Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Like my striking the slave, a wrongdoer, and completing *** the clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Its example is: "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer":
So "my striking" is the subject (mubtada'), and "striking" is a subject raised by a hidden dammah on the letter before the first-person pronoun, its appearance being prevented because the position is occupied by the matching movement. It is a compound noun, and the first-person pronoun is the genitive complement, built on sukun in the position of the genitive. Is the striking here compounded to the doer or to the object? It is compounded to the doer. "The slave" is the object. "A wrongdoer" is a state (hal) describing the slave, meaning I struck him while he was a wrongdoer. Now, is it permissible for "a wrongdoer" to be the predicate (khabar) for "striking"? I am asking you all?!
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : No, not because it is in the accusative case, because "striking" is not described as being a wrongdoer. The one described as a wrongdoer is the one being struck. Yes, but if I say: "My striking the slave, severely": this is not parsed as a state (hal); we make it the predicate (khabar). We say: "My striking the slave is severe." We make it the predicate, not a state. So, if the description cannot be the predicate, it becomes a state, and the predicate is omitted. Now, what do we assume for the omitted predicate? They said we assume: "if he was a wrongdoer," if it is a threat, or: "when he was a wrongdoer," if it is a punishment.
That is, if the striking occurred because of his wrongdoing, we assume: "when he was a wrongdoer." And if the striking was a warning to him if he wronged, we assume: "if he was a wrongdoer." Based on this, we assume: "when he was" or "if he was." Some grammarians said: we do not assume "when he was" or "if he was"; we assume "striking." That is: "My striking the slave, his striking [him] while he was a wrongdoer." "My striking the slave, his striking [him] in the state of his being a wrongdoer." Not "his striking [him] in the state of his being a doer of good," nor "not a wrongdoer nor a doer of good." This assumption is easier in terms of grammar, because it involves only the omission of the predicate. In that case, we omit a predicate consisting of: "if" (the temporal particle) or "when," and "was," and its hidden subject. But in this case, we do not need that assumption, and the meaning is coherent with it. The meaning is coherent with it, and it is suitable for the future and for the present. Good.
"And completing *** the clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling".
The student: I did not understand this verse.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: I say I did not understand this verse.
The Shaykh : Which of them?
The student: My striking the slave is severe.
The Shaykh : Yes, if you say: "My striking the slave is severe," there is no problem with this sentence. "Striking" is the subject, and "severe" is its predicate. Why? Because "severe" is suitable to be a predicate for "striking," so it became its predicate. Is it clear now?!
The student: It is clear now, it is clear.
The Shaykh : Now: "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer." "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer." Is this correct or not?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is correct by interpretation.
The Shaykh : Wait, my brother!! Why is it not correct? Because "striking" is not described as being a wrongdoer. "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer" is not suitable. Therefore, we must make "a wrongdoer" a state (hal) describing the slave, and not raise it. We must make it a state describing the slave and say: the predicate is omitted. And we say: "My striking the slave, in the state of his being a wrongdoer, and the predicate is omitted." Is it clear now?! Shaking your head is not enough. Is it clear or not clear?
The student: It is clear.
Another student: Shaykh, the verse before this one, is this an extension of the verse before it?
The Shaykh : Yes, but I want you to understand the example so that we can apply the author's words and his rule. Because if you do not understand the example, you do not know the rule. Huh?
The student: The wrongdoer is not the striking itself, right? "Wrongdoer" means!
The Shaykh : No, no: "a wrongdoer" describes the slave. And the one described as a wrongdoer can only be one who has consciousness. And "striking" has no consciousness. Now, is it clear or not clear?! "My striking the slave is severe." Is this phrase correct or not?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Why? Because "striking" can be described with severity. And the predicate, as we all know, is a description of the subject. Now: "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer"?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct because "striking" is not described as being a wrongdoer. So, who is the wrongdoer? The slave. The word "wrongdoer" cannot be made an attribute of the slave, because the slave is a definite noun and "wrongdoer" is an indefinite noun. Therefore, we make it a state (hal) describing him, and we say: "My striking the slave, when he was a wrongdoer" or: "if he was a wrongdoer". And "when he was" or "if he was," we also assume "existing" as the predicate of the subject. "My striking the slave is existing if he was a wrongdoer." "My striking the slave is existing when he was a wrongdoer." That is, "when" or "if" are all temporal particles. And "striking" is connected—in the chapter of subject and predicate—connected to an omitted word, which is the predicate. We mentioned another opinion. We said: there is another opinion among grammarians who say: "My striking the slave, what? His striking [him] a wrongdoer." That is, "My striking the slave" takes the place of "if he was a wrongdoer." So it is as if he is saying: "My striking the slave, the striking that matches reality, is his striking [him] in the state of his wrongdoing." Shall we proceed?!
