Continuation of the discussion on the previous five verses from Ibn Malik’s statement: “And after lawla, the predicate is usually omitted, to the end of the chapter.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And when is it obligatory to mention it?
The student: It is obligatory to mention it when omitting the predicate is not valid.
The Shaykh : I mean, when?
The student: Omitting the predicate after lawla.
The Shaykh : I mean, when? Specify it?
The student: When, I mean!
The Shaykh : When is it impossible to mention it?
The student: When is it impossible to mention the predicate?
The Shaykh : No, when is it prohibited to omit it?
The student: When is it impossible to omit the predicate?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: When omitting the predicate causes confusion, meaning if we omit the predicate, the speech becomes confusing.
The Shaykh : That is, when it is a specific state, yes, the meaning is not known except by it. The third?
The student: That it be a restricted state, and the evidence indicates the predicate!
The Shaykh : If it is a specific state but has evidence, an example of the first? Kamal!
The student: Shaykh, I was not present.
The Shaykh : Abdullah!
The student: An example of what?
The Shaykh : The first, where mentioning the predicate is prohibited.
The student: Lawla Zayd existed, 'Amr would have been killed.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Lawla Zayd exists.
The Shaykh : Good, and does the mere existence of Zayd prevent the killing of 'Amr?
The student: He might be his brother.
The Shaykh : That is possible!
The student: Do you remember the verse?
The Shaykh :[Al-Baqarah 2:251] !
The student: Present.
The Shaykh : Some, yes, yes, the one that must be mentioned?
The student: The one that must be mentioned is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her):.
The Shaykh : Perfect, and it is not correct for the meaning to be: Lawla your people exist, perfect.
The student: The third state:
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: The poet’s saying: “And lawla the sheath holding it, it would have slipped”: meaning the existence of the sheath here is evidence, meaning the word “holding it” can be omitted, he says: And lawla the sheath, it would have slipped, because the existence of the sheath necessitates holding it.
The Shaykh : Correct, good: “And after a waw, co-presence was specified with ma'a”, what does he want, Ya Yusuf?
The student: He wants it to be like: Every craftsman and his craft.
The Shaykh : This is the example, but his saying: co-presence was specified, is a precaution against what?
The student: A precaution against the waw of conjunction.
The Shaykh : From the waw of conjunction, an example of the waw of conjunction?
The student: Like Zayd and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : No, we need a subject and a predicate, we do not need a verb and a subject, we need a subject and a predicate.
The student: Every craftsman.
The Shaykh : Yes, and his product?!
The student: Yes?
The Shaykh : And his product.
The student: And his product.
The Shaykh : And his product.
The student: Every craftsman and his product.
The Shaykh : Is it acceptable?
The student: Every craftsman, every craftsman goes, every craftsman is!
The Shaykh : Ah, okay.
The student: Zayd and 'Amr are companions.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Zayd and 'Amr are companions.
The Shaykh : Good, Zayd and 'Amr are companions, here the waw is a letter of conjunction and it is not necessary that it means “with,” but: “Every craftsman and his craft” there is no doubt that it is with his craft, because his craft is a description of him, good: “Before a state, it cannot be a predicate”? Yes!
The student: Because if the description comes, it is the predicate of the subject.
The Shaykh : If the description is not suitable to be a predicate.
The student: It becomes a state.
The Shaykh : It becomes a state, and it suffices in place of the predicate, like: “My striking the slave, he is wicked” this does not need a predicate, everyone knows the meaning of this sentence: that your striking of the slave, if he is wicked, good, is a predicate with two instead of one permissible? Samih?
The student: Permissible, like the multiplication of descriptions.
The Shaykh : Did we mention that it has sections?
The student: Three sections: The first section: It is obligatory to omit the letter of conjunction, and that is: if the two predicates mean one predicate, like the saying of the one who says: My orange is sweet and sour.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: My orange is sweet and sour, my orange is sweet and sour.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So it is obligatory to omit the letter of conjunction.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Because the two predicates mean one.
The Shaykh : Why do we not say: sweet and sour?
The student: The meaning will change.
The Shaykh : The meaning changes.
The student: It is understood from it that some of the orange is sour and some is sweet.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The student: But the intended meaning is to inform that the orange combines both types.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The second section!
The Shaykh : Meaning it combines the two descriptions?!
