Previous discussion.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And all his companions, may Allah be pleased with them all. We will take a discussion of yesterday's lesson, then we will take a discussion of the verses. It is necessary to place the predicate before the subject in certain cases. The first one?
The student: If the subject is not allowed to be placed first, if it is an indefinite noun with no justification for placing it first.
The Shaykh : There is no justification for it except?
The student: Except postponement.
The Shaykh : Except postponement. What is its example?
The student: Its example is: With Zayd is a dirham.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is one. The second one? Kamal!
The student: If a pronoun refers back to it, like: A number.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. Yes?
The student: If a pronoun refers back to it.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: If, meaning, the pronoun refers back to the predicate.
The Shaykh : If it is in the subject? Huh?
The student: If there is a pronoun in the subject that refers back to the predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. What is its example?
The student: I do not have it at hand!
The Shaykh : Huh?! Abdullah, Muhammad!
The student: In the house is its owner. I remembered now. In the house is its owner.
The Shaykh : This is stealing, O Kamal. You are stealing from him now. Okay: In the house is its owner. In the house is its owner. Place it first?
The student: If I said: Its owner is in the house, it would be impermissible.
The Shaykh : It would be impermissible.
The student: Meaning, it is not...
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because, O Shaykh, "its owner" here refers to the house!
The Shaykh : Why is it impermissible: Its owner is in the house?
The student: Because if we say: Its owner...
The Shaykh : ...is in the house, "its owner" means: The owner of the house is in the house!
The student: It is impermissible.
The Shaykh : Why? Did you not review, Kamal? Did you not review?!
The student: Because!
The Shaykh : I am asking you, did you review?
The student: No, I reviewed. I reviewed yesterday at home, because it is mentioned in terms of wording...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Meaning, it must be a pronoun.
The Shaykh : Because it necessitates the pronoun referring back to something that comes later.
The student: In rank and in wording.
The Shaykh : In wording. And is that permissible or not permissible?
The student: That is permissible.
The Shaykh : If that is permissible, then it is permissible: Its owner is in the house.
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible.
The student: It is not permissible, and therefore we prevented saying: Its owner is in the house.
The Shaykh : Yes, okay. So the rule or the criterion is: If there is a pronoun in the subject that refers back to the predicate, then it is not permissible?
The student: To place the predicate before the subject.
The Shaykh : To place the subject first. Why? Because it necessitates the pronoun referring back to something that comes later in wording and rank, and this is not permissible. And the example is: In the house is its owner. Okay: With the man is his book. What do you say, O Sa'd? Is it permissible here to postpone the predicate? With the man is his book?
The student: It is not permissible to place the predicate first.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the pronoun refers back in wording and rank.
The Shaykh : Because it necessitates the pronoun referring back to something that comes later.
The student: To something that comes later in wording and rank.
The Shaykh : Place it first, let me see!
The student: The predicate, the pronoun with the man. We say: His book is with the man, and this is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it refers back to something that comes later in wording and rank, and this is not permissible. Okay. What is the verse in the Alfiyyah that refers to this? Abdullah!
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, soak it in, soak it in.
The student: "Likewise, if a hidden pronoun refers back to it *** From what is reported about it as a clear explanation".
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: The one to which the hidden pronoun refers back, "From what is reported about it as a clear explanation".
The Shaykh : Let us explain this verse!
The student: "Refers back to it" means: Refers back to the predicate.
The Shaykh : "To it" means to the predicate, yes.
The student: The pronoun contains a hidden pronoun, and the pronoun, "From what is with it": which is the subject. "About it as a clear explanation": the predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: "As a clear explanation, it is reported".
The Shaykh : About it, from what is with it, about it.
The student: "From what is with it, about it": Meaning, it is reported about the subject.
The Shaykh : "From what is with it" means: For the predicate. "About it" means: About the subject.
The student: If there is a pronoun in it that refers back to the predicate, then it is not permissible for the subject to be placed first.
The Shaykh : So that the pronoun does not refer back to something that comes later in wording? Okay, what is the verse that mentioned as a substitute for Ibn Malik's verse?
The student: I have not memorized it.
The Shaykh : You have not memorized it?
The student: No, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I wish you had memorized it, because it is important!! Al-Bukhari!
