Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "So prevent it when the two parts are equal *** in the known and the unknown, lacking clarification"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "So prevent it": The pronoun in: "So prevent it" refers to advancing, meaning: so prevent advancing, prevent advancing: meaning advancing the predicate.
"When the two parts are equal *** in the known and the unknown, lacking clarification"
: When the two parts are equal, and what he means by the two parts is: the subject and the predicate, "in the known and the unknown":
Meaning they became two knowns or they became two unknowns, and we do not know which one is the subject from a contextual clue or the like, so here advancing the predicate is prohibited, and it is necessary to advance the subject when they are equal in being unknown or equal in being known, and it is not clear which one is the subject, so here it is necessary that the predicate be delayed and the subject be advanced, in order to judge that the second is a ruling upon the first by virtue of the order. An example of their equality in being known is if you say: Zayd is your brother, Zayd is your brother: both are known, and here you inform that Zayd is his brother, so if you advanced it and said: Your brother is Zayd: the meaning becomes ambiguous, so it is not permissible to advance the predicate here, because if you advance it, it becomes ambiguous: do you want to inform about Zayd that he is his brother, or about his brother that he is Zayd?! And there is a difference between them. If you say: Your brother is Zayd, it means no one else, you have no brother except Zayd, and if you say: Zayd is your brother, it is possible that there is a second, third, and fourth brother, so the meaning becomes ambiguous, so at that time it is necessary that each part remains in its place, so you say: Zayd is your brother: if you want to inform about Zayd that he is his brother, so if you advanced it and said: Your brother is Zayd, we say: this is prohibited, because this leads to ambiguity. Okay, and if you say: Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyyah, both are known, yes, "and Ibn al-Qayyim is Ibn Taymiyyah": Ibn al-Qayyim: an advanced predicate, and Ibn Taymiyyah?
The student: A delayed subject.
The Shaykh : A delayed subject, so how?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Precise, precise, Ibn al-Qayyim: an advanced predicate, and Ibn Taymiyyah: a delayed subject, is this possible?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not possible, why? Because we know that we do not want to attach Ibn Taymiyyah to Ibn al-Qayyim, but rather we want the opposite, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so here we have clarification, so what is the first order for such a construction is that you say: "Ibn al-Qayyim is Ibn Taymiyyah", this order is correct, but if you say: "Ibn Taymiyyah is Ibn al-Qayyim", it is correct, it is also correct, why? Because we know that if you say: "Ibn Taymiyyah is Ibn al-Qayyim", that Ibn Taymiyyah: is an advanced predicate.
The student: Not clear.
The Shaykh : Clear!
The student: Is not the predicate a description of the subject?
The Shaykh : Yes, but the one being compared is the subject, and the one being compared to is the predicate always, you say for example: So-and-so is like the full moon, and you say: Like the full moon is so-and-so, so here now do we want to compare Ibn Taymiyyah to Ibn al-Qayyim, or Ibn al-Qayyim to Ibn Taymiyyah?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : Ibn al-Qayyim to Ibn Taymiyyah, okay so mention the sentence ordered with each part in its place? You say: Ibn al-Qayyim is Ibn Taymiyyah, this is clear, it means: Ibn al-Qayyim is like Ibn Taymiyyah, advance Ibn Taymiyyah? You say: Ibn Taymiyyah is Ibn al-Qayyim, how do you parse it?
The student: An advanced predicate.
The Shaykh : I say: Ibn Taymiyyah is an advanced predicate, and Ibn al-Qayyim is a delayed subject, because we know that the intended meaning is comparing Ibn al-Qayyim to whom? To Ibn Taymiyyah, and not the opposite, and like that is what grammarians use as an example: "Abu Yusuf is Abu Hanifah", is the order natural or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"Abu Yusuf is Abu Hanifah", okay if I say: "Abu Hanifah is Abu Yusuf"? Correct, and here advancing the predicate is permissible, because the meaning is understood, and it is attaching Abu Yusuf to what? To Abu Hanifah or the opposite, clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Okay, so if the subject and the predicate are equal in being known, it is necessary that the predicate remains in its place and it is not permissible to advance it, except if there is evidence that clarifies the predicate. The unknown: they gave as an example for it their saying: "Better than 'Amr is better than Bakr", Better: is an unknown in both places, so if you want to say: everyone who is better than 'Amr is better than Bakr, then the order is: Better than 'Amr is better than Bakr, if you advanced it the meaning would become ambiguous, and it would be that everyone who is better than Bakr is better than 'Amr, and at that time it becomes ambiguous, so we say: so it is necessary that each one remains in its place, complete? Is it not clear, let me see?!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Okay, in any case -if Allah wills- the next lesson.
The student: Some compared, may Allah reward you
The Shaykh : Yes, what did he say?
The student: He said "And they permitted advancing the kaff of Nudra ***"
The Shaykh : Before it, before it, the first half, the first half!
The student: The first half.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the original!
The student: "And they permitted advancing the kaff of Nudra *** and the original in his Qur'an is to be respected".
The Shaykh : And how?
The student: "And the original in his Qur'an is to be respected".
The Shaykh : And what?
The student: The kaff.
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student: The original is to be respected, "And they permitted advancing the kaff of Nudra".
The Shaykh : Yes, hehehe
The student: Kaff of Nudra, "And the original in his Qur'an is to be respected".
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Broken!
The Shaykh : There is a break.
The student: But it does not break!
Another student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes, the author -may Allah have mercy on him- said: "Inform with a time or a preposition",
Is there a discussion or is there no discussion?