The student: A question, Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: What is the assumed word for "striking," Shaykh?
The Shaykh : What?
The student: The assumed word for "striking"!!
The Shaykh : For the coherence of the speech.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, it is not suitable, it is not suitable, because "a wrongdoer" is a state (hal) describing the slave, so it is a description of him. It is not suitable.
The student: Because he applied the verse to his words now, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Now, the second one says: "And completing *** the clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling".
"Completing my clarification of the truth": this is like the first one, except that the superlative noun was formed before the verbal noun. Its original form is "my clarification of the truth." "My clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling", "My clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling" this is the original form. But: "The clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling", meaning it may not be the best clarification. So we must bring something that indicates that I clarified the truth with the most complete clarification. And the meaning of "tied" is: suspended. "To the ruling" means: the best thing in clarifying the truth is to clarify it and clarify its wisdom. And the wisdom is the evidence. And this hemistich is good. That is, the best thing in clarifying the truth is that it be what? Tied to the ruling. The best thing in clarifying the truth is that it be tied to the ruling. Good.
"Completing *** the clarification of the truth": Is it permissible to make "tied" the predicate for it?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because "tied" is a description of the truth, not a description of the clarification. That is, it is not permissible to raise it as the predicate of "completing," because the meaning would be defective. So what do we do? We say we make it a state (hal) describing the truth, and the predicate is?
The student: Omitted.
The Shaykh : What? Omitted. And the assumption is: "Completing the clarification of the truth, if it is tied to the ruling." If it is tied to the ruling, this is the best thing in clarifying the truth. And according to the second opinion, it says: "The clarification of the truth, its clarification." "Completing my clarification of the truth, its clarification, tied to the ruling". And this, as you see, is easier, and perhaps clearer as well. "Completing my clarification of the truth, its clarification, tied to the ruling."
So "my striking" is the subject (mubtada'), and "striking" is a subject raised by a hidden dammah on the letter before the first-person pronoun, its appearance being prevented because the position is occupied by the matching movement. It is a compound noun, and the first-person pronoun is the genitive complement, built on sukun in the position of the genitive. Is the striking here compounded to the doer or to the object? It is compounded to the doer. "The slave" is the object. "A wrongdoer" is a state (hal) describing the slave, meaning I struck him while he was a wrongdoer. Now, is it permissible for "a wrongdoer" to be the predicate (khabar) for "striking"? I am asking you all?!
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : No, not because it is in the accusative case, because "striking" is not described as being a wrongdoer. The one described as a wrongdoer is the one being struck. Yes, but if I say: "My striking the slave, severely": this is not parsed as a state (hal); we make it the predicate (khabar). We say: "My striking the slave is severe." We make it the predicate, not a state. So, if the description cannot be the predicate, it becomes a state, and the predicate is omitted. Now, what do we assume for the omitted predicate? They said we assume: "if he was a wrongdoer," if it is a threat, or: "when he was a wrongdoer," if it is a punishment.
That is, if the striking occurred because of his wrongdoing, we assume: "when he was a wrongdoer." And if the striking was a warning to him if he wronged, we assume: "if he was a wrongdoer." Based on this, we assume: "when he was" or "if he was." Some grammarians said: we do not assume "when he was" or "if he was"; we assume "striking." That is: "My striking the slave, his striking [him] while he was a wrongdoer." "My striking the slave, his striking [him] in the state of his being a wrongdoer." Not "his striking [him] in the state of his being a doer of good," nor "not a wrongdoer nor a doer of good." This assumption is easier in terms of grammar, because it involves only the omission of the predicate. In that case, we omit a predicate consisting of: "if" (the temporal particle) or "when," and "was," and its hidden subject. But in this case, we do not need that assumption, and the meaning is coherent with it. The meaning is coherent with it, and it is suitable for the future and for the present. Good.
"And completing *** the clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling".
The student: I did not understand this verse.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: I say I did not understand this verse.
The Shaykh : Which of them?
The student: My striking the slave is severe.
