Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): . . . . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said:
"And in the explicit text of an oath, this has settled": "In the explicit text": This is a fronted predicate or a phrase attached to "settled," and "this" is the subject, and the sentence "has settled" is its predicate, meaning: and this has settled, and it is the obligatory deletion, in the explicit text of an oath, meaning if an explicit text of an oath is found, meaning if the subject is an explicit text of an oath in the swearing, then the predicate is deleted obligatorily. Its example is: "By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it," "By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it." Here, "Amr" is the subject and it is an explicit text in the oath, so the predicate is deleted obligatorily. It is not permissible for you to say: "By the life of Allah, my oath," rather it is obligatory for you to delete the predicate, because this is the known usage of the Arabs, and the grammatical rules are built upon the speech of the Arabs, not the speech of the Arabs built upon the rules. For this reason, the speech of the Arabs judges the rules of the grammarians, and not the reverse. "And in the explicit text of an oath, if it has settled".
Now, and in his saying: "In the explicit text of an oath": The implication is that if it indicates an oath but is not an explicit text in it, then it is permissible to delete or not delete the predicate. For example, if you say: "By the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it." Here, "covenant" may be an oath and may be a pledge; it is not an explicit text in the oath. For this reason, it is permissible for you to say: "Upon me is the covenant of Allah," or to say: "Upon me is the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it," and it is not obligatory to delete the predicate here, because the subject is not an explicit text in the oath.
And the summary of the statement is: "That it is obligatory to delete the predicate if the subject is what? An explicit text in the oath", and the example?
The student: By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it.
The Shaykh : Yes, "By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it," and "Amr" here means life. If it is not an explicit text in the oath but it indicates an oath, then mentioning or deleting the predicate is permissible. Its example is: "By the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it." It is permissible to mention the predicate and say: "Upon me is the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it," or "The covenant of Allah is upon me, I will certainly do it," because the subject here is not an explicit text in the oath.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : Yes.
"And in the explicit text of an oath, this has settled": "In the explicit text": This is a fronted predicate or a phrase attached to "settled," and "this" is the subject, and the sentence "has settled" is its predicate, meaning: and this has settled, and it is the obligatory deletion, in the explicit text of an oath, meaning if an explicit text of an oath is found, meaning if the subject is an explicit text of an oath in the swearing, then the predicate is deleted obligatorily. Its example is: "By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it," "By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it." Here, "Amr" is the subject and it is an explicit text in the oath, so the predicate is deleted obligatorily. It is not permissible for you to say: "By the life of Allah, my oath," rather it is obligatory for you to delete the predicate, because this is the known usage of the Arabs, and the grammatical rules are built upon the speech of the Arabs, not the speech of the Arabs built upon the rules. For this reason, the speech of the Arabs judges the rules of the grammarians, and not the reverse. "And in the explicit text of an oath, if it has settled".
Now, and in his saying: "In the explicit text of an oath": The implication is that if it indicates an oath but is not an explicit text in it, then it is permissible to delete or not delete the predicate. For example, if you say: "By the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it." Here, "covenant" may be an oath and may be a pledge; it is not an explicit text in the oath. For this reason, it is permissible for you to say: "Upon me is the covenant of Allah," or to say: "Upon me is the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it," and it is not obligatory to delete the predicate here, because the subject is not an explicit text in the oath.
And the summary of the statement is: "That it is obligatory to delete the predicate if the subject is what? An explicit text in the oath", and the example?
The student: By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it.
The Shaykh : Yes, "By the life of Allah, I will certainly do it," and "Amr" here means life. If it is not an explicit text in the oath but it indicates an oath, then mentioning or deleting the predicate is permissible. Its example is: "By the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it." It is permissible to mention the predicate and say: "Upon me is the covenant of Allah, I will certainly do it," or "The covenant of Allah is upon me, I will certainly do it," because the subject here is not an explicit text in the oath.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : Yes.