The student: "Likewise, if the hidden pronoun refers back to it *** From a subject"
The Shaykh :"From a subject *** And for it"?
The student: "And for it, coming first".
The Shaykh :"Likewise, if the hidden pronoun refers back to it *** From a subject, and for it, coming first".
We return now to the discussion of memorization. What is the original rule for the order between the subject and the predicate?
The student: We discussed it.
The Shaykh : Okay, discussion now of memorization. Did we say these verses? Meaning, do we want to take the new material now?
The student: Yes.
Another student : ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: We want just one...
The Shaykh : But now, with the discussion, usually memorization. Memorization, usually, if we memorize, we discuss what we memorized, not like this, is it?
The student: Is it required?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Did it become required?
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not required, but this time we discussed yesterday's lesson. The important thing now is, do you want to discuss or take a new lesson? Which do you prefer?
The student: We discuss.
Another student: As usual.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: As usual, we discuss.
The Shaykh : As usual?! Okay, what do you say about our saying: The two Zayds stood up?
The student: The two stood up?
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible to place the predicate first in this case?
The student: According to the famous language, no, because the alif is not pronounced. We say: The two stood up, and the mim has a fathah, so the sentence becomes verbal.
The Shaykh : And as for the language?
The student: And as for the second language!
The Shaykh : and it is?
The student: The language of: "The fleas ate me".
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It is permissible. It is permissible for "the two stood up" to be a past tense verb, built.
The Shaykh : No, no, do not parse it. It is permissible: The two men stood up, as a predicate.
The student: Yes, a verbal sentence.
The Shaykh : Wait, O men. I say: It is permissible: The two men stood up, as a predicate.
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : Okay, what do you say? Come on, 'Umar!
The student: According to the language of the fleas: "The two stood up" is a verb, and the alif is a sign.
The Shaykh : But is it permissible to place the predicate first if I say: The two men stood up?
The student: No, the actor is not permissible.
The Shaykh : I am asking you now!
The student: That is not permissible.
The Shaykh : According to which language?
The student: According to the language of the fleas, they do not consider it!
The Shaykh : According to the language of the fleas, it is not permissible. And according to a language other than the fleas?
The student: They consider it.
The Shaykh : Leave it, whether they consider it or not!!
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for me to say: "The two men stood up" according to any language?
The student: All languages.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Except the language of the fleas, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Okay, Khalid!
The student: According to the language of the fleas, O Shaykh, it is not permissible to be a predicate, not even!
The Shaykh : I say: It is a predicate now. I am replacing the predicate.
The student: It is not correct to be according to the language of the fleas.
The Shaykh : And according to the language of the others? And according to the language of the others?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. Because according to a language other than the fleas, it is known that "the two stood up": it is not correct for what comes after it to be the actor with it, due to the presence? Due to the presence of its pronoun, right? According to the language of the fleas, it is permissible for what comes after "the two stood up" to be the actor with it, and the alif is only a sign of duality. For this reason, we say: The two Zayds stood up. According to the language of the fleas: "Stood" is a past tense verb, the alif is a sign of duality, and "the two men" is the actor. This is necessary. And according to the language of the others: The two men stood up. They say: "The two stood up" is a predicate placed first, and "the two men" is a subject postponed. They allow it, because if it is placed first according to a language other than the fleas, the actor is not confused with the subject, is it not so? I say: If it is placed first according to a language other than the fleas, the actor is not confused with the subject. What is it according to this language?
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : What is it according to a language other than the fleas if we say: The two Zayds stood up? The actor is not confused with the subject. Why? Because they see that "the two Zayds" is a postponed subject necessarily, and it cannot be an actor, since one does not combine an actor with its pronoun. Is it clear, O brothers? As for the language of: "The fleas ate me", it is not permissible for you to say: The two Zayds stood up, as: "The two stood up" is a predicate placed first, because they allow what comes after it to be the actor, so now the actor is confused with the subject. Like: Zayd stood up. If you want to make Zayd a subject, and "stood up" a predicate, this is not permissible according to the language of whom?
The student: Other than the fleas.
The Shaykh : Other than the fleas. Okay.
The student: "The two masters stood up"!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: We said according to the famous language!
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Is it permissible?
The Shaykh : It is permissible for "the two stood up" to be a predicate placed first.
The student: Is this expression correct?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is correct.