The student: It combines the two descriptions.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The second section: And that is the obligation to mention the letter of conjunction, and if each predicate is specific to a certain person, like the saying:
The Shaykh : If the subject is collective!
The student: Yes, if there is a group.
The Shaykh : If the subject is a plural and each one of them is specific to a certain description, an example?
The student: Like your saying: My two sons are a jurist and a hadith scholar, it is obligatory to mention the waw.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The third section: The permissibility of mentioning or omitting the letter of conjunction, and that is if the subject is singular and described with multiple descriptions, like the saying of the one who says, for example: My son is a jurist and a hadith scholar.
The Shaykh : And a poet!
The student: And a poet, so it is permissible to mention the letter of conjunction, the waw, and to omit it.
The Shaykh : He says: It is permissible to say: My son is a jurist, a hadith scholar, a poet, or: My son is a jurist and a hadith scholar.
The student: And a poet.
The Shaykh : And a poet, correct, do we start the new lesson?
The student: Shaykh, now regarding...
The Shaykh : Good, you have it.
The student: Shaykh, you mentioned the text of the oath, meaning the oath...
The Shaykh : A text in the oath that does not bear another meaning.
The student: It does not bear another meaning.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Here the predicate is omitted.
The Shaykh : An example?!
The student: An example: By the life of Allah, I will surely stand.
The Shaykh : Good, what do you say about His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Hijr 15:72]?
The student: By your life?
The Shaykh :[Al-Hijr 15:72] ؟
The student: By your life here
The Shaykh : Was the predicate omitted?
The student: Yes, it was omitted.
The Shaykh : Omitted?!
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : ؟!
The student: The answer to the oath.
The Shaykh : The answer to the oath, and what is the estimation?
The student: By your life, that they are in their intoxication.
The Shaykh : If so?! Meaning we did not benefit! What is the estimation of the omitted predicate?
The student: By your life, because if we estimated “that they are”: “in” and what is its name, the predicate, they do not combine.
The Shaykh : Give us a benefit!
The student: By your life, my oath.
The Shaykh : By your life, my oath, that they are indeed in their intoxication, yes, correct, this is what they said.
The student: May Allah reward you, in the next lesson we start reviewing the subject and predicate?!
The Shaykh : How?
The student: I say: From the next lesson we start reviewing the subject and predicate?!
The Shaykh : By Allah, you proposed this, but will the people agree to it?
The student: Yes, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?!
The student: Yes.
Another student: The chapter of the subject and predicate is one of the basic chapters.
The Shaykh : Do you agree to it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, then we must determine how many verses are they?
The student: Thirty verses.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Thirty verses.
The Shaykh : Thirty verses, and we have the night of Sunday and the night of Monday and Tuesday left.
The student: And Wednesday.
The Shaykh : Wednesday, four, meaning seven verses every day?!
The student: Up to eight.
The Shaykh : Seven to eight, good, to his saying: “And the singular, static” yes?
The student: Nine.
The Shaykh : No, eight!
The student: Nine.
The Shaykh : Are you sure? But the rest is necessary!!
The student: Eight includes the singular, static.
The Shaykh : No, it does not include it.
The student: Up to eight!
The Shaykh : In any case: seven, eight, nine, what we review tonight does not obligate the second night.
The student: It came here, Shaykh, the intended meaning.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Always
The Shaykh : By Allah, in any case, it is something that returns to you.
The student: At the end of every chapter, a review
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: All five verses, and the review becomes at the end of every chapter.
Another student: No, that is not correct.
The student: Like a quick review of the text, a quick review of the concept of the predicate.
The Shaykh : All of it?!
The student: May Allah reward you, if the review is in the problematic and important chapters that generate a lot of discussion, like the subject and predicate.
The Shaykh : The important thing now is that you say the subject, because it is the foundation.
The student: Sam?
The Shaykh : That it is the foundation of the subject and predicate.
The student: I expect it is important.
The Shaykh : Good, the important thing then, and the singular, static is empty.
The student: It conveys the same meaning of...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It conveys the same meaning of...
The Shaykh : No, is this the final one or not?
The student: No, no, this one!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Before the final one.
The Shaykh : Good, then we read “Kana and its sisters.”
The student: It is obligatory to mention it when omitting the predicate is not valid.
