Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed *** And they permitted its advancement when there is no harm"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said:
"And the original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed *** And they permitted its advancement when there is no harm":
In this verse, Ibn Malik says: The original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed. Why? Because the mubtada' is the thing being judged, and the thing being judged must precede the judgment to serve as its locus. It must precede the judgment to serve as its locus. So if you say: "Zayd is standing," you have judged Zayd by standing. Therefore, the mubtada', which is the thing being judged, must precede the khabar, which is the judgment, to be what? Its locus. How can you judge something that does not exist? So the original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed. And if the original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed, then the original rule for the mubtada' is that it be advanced. And the cause is what you heard: because the mubtada' is the thing being judged and the khabar is the judgment, and the judgment follows the thing being judged so that the thing being judged serves as its locus. For the judgment must meet a locus. So the original rule is to say: "Zayd is standing." This is the original rule.
"And they permitted its advancement": Who permitted it, the grammarians or the Arabs?
The student: The grammarians.
The Shaykh : And the Arabs as well, the grammarians and the Arabs. They permitted the advancement: meaning the advancement of the khabar, on the condition that there is no harm. And his saying: "on the condition that there is no harm" may suggest that the subject of "they permitted" in "they permitted" refers to the grammarians, because what is meant by harm is violating the rules or causing confusion. So if we say: violating the rules, then those who permit it are the grammarians. And if we say: confusion, then those who permit it are the grammarians and the linguists, the people of language. The matter is minor. The important thing is that it is permissible to advance the khabar if it does not entail harm, either violating rules or causing confusion and difficulty. The author of the farran (bread) composed a verse on this regarding his bread, and the student composed one regarding his studies. So the author of the farran said:
"And the original rule for the breads is that they be leavened *** And they permitted the unleavened when there is no harm",
Al-fatir: meaning that which is kneaded and immediately baked, without leavening. And the student also composed one when his teacher failed to attend, saying:
"And the original rule for teaching is that it be perpetual *** And they permitted interruption when a task appeared",
Yes, so will you compose other things on this?
The student: The letters will come tomorrow.
The Shaykh : Yes, the letters will come tomorrow. I am afraid that after we finish, this is easy to compose on, it is easy, it is not like the first one. All right, so we have learned this rule: "That the original rule for the khabar is postponement, and what is the reasoning? That the khabar is a judgment and the mubtada' is the thing being judged, and the original rule is that the thing being judged precedes so that the judgment is what? Its locus, preceding it", all right.
"And the original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed *** And they permitted its advancement when there is no harm":
In this verse, Ibn Malik says: The original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed. Why? Because the mubtada' is the thing being judged, and the thing being judged must precede the judgment to serve as its locus. It must precede the judgment to serve as its locus. So if you say: "Zayd is standing," you have judged Zayd by standing. Therefore, the mubtada', which is the thing being judged, must precede the khabar, which is the judgment, to be what? Its locus. How can you judge something that does not exist? So the original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed. And if the original rule for the khabar is that it be postponed, then the original rule for the mubtada' is that it be advanced. And the cause is what you heard: because the mubtada' is the thing being judged and the khabar is the judgment, and the judgment follows the thing being judged so that the thing being judged serves as its locus. For the judgment must meet a locus. So the original rule is to say: "Zayd is standing." This is the original rule.
"And they permitted its advancement": Who permitted it, the grammarians or the Arabs?
The student: The grammarians.
The Shaykh : And the Arabs as well, the grammarians and the Arabs. They permitted the advancement: meaning the advancement of the khabar, on the condition that there is no harm. And his saying: "on the condition that there is no harm" may suggest that the subject of "they permitted" in "they permitted" refers to the grammarians, because what is meant by harm is violating the rules or causing confusion. So if we say: violating the rules, then those who permit it are the grammarians. And if we say: confusion, then those who permit it are the grammarians and the linguists, the people of language. The matter is minor. The important thing is that it is permissible to advance the khabar if it does not entail harm, either violating rules or causing confusion and difficulty. The author of the farran (bread) composed a verse on this regarding his bread, and the student composed one regarding his studies. So the author of the farran said:
"And the original rule for the breads is that they be leavened *** And they permitted the unleavened when there is no harm",
Al-fatir: meaning that which is kneaded and immediately baked, without leavening. And the student also composed one when his teacher failed to attend, saying:
"And the original rule for teaching is that it be perpetual *** And they permitted interruption when a task appeared",
Yes, so will you compose other things on this?
The student: The letters will come tomorrow.
The Shaykh : Yes, the letters will come tomorrow. I am afraid that after we finish, this is easy to compose on, it is easy, it is not like the first one. All right, so we have learned this rule: "That the original rule for the khabar is postponement, and what is the reasoning? That the khabar is a judgment and the mubtada' is the thing being judged, and the original rule is that the thing being judged precedes so that the judgment is what? Its locus, preceding it", all right.