The student: Some scholars, some scholars of grammar, say: It is not permissible for the sign of the alif, the alif of the dual, to come with the hah. It is not possible for it to come according to the language!!
The Shaykh : No, it is not possible for it to come as merely a sign letter; however, if it is the subject and what follows it is the predicate, then it is permissible, permissible. Now:, [Al-Ma'idah 5:71], [Al-Ma'idah 5:71]. Some of them interpreted this according to the language of the Baraghith, and some said: No, it is a substitute for the waw in: . Now, what is the meaning of Ibn Malik’s statement: "or its use was intended to be restricted"? Ahmad!!
The student: That the predicate whose use was intended to be restricted, so it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : And what does "restricted" mean? Is it restricted in it, or is it restricted?
The student: It is restricted.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is restricted in the lam, so he says: "Innama Zayd is standing".
The Shaykh : Was its use intended to be restricted (munhasira) or restricted (munhasara)?
The student: Munhasira.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Munhasira, and munhasara.
The Shaykh : Now, what is the meaning in both cases?
The student: Munhasira: If the predicate is restricted to Zayd, for example, then fronting is permissible here, such as saying: "Not standing, but Zayd is standing."
The Shaykh :"Or its use was intended": Does this mean the subject, or does it mean the predicate?
The student: It means the subject is restricted in the predicate.
The Shaykh : How is the predicate restricted when it is delayed?
The student: No, no, "Innama Zayd is standing," here it is necessary...
The Shaykh : What do you say? Is it the use of the subject restricted in the predicate, or the use of the predicate restricted in the subject? Which is it?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : No, the first one: the subject is restricted in the predicate. In this case, it is not permissible to front the predicate. For this reason, he said: "They permitted fronting when there is no harm", "So prevent it when the two parts are equal", and so on.
The student: Restricted.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Restricted, the active participle "restricted."
The Shaykh : Yes, the meaning is "restricted": its use was intended to be restricted, meaning the use of the subject restricted in the predicate, or its use was intended to be restricted (munhasara): meaning a place of restriction, a place of restriction where we want to restrict the subject in the predicate. The meaning does not differ, but the direction of the wording differs, yes?
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: With which restriction tool is it suitable?
The Shaykh : how
The student: With which restriction tool is it suitable?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, "innama," and "illa." "Zayd is nothing but standing."
The student: Except what is ambiguous.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Except!
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Except! What is the evidence for the restricted item from...
The Shaykh : Yes, it is necessary, but we know it is interpreted according to "innama." For this reason, "innama" comes in a fixed order, meaning the subject before the predicate, whereas "illa" comes slightly fronted for the reason that...
And that is that the thing in which the restriction is made is what "illa" enters, whether it is fronted or delayed.
The student: Meaning the predicate?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: The predicate!
The Shaykh : Yes, but they interpreted it according to "innama."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : They say: Because it is all restriction, the thing in which the restriction is made must be delayed, whether it is with "illa" or with "innama."
The student: But here it is not ambiguous.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is correct. And because it is not ambiguous, it became permissible to front it sometimes. For this reason, "illa" was not fronted except rarely, and perhaps you will not find it except in poetry. Yes, now.
The student:[Al-Ma'idah 5:71].
The Shaykh : What is the meaning of his statement—Khalid—: "or it is attached to the beginning"?
The student: That the subject is attached to the beginning.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: That the subject is attached to the beginning.
The Shaykh : Or "attached," this is the general meaning, but: "or it is attached to the beginning", is this a verbal solution?
The student: That the predicate is attributed to what is required to have the beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct?
The student: Incorrect.
Another student: Or it was attributed to one who is attached to the beginning in meaning, meaning that the predicate is attributed to a subject that is attached to the beginning.
The Shaykh : Why do you bring in "dhi" (one who)?
The student: No, the verse.
The Shaykh : And this "dhi"?
The student: It is conjoined with "lazim" (attached)!
The Shaykh : No, that is a mistake.
The student: With "dhi"?!
The Shaykh : With "dhi."
The student: That the subject itself is the attached one.
The Shaykh : We are talking about the predicate now. The author says: "If the verb was not the predicate",
He is talking now about the predicate that he does not front, and what is attributed? Is it the subject or the predicate? What is attributed, the subject or the predicate?
The student: The one attributed to the lam.
