Continuation of the discussion in the chapter on the beginning (ibtida').
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, Sharafi.
The student: "And if one recites something other than what they are attached to, then the pronoun is made explicit, which is the view of the Kufans"
The Shaykh : The condition for that.
The student: The condition for that is that there be no ambiguity, and their condition is good.
The Shaykh : And their opinion.
The student: And their opinion is good.
The Shaykh : Perfect. I say, Glory be to Allah, man is human, meaning he is the one who composed the *Kafiyyah* and the *Alfiyyah*, and yet he produced this complex verse. Yes.
The student: Shaykh...
The Shaykh : Does Ibn Malik hold that the predicate (khabar), if it is a circumstantial phrase (zarf) or a preposition with its noun (jar wa majrur), is outside the classification and constitutes an independent category, or is it within the classification that the predicate is either a single word or a sentence?
The student: It is within the classification.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: It is within the classification.
The Shaykh : And the evidence?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: "And they inform with a circumstantial phrase or a preposition... its meaning is existing or settled" when he said existing or settled.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: By existing, he means the predicate of the subject (mubtada').
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And by settled, the predicate...
The Shaykh : Perfect, so by this we know that he does not consider the circumstantial phrase and the preposition with its noun
The student: A category on its own.
The Shaykh : An independent category, and that it does not fall outside the previous classification that the predicate is either a single word or a sentence. Good.
Is it permissible to inform with a place regarding a meaning and regarding the self? ...
The student: Regarding the place... and regarding the self.
The Shaykh : It is permissible to inform with a place regarding time, regarding a meaning, and regarding the self. Good, give examples.
The student: As for regarding... we say so-and-so, Zayd is with me.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: This is regarding the place.
The Shaykh : No, it is a place, regarding the self. Regarding the self, Zayd is with me.
The student: Zayd is with me.
The Shaykh : Regarding the meaning.
The student: Meaning, we say for example...
The Shaykh : The subject is a meaning and the predicate is a circumstantial phrase of place. Did you not understand the question?
The student: ... The opinion is with you.
The Shaykh : The opinion is with you, the news is with you, the knowledge is with you, like that? Is that correct or not?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good, is it permissible to inform with time regarding the self?
The student: According to the opinion of Ibn Malik, it is not informed about it unless it is
The Shaykh : Unless it is
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, a useful example.
The student: A useful example, the crescent moon tonight, or the crescent moon on the night of Monday, because according to the saying of Ibn Malik, the crescent moon tonight is considered valid informing because...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: As for the other opinion, which is the opinion of Ibn Hisham, it is not considered valid, but it is interpreted.
The Shaykh : The subject must be interpreted, and it is said: The rising of the crescent moon is tonight. Clear? Good, which is stronger, the opinion of Ibn Malik or the opinion of Ibn Hisham? Khalid.
The student: The opinion of Ibn Malik is stronger because...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: The opinion of Ibn Malik is stronger.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is easier and...
The Shaykh : Correct, because the whole discourse revolves around conveying information, it all revolves around conveying information. So if it conveys information, we ask: is the predicate regarding time or the self, regarding a meaning or the self?
Good, is it permissible to begin with an indefinite noun? Sa'd.
The student: "And it is not permissible to begin with an indefinite *** Unless it conveys benefit, like 'a lion is with Zayd'"
The Shaykh : You read the verse now, you did not give the ruling. You read the verse. The question: Is it permissible to begin with an indefinite noun or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, is it permissible to begin with an indefinite noun?
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: Unless it conveys benefit.
The Shaykh : Well done. It is not permissible unless it conveys benefit. Perfect, this is the answer.
Why is it not permissible to begin with an indefinite noun, O Muhammad?
The student: Because it is judged as a description, a predicate.
The Shaykh : Because the subject is judged, and the judged thing must be known, and an indefinite noun is not known. Is that correct, everyone?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good, so it is not permissible to begin with an indefinite noun, unless it conveys benefit. If it conveys benefit, it is permissible to begin with it. An example of beginning with an indefinite noun where it is not permissible to begin with it.
The student: The saying of Ibn Malik: A lion is with Zayd.
The Shaykh : No, beginning with an indefinite noun, it is not permissible to begin with it.
The student: A man is in the house.
The Shaykh : A man is in the house, correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. A man is in the house, we did not benefit from it in any way.
