Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Likewise, if the verb is the predicate *** or if its use is intended to be exclusive"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "Likewise, if the verb is the predicate":
This means that it is impermissible to place the predicate before the subject if the predicate is a verb. It is impermissible to place the predicate before the subject if it is a verb, for example: "Zayd stood up." "Zayd stood up": It is not permissible to place "stood up" before "Zayd" if "Zayd" is a delayed subject. However, if you place it before "Zayd" as the doer of the action, there is no harm in that, but it is not from this category. Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : He said: "Zayd stood up." "Zayd" is the subject, and the sentence "stood up" is the predicate. Here is this arrangement. If you place "stood up" first, making "stood up" the advanced predicate and "Zayd" the delayed subject, it is impermissible. That is impermissible. But if you place "stood up" first as a verb and "Zayd" as the doer? Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, if someone asks: What is the difference between placing "stood up" first as the predicate of the subject, and placing "stood up" first as a verb with "Zayd" as its doer? We say: The difference is apparent, because if you place "stood up" first as an advanced predicate, it carries a pronoun. It carries a pronoun because "Zayd" is a delayed subject, and "stood up" is a past tense verb whose doer is hidden by permission, estimated to be "he." And the sentence is what? The predicate of the subject. So here, the standing is attributed to Zayd as if it happened twice. We attributed the standing to him as the predicate, and we attributed the standing to him as the doer. Yes, we attributed the standing to him as the subject with "stood up" as the predicate, and we attributed the standing to him as the doer. And there is a difference between attributing the standing to him twice or once. And it seems to me that it has not fermented in your heads?!
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: No, it has fermented.
The Shaykh : Now: "Zayd stood up." How do you parse "Zayd"?
The student: Subject.
The Shaykh : And "stood up"?
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : The sentence is the predicate. It is not permissible if you want this construction. It is not permissible to place "stood up" first and say: "Stood up" is a past tense verb, and it has a hidden doer by permission, estimated to be "he," and "Zayd" is a delayed subject. It is not permissible. Why? Because it becomes ambiguous with "stood up" being a past tense verb and "Zayd" being the doer, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, it is ambiguous. So if someone says: Even if it is ambiguous, what is the harm? What harms us if we make "Zayd" the doer of "stood up," or make it the subject and the sentence "stood up" the predicate? What is the harm? We said: There is a difference between them. If you make "Zayd" the subject and the sentence "stood up" its predicate, you attribute the standing to Zayd here how many times? Twice. Once as the subject, and once as the doer. But if you say: "Zayd stood up," "stood up" is a past tense verb and "Zayd" is the doer, you attribute the standing to him once, is that not so?! So there is a difference between them. Now, from here we know that the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him):
"Likewise, if the verb is the predicate" contains leniency. And it is objected to that the verb cannot be the predicate; rather, the predicate is the verbal sentence, is that not so? So there is leniency in his words (may Allah have mercy on him), because the verb cannot be the predicate. Rather, the predicate is a sentence, either verbal or nominal. Now, if I say: "The two men stood up," "The two men stood up," "The two men" is the subject, and "stood up" is a verb and doer, and the sentence is the predicate of the subject. Is it permissible in this case to place "stood up" first?
The student: Yes.
Another student: According to the language of: "The locusts ate me".
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible to place "stood up" first, because the subject is not ambiguous with the doer now. So I say: "Stood up" is a verb and doer, and "the two men" is a delayed subject. This is if I am not on the language of the locusts. But if it is on the language of the locusts, then it is not permissible to place it first. Why? Because they parse "the two men" as the doer, and in that case, it is like our saying: "Zayd stood up," so it is not permissible to place it first. But the known and famous of the language of the Arabs, what is it? The locust language or something else?
The student: Something else.
The Shaykh : Other than the locust language. So it does not matter. So now we have two examples: The first example: "Zayd stood up," and the second example: "The two men stood up." Which one is it permissible to place the predicate first in?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, and the first?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, due to its ambiguity with the doer. As for the second, it is permissible due to the lack of ambiguity. Is that clear, Khalid? There is no thinking going right or left?!
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Now, here, Saud!
The student: Now, if the verb is a noun that comes after it, is it permissible for us to attribute it, to add to it, for example, we say: "The two men stood up." Is it permissible to place the alif?
The Shaykh : This is on the language of: "The locusts ate them".
The student: Is it permissible?
The Shaykh : It is permissible on the language of those people, but the Arabs do not agree with them on that.
The student: "The two men stood up."
The Shaykh : The Arabs say: "The two men stood up." Yes, Ibn Dawud!
