Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And after lawla, the deletion of the khabar is generally obligatory."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And after lawla, the deletion of the khabar is generally obligatory":
The author has now begun, having spoken about the permissibility of deleting the mubtada' and the khabar, to mention the places where the deletion of the khabar is obligatory, meaning as an exception to what came before, "The deletion of what is known is permissible": so it is as if he said, except in these places where deletion is obligatory. The first is: after lawla. After lawla, the deletion of the khabar is obligatory, like saying: "Lawla Zayd, I would have drowned," for example, "Lawla Zayd, I would have drowned." We now have a mubtada' and we did not find a khabar for it, because: "I would have drowned" is the answer to the conditional lawla. Where is the khabar? It is deleted obligatorily. The estimation is: "Lawla Zayd, [he is] present," or "Lawla Zayd, [he is] here." And the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) "generally": means in most cases, and its implication is that in the non-general case, the khabar is not deleted after lawla, so its deletion in this case is what?
The student: Rare.
The Shaykh : Rare. Its deletion is rare.
The student: Its retention is rare.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Its retention is rare.
The Shaykh : Yes, its retention is rare. If its deletion is general, then its retention is rare. Now, of that is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to A'ishah:, . "Qawm" is a mubtada', and "hadithu 'ahd"?
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : No, it is the khabar of the mubtada', the khabar of the mubtada', and "I would have demolished the Ka'bah" and the rest is the answer to lawla. So here the khabar was mentioned after lawla. And of that is also the saying of the poet:
"So if not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed". He means his sword, praising it, saying: "If not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed".
So his saying: "al-ghimd" (the sheath) is a mubtada', and "holding it" is the khabar, and "it would have flowed" is the answer to lawla. So you see now that the khabar was found after lawla in the speech of the most eloquent of the Arabs, which is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and in the speech of the Arabs: "So if not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed".
Now, what is the answer to this? We say: The answer to this, according to the words of Ibn Malik, is easy. This is from the rare cases where the khabar of the mubtada' is not deleted with lawla. And if we follow this path, the matter becomes easy. Whenever the khabar comes with the presence of lawla, say: this is from the non-general, and rest. But some grammarians say: The khabar after lawla is either a general state, or a specific thing with no evidence for it, or a specific thing with evidence for it. If it is a general state, deletion is obligatory. If it is a specific thing, mention is obligatory if there is no evidence for it. And if it is a specific thing but there is something in the speech indicating it, then its deletion is permissible, and its presence is rare. And this is good, because if the khabar is a specific thing but it is not known, it must be mentioned. The hadith:: It is not possible to estimate. If we deleted: "recently emerged from disbelief", it is not possible to estimate: "Lawla your people are present," meaning it is not possible to estimate it as a general state. Why? Because the preventer is not the presence of her people, the preventer is their being recently emerged from disbelief. So their mere presence does not suffice, or does not prevent what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) intended. Therefore, it was necessary to mention it.
Now, if it is specific but there is evidence for it, like: "Lawla Zayd, I would have died of hunger." Here, you cannot estimate a general state. What is the general state?
The student: Present.
The Shaykh : "Lawla Zayd is present, I would have died of hunger," because the presence of Zayd is not the cause of your being saved from death by hunger. But the meaning is: "Lawla Zayd fed me, I would have died of hunger." Is the word "fed me" specific or general?
The student: Specific.
The Shaykh : Specific, but there is evidence for it. What is it?
The student: I would have died of hunger.
The Shaykh : "I would have died of hunger." So in this case, it is permissible to mention the khabar and it is permissible to delete it. So it is permissible to say: "Lawla Zayd fed me, I would have died of hunger," and it is permissible to say: "Lawla Zayd, I would have died of hunger." Clear? Now, of that is the saying of the poet:
"If not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed".
Clear. If he said: "Lawla the sheath, it would have flowed," it would be permissible because the meaning is understood. If the sheath is holding it, it cannot flow. So mentioning "holding it" and deleting it are on the same level, because it is known from the context. And this is also a detail that is not bad. So the first is used as an argument by whom? It is used as an argument by the beginner student. If he is asked: How do you say about the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? He says: And after lawla, it is generally, not always, and this is from the rare, and it works. Is that sufficient for him or not?
The student: It is sufficient for him.