The student: We took it!
The Shaykh : We took the discussion, okay.
"When the two parts are equal *** in the known and the unknown, lacking clarification"
: When the two parts are equal, and what he means by the two parts is: the subject and the predicate, "in the known and the unknown":
Meaning they became two knowns or they became two unknowns, and we do not know which one is the subject from a contextual clue or the like, so here advancing the predicate is prohibited, and it is necessary to advance the subject when they are equal in being unknown or equal in being known, and it is not clear which one is the subject, so here it is necessary that the predicate be delayed and the subject be advanced, in order to judge that the second is a ruling upon the first by virtue of the order. An example of their equality in being known is if you say: Zayd is your brother, Zayd is your brother: both are known, and here you inform that Zayd is his brother, so if you advanced it and said: Your brother is Zayd: the meaning becomes ambiguous, so it is not permissible to advance the predicate here, because if you advance it, it becomes ambiguous: do you want to inform about Zayd that he is his brother, or about his brother that he is Zayd?! And there is a difference between them. If you say: Your brother is Zayd, it means no one else, you have no brother except Zayd, and if you say: Zayd is your brother, it is possible that there is a second, third, and fourth brother, so the meaning becomes ambiguous, so at that time it is necessary that each part remains in its place, so you say: Zayd is your brother: if you want to inform about Zayd that he is his brother, so if you advanced it and said: Your brother is Zayd, we say: this is prohibited, because this leads to ambiguity. Okay, and if you say: Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyyah, both are known, yes, "and Ibn al-Qayyim is Ibn Taymiyyah": Ibn al-Qayyim: an advanced predicate, and Ibn Taymiyyah?
The student: A delayed subject.
The Shaykh : A delayed subject, so how?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Precise, precise, Ibn al-Qayyim: an advanced predicate, and Ibn Taymiyyah: a delayed subject, is this possible?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not possible, why? Because we know that we do not want to attach Ibn Taymiyyah to Ibn al-Qayyim, but rather we want the opposite, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so here we have clarification, so what is the first order for such a construction is that you say: "Ibn al-Qayyim is Ibn Taymiyyah", this order is correct, but if you say: "Ibn Taymiyyah is Ibn al-Qayyim", it is correct, it is also correct, why? Because we know that if you say: "Ibn Taymiyyah is Ibn al-Qayyim", that Ibn Taymiyyah: is an advanced predicate.
The student: Not clear.
The Shaykh : Clear!
The student: Is not the predicate a description of the subject?
The Shaykh : Yes, but the one being compared is the subject, and the one being compared to is the predicate always, you say for example: So-and-so is like the full moon, and you say: Like the full moon is so-and-so, so here now do we want to compare Ibn Taymiyyah to Ibn al-Qayyim, or Ibn al-Qayyim to Ibn Taymiyyah?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : Ibn al-Qayyim to Ibn Taymiyyah, okay so mention the sentence ordered with each part in its place? You say: Ibn al-Qayyim is Ibn Taymiyyah, this is clear, it means: Ibn al-Qayyim is like Ibn Taymiyyah, advance Ibn Taymiyyah? You say: Ibn Taymiyyah is Ibn al-Qayyim, how do you parse it?
The student: An advanced predicate.
The Shaykh : I say: Ibn Taymiyyah is an advanced predicate, and Ibn al-Qayyim is a delayed subject, because we know that the intended meaning is comparing Ibn al-Qayyim to whom? To Ibn Taymiyyah, and not the opposite, and like that is what grammarians use as an example: "Abu Yusuf is Abu Hanifah", is the order natural or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"Abu Yusuf is Abu Hanifah", okay if I say: "Abu Hanifah is Abu Yusuf"? Correct, and here advancing the predicate is permissible, because the meaning is understood, and it is attaching Abu Yusuf to what? To Abu Hanifah or the opposite, clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Okay, so if the subject and the predicate are equal in being known, it is necessary that the predicate remains in its place and it is not permissible to advance it, except if there is evidence that clarifies the predicate. The unknown: they gave as an example for it their saying: "Better than 'Amr is better than Bakr", Better: is an unknown in both places, so if you want to say: everyone who is better than 'Amr is better than Bakr, then the order is: Better than 'Amr is better than Bakr, if you advanced it the meaning would become ambiguous, and it would be that everyone who is better than Bakr is better than 'Amr, and at that time it becomes ambiguous, so we say: so it is necessary that each one remains in its place, complete? Is it not clear, let me see?!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Okay, in any case -if Allah wills- the next lesson.
The student: Some compared, may Allah reward you
The Shaykh : Yes, what did he say?
The student: He said "And they permitted advancing the kaff of Nudra ***"
The Shaykh : Before it, before it, the first half, the first half!
The student: The first half.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the original!
The student: "And they permitted advancing the kaff of Nudra *** and the original in his Qur'an is to be respected".
The Shaykh : And how?
The student: "And the original in his Qur'an is to be respected".
The Shaykh : And what?
The student: The kaff.
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student: The original is to be respected, "And they permitted advancing the kaff of Nudra".
The Shaykh : Yes, hehehe
The student: Kaff of Nudra, "And the original in his Qur'an is to be respected".
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Broken!
The Shaykh : There is a break.
The student: But it does not break!
Another student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes, the author -may Allah have mercy on him- said: "Inform with a time or a preposition",
Is there a discussion or is there no discussion?
The student: We took it!
The Shaykh : We took the discussion, okay.