The Shaykh : Well done, "or it was attributed to one with the lam of beginning".
Meaning, or the predicate attributed
The student: If the subject is not allowed to be placed first, if it is an indefinite noun with no justification for placing it first.
The Shaykh : There is no justification for it except?
The student: Except postponement.
The Shaykh : Except postponement. What is its example?
The student: Its example is: With Zayd is a dirham.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is one. The second one? Kamal!
The student: If a pronoun refers back to it, like: A number.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. Yes?
The student: If a pronoun refers back to it.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: If, meaning, the pronoun refers back to the predicate.
The Shaykh : If it is in the subject? Huh?
The student: If there is a pronoun in the subject that refers back to the predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. What is its example?
The student: I do not have it at hand!
The Shaykh : Huh?! Abdullah, Muhammad!
The student: In the house is its owner. I remembered now. In the house is its owner.
The Shaykh : This is stealing, O Kamal. You are stealing from him now. Okay: In the house is its owner. In the house is its owner. Place it first?
The student: If I said: Its owner is in the house, it would be impermissible.
The Shaykh : It would be impermissible.
The student: Meaning, it is not...
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because, O Shaykh, "its owner" here refers to the house!
The Shaykh : Why is it impermissible: Its owner is in the house?
The student: Because if we say: Its owner...
The Shaykh : ...is in the house, "its owner" means: The owner of the house is in the house!
The student: It is impermissible.
The Shaykh : Why? Did you not review, Kamal? Did you not review?!
The student: Because!
The Shaykh : I am asking you, did you review?
The student: No, I reviewed. I reviewed yesterday at home, because it is mentioned in terms of wording...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Meaning, it must be a pronoun.
The Shaykh : Because it necessitates the pronoun referring back to something that comes later.
The student: In rank and in wording.
The Shaykh : In wording. And is that permissible or not permissible?
The student: That is permissible.
The Shaykh : If that is permissible, then it is permissible: Its owner is in the house.
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible.
The student: It is not permissible, and therefore we prevented saying: Its owner is in the house.
The Shaykh : Yes, okay. So the rule or the criterion is: If there is a pronoun in the subject that refers back to the predicate, then it is not permissible?
The student: To place the predicate before the subject.
The Shaykh : To place the subject first. Why? Because it necessitates the pronoun referring back to something that comes later in wording and rank, and this is not permissible. And the example is: In the house is its owner. Okay: With the man is his book. What do you say, O Sa'd? Is it permissible here to postpone the predicate? With the man is his book?
The student: It is not permissible to place the predicate first.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the pronoun refers back in wording and rank.
The Shaykh : Because it necessitates the pronoun referring back to something that comes later.
The student: To something that comes later in wording and rank.
The Shaykh : Place it first, let me see!
The student: The predicate, the pronoun with the man. We say: His book is with the man, and this is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it refers back to something that comes later in wording and rank, and this is not permissible. Okay. What is the verse in the Alfiyyah that refers to this? Abdullah!
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, soak it in, soak it in.
The student: "Likewise, if a hidden pronoun refers back to it *** From what is reported about it as a clear explanation".
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: The one to which the hidden pronoun refers back, "From what is reported about it as a clear explanation".
The Shaykh : Let us explain this verse!
The student: "Refers back to it" means: Refers back to the predicate.
The Shaykh : "To it" means to the predicate, yes.
The student: The pronoun contains a hidden pronoun, and the pronoun, "From what is with it": which is the subject. "About it as a clear explanation": the predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: "As a clear explanation, it is reported".
The Shaykh : About it, from what is with it, about it.
The student: "From what is with it, about it": Meaning, it is reported about the subject.
The Shaykh : "From what is with it" means: For the predicate. "About it" means: About the subject.
The student: If there is a pronoun in it that refers back to the predicate, then it is not permissible for the subject to be placed first.
The Shaykh : So that the pronoun does not refer back to something that comes later in wording? Okay, what is the verse that mentioned as a substitute for Ibn Malik's verse?
The student: I have not memorized it.
The Shaykh : You have not memorized it?
The student: No, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I wish you had memorized it, because it is important!! Al-Bukhari!
The student: "Likewise, if the hidden pronoun refers back to it *** From a subject"
The Shaykh :"From a subject *** And for it"?
The student: "And for it, coming first".