The Shaykh : It is sufficient for him according to the opinion of Ibn Malik. And if he is a student of knowledge, he will answer you and say: The khabar here is not a general state, but it is a specific thing that must be mentioned, because it is possible, for example, that the meaning is: "Lawla your people prevented it, the Ka'bah would have been built," "Lawla your people were present, the Ka'bah would have been built." So he must say: "Lawla your people are recently emerged from disbelief," so that these possibilities are removed.
Now, if he asks you: What do you say about the saying of the poet: "So if not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed", what do I say?
The student: Rare.
The Shaykh : I say: This is undoubtedly specific, and the requirement of the rule is that it must be mentioned, right or not?
The student: It must be deleted!!
The Shaykh : Huh? No, no, the requirement of the rule is that it must be mentioned, because it is specific. Lawla, be patient!! The requirement of the rule is that it must be mentioned because it is specific, because the preventer is not the presence of the sheath, the preventer is the sheath holding it. So we say: The requirement of the rule is that it must be deleted, is that right or not? The rule is after lawla generally, but it must be mentioned because it is specific, except that the obligation of mention was opposed by the knowledge of it from the context, because his saying: "it would have flowed": indicates that the meaning is "Lawla the sheath holding it." So we say: "Lawla the sheath holding it": it is permissible to delete it and it is permissible to mention it. And as for:, it must be mentioned. And as for: [Al-Hajj 22:40], it is not permissible to mention it. Why? Because the intended meaning is the mere presence of the repulsion, and "Lawla the repulsion of Allah, people are present," , [Saba 34:31]. "Lawla you, what?"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, you diverted us. This is a specific thing but with evidence from his saying:[Saba 34:32], so this became known from the context. So the summary of the matter now is: Ibn Malik in this book followed a path that provides an exit for whom?
The student: For the beginner.
The Shaykh : For the beginner. If the mention of the khabar after lawla is brought to him, he says: Praise be to Allah, Ibn Malik says: its deletion is general, and this is from the non-general. And as for the detail that was said, it is a good detail in terms of meaning, and it is that it be said: The khabar after lawla is three categories: a general state, a specific thing with no evidence for it, and a specific thing with evidence for it. So the first requires deletion, the second requires mention, and the third permits both options. And Allah knows best.
The student: His saying (peace and blessings be upon him)
The author has now begun, having spoken about the permissibility of deleting the mubtada' and the khabar, to mention the places where the deletion of the khabar is obligatory, meaning as an exception to what came before, "The deletion of what is known is permissible": so it is as if he said, except in these places where deletion is obligatory. The first is: after lawla. After lawla, the deletion of the khabar is obligatory, like saying: "Lawla Zayd, I would have drowned," for example, "Lawla Zayd, I would have drowned." We now have a mubtada' and we did not find a khabar for it, because: "I would have drowned" is the answer to the conditional lawla. Where is the khabar? It is deleted obligatorily. The estimation is: "Lawla Zayd, [he is] present," or "Lawla Zayd, [he is] here." And the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) "generally": means in most cases, and its implication is that in the non-general case, the khabar is not deleted after lawla, so its deletion in this case is what?
The student: Rare.
The Shaykh : Rare. Its deletion is rare.
The student: Its retention is rare.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Its retention is rare.
The Shaykh : Yes, its retention is rare. If its deletion is general, then its retention is rare. Now, of that is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to A'ishah:
If not for your people who are recently emerged from disbelief, I would have demolished the Ka'bah and built it on the foundations of Ibrahim
لولا قومُك حديثوا عهد بكفر لهدمت الكعبة وبنيتها على قواعد إبراهيمIf not for your people who are recently emerged from disbelief, I would have demolished the Ka'bah
لولا قومُك حديثو عهد بكفر لهدمت الكعبةThe student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : No, it is the khabar of the mubtada', the khabar of the mubtada', and "I would have demolished the Ka'bah" and the rest is the answer to lawla. So here the khabar was mentioned after lawla. And of that is also the saying of the poet:
"So if not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed". He means his sword, praising it, saying: "If not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed".
So his saying: "al-ghimd" (the sheath) is a mubtada', and "holding it" is the khabar, and "it would have flowed" is the answer to lawla. So you see now that the khabar was found after lawla in the speech of the most eloquent of the Arabs, which is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and in the speech of the Arabs: "So if not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed".
