Explaining that the circumstantial phrase (hal) may suffice in place of the predicate, so there is no need to mention it if the listener understands the speech without it.

The Shaykh : And we can say something easier after this: that the circumstantial phrase here suffices in place of the predicate, because if you say to the person addressed, "My striking the slave was while he was misbehaving," or "My riding the horse was while it was saddled," he understands the meaning, does he not? He understands that the meaning is that your riding took place in the state of it being saddled, so there is no need for the predicate. That is to say, if it is said that in this case we do not need to assume the predicate at all, make this a third opinion. If you wish, I will say: if someone has held this view, and if you wish, I will say it is a third opinion even if no one has held it, because deviating from scholarly consensus in the field of grammar is permissible, if Allah wills. Now we say that this circumstantial phrase suffices in place of the predicate entirely, and we do not assume it, because the intended benefit is the point. In all the verses that have come before us, we find that the scholars focus on what? On the benefit. And we all know that if I say, "My striking the slave was while he was misbehaving," the meaning is that I do not strike him except when he is misbehaving. And if I say, "My riding the horse was while it was saddled," the meaning is that I do not ride it except when it is saddled, is that right or not? And "My buying the car was while it was defective!" We all know the meaning. Now.