The Shaykh : I mean, when?
The student: Omitting the predicate after lawla.
The Shaykh : I mean, when? Specify it?
The student: When, I mean!
The Shaykh : When is it impossible to mention it?
The student: When is it impossible to mention the predicate?
The Shaykh : No, when is it prohibited to omit it?
The student: When is it impossible to omit the predicate?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: When omitting the predicate causes confusion, meaning if we omit the predicate, the speech becomes confusing.
The Shaykh : That is, when it is a specific state, yes, the meaning is not known except by it. The third?
The student: That it be a restricted state, and the evidence indicates the predicate!
The Shaykh : If it is a specific state but has evidence, an example of the first? Kamal!
The student: Shaykh, I was not present.
The Shaykh : Abdullah!
The student: An example of what?
The Shaykh : The first, where mentioning the predicate is prohibited.
The student: Lawla Zayd existed, 'Amr would have been killed.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Lawla Zayd exists.
The Shaykh : Good, and does the mere existence of Zayd prevent the killing of 'Amr?
The student: He might be his brother.
The Shaykh : That is possible!
The student: Do you remember the verse?
The Shaykh :
if it were not for Allah checking
ولولا دفع الله الناسThe student: Present.
The Shaykh : Some, yes, yes, the one that must be mentioned?
The student: The one that must be mentioned is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her):
If not for your people, recent in their disbelief
لولا قومك حديثوا عهد بكفرThe Shaykh : Perfect, and it is not correct for the meaning to be: Lawla your people exist, perfect.
The student: The third state:
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: The poet’s saying: “And lawla the sheath holding it, it would have slipped”: meaning the existence of the sheath here is evidence, meaning the word “holding it” can be omitted, he says: And lawla the sheath, it would have slipped, because the existence of the sheath necessitates holding it.
The Shaykh : Correct, good: “And after a waw, co-presence was specified with ma'a”, what does he want, Ya Yusuf?
The student: He wants it to be like: Every craftsman and his craft.
The Shaykh : This is the example, but his saying: co-presence was specified, is a precaution against what?
The student: A precaution against the waw of conjunction.
The Shaykh : From the waw of conjunction, an example of the waw of conjunction?
The student: Like Zayd and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : No, we need a subject and a predicate, we do not need a verb and a subject, we need a subject and a predicate.
The student: Every craftsman.
The Shaykh : Yes, and his product?!
The student: Yes?
The Shaykh : And his product.
The student: And his product.
The Shaykh : And his product.
The student: Every craftsman and his product.
The Shaykh : Is it acceptable?
The student: Every craftsman, every craftsman goes, every craftsman is!
The Shaykh : Ah, okay.
The student: Zayd and 'Amr are companions.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Zayd and 'Amr are companions.
The Shaykh : Good, Zayd and 'Amr are companions, here the waw is a letter of conjunction and it is not necessary that it means “with,” but: “Every craftsman and his craft” there is no doubt that it is with his craft, because his craft is a description of him, good: “Before a state, it cannot be a predicate”? Yes!
The student: Because if the description comes, it is the predicate of the subject.
The Shaykh : If the description is not suitable to be a predicate.
The student: It becomes a state.
The Shaykh : It becomes a state, and it suffices in place of the predicate, like: “My striking the slave, he is wicked” this does not need a predicate, everyone knows the meaning of this sentence: that your striking of the slave, if he is wicked, good, is a predicate with two instead of one permissible? Samih?
The student: Permissible, like the multiplication of descriptions.
The Shaykh : Did we mention that it has sections?
The student: Three sections: The first section: It is obligatory to omit the letter of conjunction, and that is: if the two predicates mean one predicate, like the saying of the one who says: My orange is sweet and sour.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: My orange is sweet and sour, my orange is sweet and sour.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So it is obligatory to omit the letter of conjunction.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Because the two predicates mean one.
The Shaykh : Why do we not say: sweet and sour?
The student: The meaning will change.
The Shaykh : The meaning changes.
The student: It is understood from it that some of the orange is sour and some is sweet.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The student: But the intended meaning is to inform that the orange combines both types.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The second section!
The Shaykh : Meaning it combines the two descriptions?!
The student: It combines the two descriptions.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The second section: And that is the obligation to mention the letter of conjunction, and if each predicate is specific to a certain person, like the saying:
The Shaykh : If the subject is collective!