Now, what is the answer to this? We say: The answer to this, according to the words of Ibn Malik, is easy. This is from the rare cases where the khabar of the mubtada' is not deleted with lawla. And if we follow this path, the matter becomes easy. Whenever the khabar comes with the presence of lawla, say: this is from the non-general, and rest. But some grammarians say: The khabar after lawla is either a general state, or a specific thing with no evidence for it, or a specific thing with evidence for it. If it is a general state, deletion is obligatory. If it is a specific thing, mention is obligatory if there is no evidence for it. And if it is a specific thing but there is something in the speech indicating it, then its deletion is permissible, and its presence is rare. And this is good, because if the khabar is a specific thing but it is not known, it must be mentioned. The hadith:
Had it not been for your people, who are recent in their disbelief
لولا قومُك حديثوا عهد بكفرNow, if it is specific but there is evidence for it, like: "Lawla Zayd, I would have died of hunger." Here, you cannot estimate a general state. What is the general state?
The student: Present.
The Shaykh : "Lawla Zayd is present, I would have died of hunger," because the presence of Zayd is not the cause of your being saved from death by hunger. But the meaning is: "Lawla Zayd fed me, I would have died of hunger." Is the word "fed me" specific or general?
The student: Specific.
The Shaykh : Specific, but there is evidence for it. What is it?
The student: I would have died of hunger.
The Shaykh : "I would have died of hunger." So in this case, it is permissible to mention the khabar and it is permissible to delete it. So it is permissible to say: "Lawla Zayd fed me, I would have died of hunger," and it is permissible to say: "Lawla Zayd, I would have died of hunger." Clear? Now, of that is the saying of the poet:
"If not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed".
Clear. If he said: "Lawla the sheath, it would have flowed," it would be permissible because the meaning is understood. If the sheath is holding it, it cannot flow. So mentioning "holding it" and deleting it are on the same level, because it is known from the context. And this is also a detail that is not bad. So the first is used as an argument by whom? It is used as an argument by the beginner student. If he is asked: How do you say about the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)
Had it not been for your people, who are recent in their disbelief
لولا قومُك حديثوا عهد بالكفرThe student: It is sufficient for him.
The Shaykh : It is sufficient for him according to the opinion of Ibn Malik. And if he is a student of knowledge, he will answer you and say: The khabar here is not a general state, but it is a specific thing that must be mentioned, because it is possible, for example, that the meaning is: "Lawla your people prevented it, the Ka'bah would have been built," "Lawla your people were present, the Ka'bah would have been built." So he must say: "Lawla your people are recently emerged from disbelief," so that these possibilities are removed.
Now, if he asks you: What do you say about the saying of the poet: "So if not for the sheath holding it, it would have flowed", what do I say?
The student: Rare.
The Shaykh : I say: This is undoubtedly specific, and the requirement of the rule is that it must be mentioned, right or not?
The student: It must be deleted!!
The Shaykh : Huh? No, no, the requirement of the rule is that it must be mentioned, because it is specific. Lawla, be patient!! The requirement of the rule is that it must be mentioned because it is specific, because the preventer is not the presence of the sheath, the preventer is the sheath holding it. So we say: The requirement of the rule is that it must be deleted, is that right or not? The rule is after lawla generally, but it must be mentioned because it is specific, except that the obligation of mention was opposed by the knowledge of it from the context, because his saying: "it would have flowed": indicates that the meaning is "Lawla the sheath holding it." So we say: "Lawla the sheath holding it": it is permissible to delete it and it is permissible to mention it. And as for:
Had it not been for your people, who are recent
لولا قومك حديثوا عهدAnd were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished
ولولا دفعُ الله الناسَ بعضهُم ببعض لهدمتmonasteries
لهدمت صوامعIf not for you, we would have been believers."
لولا أنتم لكنا مؤمنينThe student: ...
The Shaykh : No, you diverted us. This is a specific thing but with evidence from his saying:
Did we avert you from guidance after it had come to you?
أنحن صددناكم عن الهدى بعد إذ جاءكمThe student: For the beginner.
The Shaykh : For the beginner. If the mention of the khabar after lawla is brought to him, he says: Praise be to Allah, Ibn Malik says: its deletion is general, and this is from the non-general. And as for the detail that was said, it is a good detail in terms of meaning, and it is that it be said: The khabar after lawla is three categories: a general state, a specific thing with no evidence for it, and a specific thing with evidence for it. So the first requires deletion, the second requires mention, and the third permits both options. And Allah knows best.
The student: His saying (peace and blessings be upon him)