The student: Shaykh! If I want to inform about Zayd that he is the brother of a man, "Zayd is his brother," I did not understand the difference between it and: "Your brother is Zayd"?
The Shaykh : Did any of you understand? Now, this!
The student: If there is another example!
The Shaykh : It does not contradict. No, no, this example, the one next to you on your right, on your right, where is your right?!
The student: The one on my right.
The Shaykh : Yes, this man. I say: "Zayd, what is his relation to you?"
The student: I think he is!
The Shaykh : You say: "Zayd is your brother," is that right or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So now I am informing about the relation of Zayd to you, did you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, the second: "Your brother is Zayd." I am certain that among these five, there is a brother of yours, there is a brother of yours, but I do not know which one! One of the five is named Muhammad, one is Bakr, one is Khalid, one is 'Amr, one is Zayd. So I say: Who is your brother? You say: "My brother is Zayd." Did you understand or not? Did you understand the difference now? Huh?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, and the difference is clear. Now, the author says:
"Or if its use is intended to be exclusive", both are permissible.
The student: Both aspects, Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Did you intend the permissibility of both aspects?
The Shaykh : Yes, both aspects are permissible. If exclusivity is intended, then the order is obligatory. Its example: "It is only Zayd who is standing." We have "Zayd" as the subject, and "standing" as the predicate. What is restricted?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd, he is restricted to standing, as if I said: "Zayd is nothing but standing." So here, it is not permissible for me to place "standing" first and say: "It is only standing that is Zayd." Is that clear, everyone? And the difference: If I say: "It is only Zayd who is standing," this implies the restriction of Zayd to the state of standing, and it does not prevent others from sharing it with him, correct? "It is only Zayd who is standing" means, and 'Amr and Khalid and Bakr, and so on, it does not prevent the standing of others, but it prevents him from being sitting, because I restricted him to being standing. And if I say: "It is only standing that is Zayd," or: "It is only the one standing who is Zayd," it means: No one else is standing, no one else is standing. Is there a difference between them or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : There is a difference between them. So for example, if you say: "It is only Zayd who is standing," you want to restrict Zayd to standing, so you started with the subject and delayed the predicate. If you wanted to place the predicate first in this case, we say: It is not permissible, because if you place the predicate first, what happens? The meaning changes, the meaning changes. So if exclusivity is intended, it is not permissible to place the predicate first, because it changes what? Because the meaning changes. For this reason, he said: "Or if its use is intended to be exclusive".
This means that it is impermissible to place the predicate before the subject if the predicate is a verb. It is impermissible to place the predicate before the subject if it is a verb, for example: "Zayd stood up." "Zayd stood up": It is not permissible to place "stood up" before "Zayd" if "Zayd" is a delayed subject. However, if you place it before "Zayd" as the doer of the action, there is no harm in that, but it is not from this category. Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : He said: "Zayd stood up." "Zayd" is the subject, and the sentence "stood up" is the predicate. Here is this arrangement. If you place "stood up" first, making "stood up" the advanced predicate and "Zayd" the delayed subject, it is impermissible. That is impermissible. But if you place "stood up" first as a verb and "Zayd" as the doer? Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, if someone asks: What is the difference between placing "stood up" first as the predicate of the subject, and placing "stood up" first as a verb with "Zayd" as its doer? We say: The difference is apparent, because if you place "stood up" first as an advanced predicate, it carries a pronoun. It carries a pronoun because "Zayd" is a delayed subject, and "stood up" is a past tense verb whose doer is hidden by permission, estimated to be "he." And the sentence is what? The predicate of the subject. So here, the standing is attributed to Zayd as if it happened twice. We attributed the standing to him as the predicate, and we attributed the standing to him as the doer. Yes, we attributed the standing to him as the subject with "stood up" as the predicate, and we attributed the standing to him as the doer. And there is a difference between attributing the standing to him twice or once. And it seems to me that it has not fermented in your heads?!
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: No, it has fermented.
The Shaykh : Now: "Zayd stood up." How do you parse "Zayd"?
The student: Subject.
The Shaykh : And "stood up"?
