Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Kan raises the subject as a noun, and the predicate *** it makes accusative, as in: 'Umar was a master."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So what is its grammatical function? He said: "Kan raises the subject as a noun, and the predicate *** it makes accusative": meaning it is the predicate for it, yes!
"As in: 'Umar was a master": Kan raises the subject. An example is: Allah was Forgiving and Merciful.
And if you wish, you can illustrate it with the author's example, in which the author has inverted the order: "Umar was a master", so here 'Umar is raised by Kan. If someone were to ask: Why do we not make it raised by the beginning (ibtida'), as it was before the verb of state (nasikh)? We would say: It is not possible to say that, because it is no longer a subject (mubtada'), so it is not correct to say that it is raised by the beginning, and there is a governing word (amil) before it. But "Umar is a master": this does not have a governing word, so we say: 'Umar is raised by the beginning, and "master" is raised as the predicate. As for "Umar was a master": it is not possible to make 'Umar raised by the beginning because of the precedence of the governing word, because of the precedence of the governing word. And on this basis, it is raised by Kan. As for its making the predicate accusative, the author says:
"Kan raises the subject as a noun": meaning it is called the noun of Kan. So 'Umar in: "Umar was a master": is the noun of Kan, raised by it, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : I am listening. And it makes the predicate accusative, meaning that Kan makes the predicate accusative. And the fact that it makes the predicate accusative is clear, because the predicate was originally what? Raised. So it changed it to the accusative, thus affecting it. And it is called the predicate for it. So you say: "Umar was a master": "Master" is the predicate of Kan, made accusative by it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end. Know that Kan, when it enters upon the subject and predicate in the chapter of the names and attributes of Allah, does not indicate time. Rather, it contains an affirmation of Allah's possession of this attribute. So His saying, the Exalted:[An-Nisa 4:96] Here, "was" is a past tense verb, but it does not indicate a past time. Because if you said that it indicates a past time, then the forgiveness and mercy would now be non-existent, gone. But it indicates that this thing is existent without doubt. So it contains an affirmation of Allah's (Glorified and Exalted is He) possession of what was the noun and predicate for it. Now, but if I said: "Zayd was standing," do we say that Kan is deprived of time?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Deprived of time? No, because it is possible that he was standing and now he is sitting.
And his saying: "As in: 'Umar was a master": The author needed to advance the predicate for the sake of the meter (ruwī) of the verse. The original order is to say: "Umar was a master." And 'Umar here is Ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). And "master" is from the masters, and he is not the absolute master, because the master of creation is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and the master of this Ummah after him is Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), and the master of the Ummah after Abu Bakr is 'Umar, and its master after 'Umar is 'Uthman, and its master after 'Uthman is 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, and its master after 'Ali is al-Hasan ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, because he (may Allah be pleased with him) was more deserving of the caliphate. And the Prophet (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) said:Sunan Abi Dawud 4662Sahih (Al-Albani).
The point is that 'Umar is a master among the masters, and what a man 'Umar was, or what a master 'Umar was (may Allah be pleased with him). For Allah the Exalted opened through his hands many great conquests, and justice spread in his time, and the Ummah was reformed, until his time became a byword for justice, tranquility, decisiveness, and lack of negligence. Therefore, he deserved to be a master (may Allah be pleased with him). The author (may Allah have mercy on him) has now benefited us by showing that the function of Kan is to raise what? The subject as its noun, and to make the predicate accusative as its predicate. And he has shown us that the dammah that was on the subject after the entry of Kan is not for the sake of the beginning, but for the sake of the entry of Kan, because it is not correct that it be for the sake of the beginning. And Allah knows best.
"As in: 'Umar was a master": Kan raises the subject. An example is: Allah was Forgiving and Merciful.
And if you wish, you can illustrate it with the author's example, in which the author has inverted the order: "Umar was a master", so here 'Umar is raised by Kan. If someone were to ask: Why do we not make it raised by the beginning (ibtida'), as it was before the verb of state (nasikh)? We would say: It is not possible to say that, because it is no longer a subject (mubtada'), so it is not correct to say that it is raised by the beginning, and there is a governing word (amil) before it. But "Umar is a master": this does not have a governing word, so we say: 'Umar is raised by the beginning, and "master" is raised as the predicate. As for "Umar was a master": it is not possible to make 'Umar raised by the beginning because of the precedence of the governing word, because of the precedence of the governing word. And on this basis, it is raised by Kan. As for its making the predicate accusative, the author says:
"Kan raises the subject as a noun": meaning it is called the noun of Kan. So 'Umar in: "Umar was a master": is the noun of Kan, raised by it, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : I am listening. And it makes the predicate accusative, meaning that Kan makes the predicate accusative. And the fact that it makes the predicate accusative is clear, because the predicate was originally what? Raised. So it changed it to the accusative, thus affecting it. And it is called the predicate for it. So you say: "Umar was a master": "Master" is the predicate of Kan, made accusative by it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end. Know that Kan, when it enters upon the subject and predicate in the chapter of the names and attributes of Allah, does not indicate time. Rather, it contains an affirmation of Allah's possession of this attribute. So His saying, the Exalted:
And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.
وكان الله غفورًا رحيمًاThe student: No.
The Shaykh : Deprived of time? No, because it is possible that he was standing and now he is sitting.
And his saying: "As in: 'Umar was a master": The author needed to advance the predicate for the sake of the meter (ruwī) of the verse. The original order is to say: "Umar was a master." And 'Umar here is Ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). And "master" is from the masters, and he is not the absolute master, because the master of creation is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and the master of this Ummah after him is Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), and the master of the Ummah after Abu Bakr is 'Umar, and its master after 'Umar is 'Uthman, and its master after 'Uthman is 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, and its master after 'Ali is al-Hasan ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, because he (may Allah be pleased with him) was more deserving of the caliphate. And the Prophet (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) said:
This son of mine is a Sayyid (chief), and I hope Allah may reconcile two parties of my community by means of him.
إن ابني هذا سيد ، وسيصلح الله به بين فئتين من المسلمينThe point is that 'Umar is a master among the masters, and what a man 'Umar was, or what a master 'Umar was (may Allah be pleased with him). For Allah the Exalted opened through his hands many great conquests, and justice spread in his time, and the Ummah was reformed, until his time became a byword for justice, tranquility, decisiveness, and lack of negligence. Therefore, he deserved to be a master (may Allah be pleased with him). The author (may Allah have mercy on him) has now benefited us by showing that the function of Kan is to raise what? The subject as its noun, and to make the predicate accusative as its predicate. And he has shown us that the dammah that was on the subject after the entry of Kan is not for the sake of the beginning, but for the sake of the entry of Kan, because it is not correct that it be for the sake of the beginning. And Allah knows best.