Good, can I convert this example into an indefinite noun where it is permissible to begin with it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What do I say?
The student: In the house is a man.
The Shaykh : In the house is a man. What is the difference between them in terms of meaning?
The student: That his saying "In the house is a man" is more specific than saying "A man is in the house."
The Shaykh : How so? "In the house is a man" is more specific than saying "A man is in the house," meaning if you say "In the house is a man," it means there is only a man in the house. "In the house is a man" means there is no woman, but "A man is in the house" means a man is present in the house, but there may be a woman or there may not be. Good.
What justified the beginning in the saying of Ibn Malik, "And a man of the noble ones is with you" Yes.
The student: The description, the indefinite noun is described.
The Shaykh : The description, where is the description?
The student: Of the noble ones.
The Shaykh : Of the noble ones, correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Of the man that Ibn Malik referred to in this example, yes?
The student: Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : Yes, they mentioned it. This was mentioned by the commentators, and Allah knows best that he is referring to al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him). Good.
"A deed of righteousness adorns" Bandar, what justified the beginning with it? And we ask first: is it an indefinite noun or a definite noun? "A deed of righteousness adorns" It is a possessive (mudaf).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is a possessive now. Is not every possessive a definite noun? Is not every possessive a definite noun? Then this example is not valid because it is a definite noun, and we permitted it as an indefinite noun.
The student: Righteousness is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Righteousness is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Righteousness is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now the question: Is not every possessive a definite noun?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, when is the possessive a definite noun?
The student: When it is added to
The Shaykh : To what? When it is added absolutely, or otherwise?
The student: When it is added to a definite noun.
The Shaykh : To a definite noun, correct, everyone? Then not every possessive is a definite noun, but the definite noun is what is added to a definite noun. What justified the beginning in this example: "A deed of righteousness adorns"
The student: The addition (i'dafah).
The Shaykh : The addition, correct? That it was added, so there became some specification.
"A desire for good is good" Musa, what justified the beginning with an indefinite noun in this example: "A desire for good"
The student: Deeds.
The Shaykh : The work, correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the work, because if you said "A desire for good," a desire for what? For evil? For good? So if you said "for good," it conveys benefit.
The questioner : Is there a difference, O Shaykh, between working for someone and adding to their account?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : What is the difference?
The Shaykh : The difference between them is that the work is in the position of the object, "a desire for good" is in the position of an object, and the addition is in the genitive case. Good.
"Is there a youth among you" What justified the beginning, yes, correct.
The student: "And if one recites something other than what they are attached to, then the pronoun is made explicit, which is the view of the Kufans"
The Shaykh : The condition for that.
The student: The condition for that is that there be no ambiguity, and their condition is good.
The Shaykh : And their opinion.
The student: And their opinion is good.
The Shaykh : Perfect. I say, Glory be to Allah, man is human, meaning he is the one who composed the *Kafiyyah* and the *Alfiyyah*, and yet he produced this complex verse. Yes.
The student: Shaykh...
The Shaykh : Does Ibn Malik hold that the predicate (khabar), if it is a circumstantial phrase (zarf) or a preposition with its noun (jar wa majrur), is outside the classification and constitutes an independent category, or is it within the classification that the predicate is either a single word or a sentence?
The student: It is within the classification.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: It is within the classification.
The Shaykh : And the evidence?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: "And they inform with a circumstantial phrase or a preposition... its meaning is existing or settled" when he said existing or settled.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: By existing, he means the predicate of the subject (mubtada').
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And by settled, the predicate...
The Shaykh : Perfect, so by this we know that he does not consider the circumstantial phrase and the preposition with its noun
The student: A category on its own.
The Shaykh : An independent category, and that it does not fall outside the previous classification that the predicate is either a single word or a sentence. Good.
Is it permissible to inform with a place regarding a meaning and regarding the self? ...
The student: Regarding the place... and regarding the self.
The Shaykh : It is permissible to inform with a place regarding time, regarding a meaning, and regarding the self. Good, give examples.
The student: As for regarding... we say so-and-so, Zayd is with me.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: This is regarding the place.
The Shaykh : No, it is a place, regarding the self. Regarding the self, Zayd is with me.
The student: Zayd is with me.
The Shaykh : Regarding the meaning.