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : The sentence is the predicate. It is not permissible if you want this construction. It is not permissible to place "stood up" first and say: "Stood up" is a past tense verb, and it has a hidden doer by permission, estimated to be "he," and "Zayd" is a delayed subject. It is not permissible. Why? Because it becomes ambiguous with "stood up" being a past tense verb and "Zayd" being the doer, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, it is ambiguous. So if someone says: Even if it is ambiguous, what is the harm? What harms us if we make "Zayd" the doer of "stood up," or make it the subject and the sentence "stood up" the predicate? What is the harm? We said: There is a difference between them. If you make "Zayd" the subject and the sentence "stood up" its predicate, you attribute the standing to Zayd here how many times? Twice. Once as the subject, and once as the doer. But if you say: "Zayd stood up," "stood up" is a past tense verb and "Zayd" is the doer, you attribute the standing to him once, is that not so?! So there is a difference between them. Now, from here we know that the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him):
"Likewise, if the verb is the predicate" contains leniency. And it is objected to that the verb cannot be the predicate; rather, the predicate is the verbal sentence, is that not so? So there is leniency in his words (may Allah have mercy on him), because the verb cannot be the predicate. Rather, the predicate is a sentence, either verbal or nominal. Now, if I say: "The two men stood up," "The two men stood up," "The two men" is the subject, and "stood up" is a verb and doer, and the sentence is the predicate of the subject. Is it permissible in this case to place "stood up" first?
The student: Yes.
Another student: According to the language of: "The locusts ate me".
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible to place "stood up" first, because the subject is not ambiguous with the doer now. So I say: "Stood up" is a verb and doer, and "the two men" is a delayed subject. This is if I am not on the language of the locusts. But if it is on the language of the locusts, then it is not permissible to place it first. Why? Because they parse "the two men" as the doer, and in that case, it is like our saying: "Zayd stood up," so it is not permissible to place it first. But the known and famous of the language of the Arabs, what is it? The locust language or something else?
The student: Something else.
The Shaykh : Other than the locust language. So it does not matter. So now we have two examples: The first example: "Zayd stood up," and the second example: "The two men stood up." Which one is it permissible to place the predicate first in?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, and the first?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, due to its ambiguity with the doer. As for the second, it is permissible due to the lack of ambiguity. Is that clear, Khalid? There is no thinking going right or left?!
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Now, here, Saud!
The student: Now, if the verb is a noun that comes after it, is it permissible for us to attribute it, to add to it, for example, we say: "The two men stood up." Is it permissible to place the alif?
The Shaykh : This is on the language of: "The locusts ate them".
The student: Is it permissible?
The Shaykh : It is permissible on the language of those people, but the Arabs do not agree with them on that.
The student: "The two men stood up."
The Shaykh : The Arabs say: "The two men stood up." Yes, Ibn Dawud!
The student: Shaykh! If I want to inform about Zayd that he is the brother of a man, "Zayd is his brother," I did not understand the difference between it and: "Your brother is Zayd"?
The Shaykh : Did any of you understand? Now, this!
The student: If there is another example!
The Shaykh : It does not contradict. No, no, this example, the one next to you on your right, on your right, where is your right?!
The student: The one on my right.
The Shaykh : Yes, this man. I say: "Zayd, what is his relation to you?"
The student: I think he is!
The Shaykh : You say: "Zayd is your brother," is that right or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So now I am informing about the relation of Zayd to you, did you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, the second: "Your brother is Zayd." I am certain that among these five, there is a brother of yours, there is a brother of yours, but I do not know which one! One of the five is named Muhammad, one is Bakr, one is Khalid, one is 'Amr, one is Zayd. So I say: Who is your brother? You say: "My brother is Zayd." Did you understand or not? Did you understand the difference now? Huh?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, and the difference is clear. Now, the author says:
"Or if its use is intended to be exclusive", both are permissible.
The student: Both aspects, Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Did you intend the permissibility of both aspects?
The Shaykh : Yes, both aspects are permissible. If exclusivity is intended, then the order is obligatory. Its example: "It is only Zayd who is standing." We have "Zayd" as the subject, and "standing" as the predicate. What is restricted?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd, he is restricted to standing, as if I said: "Zayd is nothing but standing." So here, it is not permissible for me to place "standing" first and say: "It is only standing that is Zayd." Is that clear, everyone? And the difference: If I say: "It is only Zayd who is standing," this implies the restriction of Zayd to the state of standing, and it does not prevent others from sharing it with him, correct? "It is only Zayd who is standing" means, and 'Amr and Khalid and Bakr, and so on, it does not prevent the standing of others, but it prevents him from being sitting, because I restricted him to being standing. And if I say: "It is only standing that is Zayd," or: "It is only the one standing who is Zayd," it means: No one else is standing, no one else is standing. Is there a difference between them or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : There is a difference between them. So for example, if you say: "It is only Zayd who is standing," you want to restrict Zayd to standing, so you started with the subject and delayed the predicate. If you wanted to place the predicate first in this case, we say: It is not permissible, because if you place the predicate first, what happens? The meaning changes, the meaning changes. So if exclusivity is intended, it is not permissible to place the predicate first, because it changes what? Because the meaning changes. For this reason, he said: "Or if its use is intended to be exclusive".