", so he made the basis of the ruling generality and specificity. But the words of Ibn Hisham do not go beyond the words of Ibn Malik, because it is not possible for the benefit to be completed except by generality or specificity.