The student: Yes, if there is a group.
The Shaykh : If the subject is a plural and each one of them is specific to a certain description, an example?
The student: Like your saying: My two sons are a jurist and a hadith scholar, it is obligatory to mention the waw.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The third section: The permissibility of mentioning or omitting the letter of conjunction, and that is if the subject is singular and described with multiple descriptions, like the saying of the one who says, for example: My son is a jurist and a hadith scholar.
The Shaykh : And a poet!
The student: And a poet, so it is permissible to mention the letter of conjunction, the waw, and to omit it.
The Shaykh : He says: It is permissible to say: My son is a jurist, a hadith scholar, a poet, or: My son is a jurist and a hadith scholar.
The student: And a poet.
The Shaykh : And a poet, correct, do we start the new lesson?
The student: Shaykh, now regarding...
The Shaykh : Good, you have it.
The student: Shaykh, you mentioned the text of the oath, meaning the oath...
The Shaykh : A text in the oath that does not bear another meaning.
The student: It does not bear another meaning.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Here the predicate is omitted.
The Shaykh : An example?!
The student: An example: By the life of Allah, I will surely stand.
The Shaykh : Good, what do you say about His saying, the Exalted:
By your life, [O Muhammad], indeed they were, in their intoxication,
لَعَمْرُكَ إنهم لفي سكرتهمThe student: By your life?
The Shaykh :
indeed they were, in their intoxication,
إنهم لفي سكرتهمThe student: By your life here
The Shaykh : Was the predicate omitted?
The student: Yes, it was omitted.
The Shaykh : Omitted?!
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh :
And they are indeed in their intoxication
وإنهم لفي سكرتهمThe student: The answer to the oath.
The Shaykh : The answer to the oath, and what is the estimation?
The student: By your life, that they are in their intoxication.
The Shaykh : If so?! Meaning we did not benefit! What is the estimation of the omitted predicate?
The student: By your life, because if we estimated “that they are”: “in” and what is its name, the predicate, they do not combine.
The Shaykh : Give us a benefit!
The student: By your life, my oath.
The Shaykh : By your life, my oath, that they are indeed in their intoxication, yes, correct, this is what they said.
The student: May Allah reward you, in the next lesson we start reviewing the subject and predicate?!
The Shaykh : How?
The student: I say: From the next lesson we start reviewing the subject and predicate?!
The Shaykh : By Allah, you proposed this, but will the people agree to it?
The student: Yes, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?!
The student: Yes.
Another student: The chapter of the subject and predicate is one of the basic chapters.
The Shaykh : Do you agree to it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, then we must determine how many verses are they?
The student: Thirty verses.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Thirty verses.
The Shaykh : Thirty verses, and we have the night of Sunday and the night of Monday and Tuesday left.
The student: And Wednesday.
The Shaykh : Wednesday, four, meaning seven verses every day?!
The student: Up to eight.
The Shaykh : Seven to eight, good, to his saying: “And the singular, static” yes?
The student: Nine.
The Shaykh : No, eight!
The student: Nine.
The Shaykh : Are you sure? But the rest is necessary!!
The student: Eight includes the singular, static.
The Shaykh : No, it does not include it.
The student: Up to eight!
The Shaykh : In any case: seven, eight, nine, what we review tonight does not obligate the second night.
The student: It came here, Shaykh, the intended meaning.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Always
The Shaykh : By Allah, in any case, it is something that returns to you.
The student: At the end of every chapter, a review
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: All five verses, and the review becomes at the end of every chapter.
Another student: No, that is not correct.
The student: Like a quick review of the text, a quick review of the concept of the predicate.
The Shaykh : All of it?!
The student: May Allah reward you, if the review is in the problematic and important chapters that generate a lot of discussion, like the subject and predicate.
The Shaykh : The important thing now is that you say the subject, because it is the foundation.
The student: Sam?
The Shaykh : That it is the foundation of the subject and predicate.
The student: I expect it is important.
The Shaykh : Good, the important thing then, and the singular, static is empty.
The student: It conveys the same meaning of...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It conveys the same meaning of...
The Shaykh : No, is this the final one or not?
The student: No, no, this one!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Before the final one.
The Shaykh : Good, then we read “Kana and its sisters.”