The Shaykh :"Likewise, if the hidden pronoun refers back to it *** From a subject, and for it, coming first".
We return now to the discussion of memorization. What is the original rule for the order between the subject and the predicate?
The student: We discussed it.
The Shaykh : Okay, discussion now of memorization. Did we say these verses? Meaning, do we want to take the new material now?
The student: Yes.
Another student : ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: We want just one...
The Shaykh : But now, with the discussion, usually memorization. Memorization, usually, if we memorize, we discuss what we memorized, not like this, is it?
The student: Is it required?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Did it become required?
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not required, but this time we discussed yesterday's lesson. The important thing now is, do you want to discuss or take a new lesson? Which do you prefer?
The student: We discuss.
Another student: As usual.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: As usual, we discuss.
The Shaykh : As usual?! Okay, what do you say about our saying: The two Zayds stood up?
The student: The two stood up?
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible to place the predicate first in this case?
The student: According to the famous language, no, because the alif is not pronounced. We say: The two stood up, and the mim has a fathah, so the sentence becomes verbal.
The Shaykh : And as for the language?
The student: And as for the second language!
The Shaykh : and it is?
The student: The language of: "The fleas ate me".
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It is permissible. It is permissible for "the two stood up" to be a past tense verb, built.
The Shaykh : No, no, do not parse it. It is permissible: The two men stood up, as a predicate.
The student: Yes, a verbal sentence.
The Shaykh : Wait, O men. I say: It is permissible: The two men stood up, as a predicate.
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : Okay, what do you say? Come on, 'Umar!
The student: According to the language of the fleas: "The two stood up" is a verb, and the alif is a sign.
The Shaykh : But is it permissible to place the predicate first if I say: The two men stood up?
The student: No, the actor is not permissible.
The Shaykh : I am asking you now!
The student: That is not permissible.
The Shaykh : According to which language?
The student: According to the language of the fleas, they do not consider it!
The Shaykh : According to the language of the fleas, it is not permissible. And according to a language other than the fleas?
The student: They consider it.
The Shaykh : Leave it, whether they consider it or not!!
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for me to say: "The two men stood up" according to any language?
The student: All languages.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Except the language of the fleas, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Okay, Khalid!
The student: According to the language of the fleas, O Shaykh, it is not permissible to be a predicate, not even!
The Shaykh : I say: It is a predicate now. I am replacing the predicate.
The student: It is not correct to be according to the language of the fleas.
The Shaykh : And according to the language of the others? And according to the language of the others?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. Because according to a language other than the fleas, it is known that "the two stood up": it is not correct for what comes after it to be the actor with it, due to the presence? Due to the presence of its pronoun, right? According to the language of the fleas, it is permissible for what comes after "the two stood up" to be the actor with it, and the alif is only a sign of duality. For this reason, we say: The two Zayds stood up. According to the language of the fleas: "Stood" is a past tense verb, the alif is a sign of duality, and "the two men" is the actor. This is necessary. And according to the language of the others: The two men stood up. They say: "The two stood up" is a predicate placed first, and "the two men" is a subject postponed. They allow it, because if it is placed first according to a language other than the fleas, the actor is not confused with the subject, is it not so? I say: If it is placed first according to a language other than the fleas, the actor is not confused with the subject. What is it according to this language?
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : What is it according to a language other than the fleas if we say: The two Zayds stood up? The actor is not confused with the subject. Why? Because they see that "the two Zayds" is a postponed subject necessarily, and it cannot be an actor, since one does not combine an actor with its pronoun. Is it clear, O brothers? As for the language of: "The fleas ate me", it is not permissible for you to say: The two Zayds stood up, as: "The two stood up" is a predicate placed first, because they allow what comes after it to be the actor, so now the actor is confused with the subject. Like: Zayd stood up. If you want to make Zayd a subject, and "stood up" a predicate, this is not permissible according to the language of whom?
The student: Other than the fleas.
The Shaykh : Other than the fleas. Okay.
The student: "The two masters stood up"!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: We said according to the famous language!
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Is it permissible?
The Shaykh : It is permissible for "the two stood up" to be a predicate placed first.
The student: Is this expression correct?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is correct.
The student: Some scholars, some scholars of grammar, say: It is not permissible for the sign of the alif, the alif of the dual, to come with the hah. It is not possible for it to come according to the language!!