The Shaykh : Yes, if you say: "My striking the slave is severe," there is no problem with this sentence. "Striking" is the subject, and "severe" is its predicate. Why? Because "severe" is suitable to be a predicate for "striking," so it became its predicate. Is it clear now?!
The student: It is clear now, it is clear.
The Shaykh : Now: "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer." "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer." Is this correct or not?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is correct by interpretation.
The Shaykh : Wait, my brother!! Why is it not correct? Because "striking" is not described as being a wrongdoer. "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer" is not suitable. Therefore, we must make "a wrongdoer" a state (hal) describing the slave, and not raise it. We must make it a state describing the slave and say: the predicate is omitted. And we say: "My striking the slave, in the state of his being a wrongdoer, and the predicate is omitted." Is it clear now?! Shaking your head is not enough. Is it clear or not clear?
The student: It is clear.
Another student: Shaykh, the verse before this one, is this an extension of the verse before it?
The Shaykh : Yes, but I want you to understand the example so that we can apply the author's words and his rule. Because if you do not understand the example, you do not know the rule. Huh?
The student: The wrongdoer is not the striking itself, right? "Wrongdoer" means!
The Shaykh : No, no: "a wrongdoer" describes the slave. And the one described as a wrongdoer can only be one who has consciousness. And "striking" has no consciousness. Now, is it clear or not clear?! "My striking the slave is severe." Is this phrase correct or not?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Why? Because "striking" can be described with severity. And the predicate, as we all know, is a description of the subject. Now: "My striking the slave, a wrongdoer"?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct because "striking" is not described as being a wrongdoer. So, who is the wrongdoer? The slave. The word "wrongdoer" cannot be made an attribute of the slave, because the slave is a definite noun and "wrongdoer" is an indefinite noun. Therefore, we make it a state (hal) describing him, and we say: "My striking the slave, when he was a wrongdoer" or: "if he was a wrongdoer". And "when he was" or "if he was," we also assume "existing" as the predicate of the subject. "My striking the slave is existing if he was a wrongdoer." "My striking the slave is existing when he was a wrongdoer." That is, "when" or "if" are all temporal particles. And "striking" is connected—in the chapter of subject and predicate—connected to an omitted word, which is the predicate. We mentioned another opinion. We said: there is another opinion among grammarians who say: "My striking the slave, what? His striking [him] a wrongdoer." That is, "My striking the slave" takes the place of "if he was a wrongdoer." So it is as if he is saying: "My striking the slave, the striking that matches reality, is his striking [him] in the state of his wrongdoing." Shall we proceed?!
The student: A question, Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: What is the assumed word for "striking," Shaykh?
The Shaykh : What?
The student: The assumed word for "striking"!!
The Shaykh : For the coherence of the speech.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, it is not suitable, it is not suitable, because "a wrongdoer" is a state (hal) describing the slave, so it is a description of him. It is not suitable.
The student: Because he applied the verse to his words now, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Now, the second one says: "And completing *** the clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling".
"Completing my clarification of the truth": this is like the first one, except that the superlative noun was formed before the verbal noun. Its original form is "my clarification of the truth." "My clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling", "My clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling" this is the original form. But: "The clarification of the truth, tied to the ruling", meaning it may not be the best clarification. So we must bring something that indicates that I clarified the truth with the most complete clarification. And the meaning of "tied" is: suspended. "To the ruling" means: the best thing in clarifying the truth is to clarify it and clarify its wisdom. And the wisdom is the evidence. And this hemistich is good. That is, the best thing in clarifying the truth is that it be what? Tied to the ruling. The best thing in clarifying the truth is that it be tied to the ruling. Good.
"Completing *** the clarification of the truth": Is it permissible to make "tied" the predicate for it?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because "tied" is a description of the truth, not a description of the clarification. That is, it is not permissible to raise it as the predicate of "completing," because the meaning would be defective. So what do we do? We say we make it a state (hal) describing the truth, and the predicate is?
The student: Omitted.
The Shaykh : What? Omitted. And the assumption is: "Completing the clarification of the truth, if it is tied to the ruling." If it is tied to the ruling, this is the best thing in clarifying the truth. And according to the second opinion, it says: "The clarification of the truth, its clarification." "Completing my clarification of the truth, its clarification, tied to the ruling". And this, as you see, is easier, and perhaps clearer as well. "Completing my clarification of the truth, its clarification, tied to the ruling."