The Shaykh : No, it is not possible for it to come as merely a sign letter; however, if it is the subject and what follows it is the predicate, then it is permissible, permissible. Now:
So they were blind and deaf
فعموا وصَمُّواthen [again] many of them became blind and deaf
ثم عَموا وصمُّوا كثيرٌ منهم[again] many of them became blind and deaf
عَموا وصَمُّوا كثيرٌ منهمDeaf
صَمُّواThe student: That the predicate whose use was intended to be restricted, so it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : And what does "restricted" mean? Is it restricted in it, or is it restricted?
The student: It is restricted.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is restricted in the lam, so he says: "Innama Zayd is standing".
The Shaykh : Was its use intended to be restricted (munhasira) or restricted (munhasara)?
The student: Munhasira.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Munhasira, and munhasara.
The Shaykh : Now, what is the meaning in both cases?
The student: Munhasira: If the predicate is restricted to Zayd, for example, then fronting is permissible here, such as saying: "Not standing, but Zayd is standing."
The Shaykh :"Or its use was intended": Does this mean the subject, or does it mean the predicate?
The student: It means the subject is restricted in the predicate.
The Shaykh : How is the predicate restricted when it is delayed?
The student: No, no, "Innama Zayd is standing," here it is necessary...
The Shaykh : What do you say? Is it the use of the subject restricted in the predicate, or the use of the predicate restricted in the subject? Which is it?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : No, the first one: the subject is restricted in the predicate. In this case, it is not permissible to front the predicate. For this reason, he said: "They permitted fronting when there is no harm", "So prevent it when the two parts are equal", and so on.
The student: Restricted.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Restricted, the active participle "restricted."
The Shaykh : Yes, the meaning is "restricted": its use was intended to be restricted, meaning the use of the subject restricted in the predicate, or its use was intended to be restricted (munhasara): meaning a place of restriction, a place of restriction where we want to restrict the subject in the predicate. The meaning does not differ, but the direction of the wording differs, yes?
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: With which restriction tool is it suitable?
The Shaykh : how
The student: With which restriction tool is it suitable?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, "innama," and "illa." "Zayd is nothing but standing."
The student: Except what is ambiguous.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Except!
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Except! What is the evidence for the restricted item from...
The Shaykh : Yes, it is necessary, but we know it is interpreted according to "innama." For this reason, "innama" comes in a fixed order, meaning the subject before the predicate, whereas "illa" comes slightly fronted for the reason that...
And that is that the thing in which the restriction is made is what "illa" enters, whether it is fronted or delayed.
The student: Meaning the predicate?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: The predicate!
The Shaykh : Yes, but they interpreted it according to "innama."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : They say: Because it is all restriction, the thing in which the restriction is made must be delayed, whether it is with "illa" or with "innama."
The student: But here it is not ambiguous.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is correct. And because it is not ambiguous, it became permissible to front it sometimes. For this reason, "illa" was not fronted except rarely, and perhaps you will not find it except in poetry. Yes, now.
The student:
then [again] many of them became blind and deaf
ثمَّ عَموا وصَمُّوا كثيرٌ منهمThe Shaykh : What is the meaning of his statement—Khalid—: "or it is attached to the beginning"?
The student: That the subject is attached to the beginning.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: That the subject is attached to the beginning.
The Shaykh : Or "attached," this is the general meaning, but: "or it is attached to the beginning", is this a verbal solution?
The student: That the predicate is attributed to what is required to have the beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct?
The student: Incorrect.
Another student: Or it was attributed to one who is attached to the beginning in meaning, meaning that the predicate is attributed to a subject that is attached to the beginning.
The Shaykh : Why do you bring in "dhi" (one who)?
The student: No, the verse.
The Shaykh : And this "dhi"?
The student: It is conjoined with "lazim" (attached)!
The Shaykh : No, that is a mistake.
The student: With "dhi"?!
The Shaykh : With "dhi."
The student: That the subject itself is the attached one.
The Shaykh : We are talking about the predicate now. The author says: "If the verb was not the predicate",
He is talking now about the predicate that he does not front, and what is attributed? Is it the subject or the predicate? What is attributed, the subject or the predicate?
The student: The one attributed to the lam.
The Shaykh : Well done, "or it was attributed to one with the lam of beginning".
Meaning, or the predicate attributed