The student: Meaning, we say for example...
The Shaykh : The subject is a meaning and the predicate is a circumstantial phrase of place. Did you not understand the question?
The student: ... The opinion is with you.
The Shaykh : The opinion is with you, the news is with you, the knowledge is with you, like that? Is that correct or not?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good, is it permissible to inform with time regarding the self?
The student: According to the opinion of Ibn Malik, it is not informed about it unless it is
The Shaykh : Unless it is
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, a useful example.
The student: A useful example, the crescent moon tonight, or the crescent moon on the night of Monday, because according to the saying of Ibn Malik, the crescent moon tonight is considered valid informing because...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: As for the other opinion, which is the opinion of Ibn Hisham, it is not considered valid, but it is interpreted.
The Shaykh : The subject must be interpreted, and it is said: The rising of the crescent moon is tonight. Clear? Good, which is stronger, the opinion of Ibn Malik or the opinion of Ibn Hisham? Khalid.
The student: The opinion of Ibn Malik is stronger because...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: The opinion of Ibn Malik is stronger.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is easier and...
The Shaykh : Correct, because the whole discourse revolves around conveying information, it all revolves around conveying information. So if it conveys information, we ask: is the predicate regarding time or the self, regarding a meaning or the self?
Good, is it permissible to begin with an indefinite noun? Sa'd.
The student: "And it is not permissible to begin with an indefinite *** Unless it conveys benefit, like 'a lion is with Zayd'"
The Shaykh : You read the verse now, you did not give the ruling. You read the verse. The question: Is it permissible to begin with an indefinite noun or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, is it permissible to begin with an indefinite noun?
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: Unless it conveys benefit.
The Shaykh : Well done. It is not permissible unless it conveys benefit. Perfect, this is the answer.
Why is it not permissible to begin with an indefinite noun, O Muhammad?
The student: Because it is judged as a description, a predicate.
The Shaykh : Because the subject is judged, and the judged thing must be known, and an indefinite noun is not known. Is that correct, everyone?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good, so it is not permissible to begin with an indefinite noun, unless it conveys benefit. If it conveys benefit, it is permissible to begin with it. An example of beginning with an indefinite noun where it is not permissible to begin with it.
The student: The saying of Ibn Malik: A lion is with Zayd.
The Shaykh : No, beginning with an indefinite noun, it is not permissible to begin with it.
The student: A man is in the house.
The Shaykh : A man is in the house, correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. A man is in the house, we did not benefit from it in any way.
Good, can I convert this example into an indefinite noun where it is permissible to begin with it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What do I say?
The student: In the house is a man.
The Shaykh : In the house is a man. What is the difference between them in terms of meaning?
The student: That his saying "In the house is a man" is more specific than saying "A man is in the house."
The Shaykh : How so? "In the house is a man" is more specific than saying "A man is in the house," meaning if you say "In the house is a man," it means there is only a man in the house. "In the house is a man" means there is no woman, but "A man is in the house" means a man is present in the house, but there may be a woman or there may not be. Good.
What justified the beginning in the saying of Ibn Malik, "And a man of the noble ones is with you" Yes.
The student: The description, the indefinite noun is described.
The Shaykh : The description, where is the description?
The student: Of the noble ones.
The Shaykh : Of the noble ones, correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Of the man that Ibn Malik referred to in this example, yes?
The student: Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : Yes, they mentioned it. This was mentioned by the commentators, and Allah knows best that he is referring to al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him). Good.
"A deed of righteousness adorns" Bandar, what justified the beginning with it? And we ask first: is it an indefinite noun or a definite noun? "A deed of righteousness adorns" It is a possessive (mudaf).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is a possessive now. Is not every possessive a definite noun? Is not every possessive a definite noun? Then this example is not valid because it is a definite noun, and we permitted it as an indefinite noun.
The student: Righteousness is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Righteousness is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Righteousness is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now the question: Is not every possessive a definite noun?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, when is the possessive a definite noun?
The student: When it is added to
The Shaykh : To what? When it is added absolutely, or otherwise?
The student: When it is added to a definite noun.
The Shaykh : To a definite noun, correct, everyone? Then not every possessive is a definite noun, but the definite noun is what is added to a definite noun. What justified the beginning in this example: "A deed of righteousness adorns"
The student: The addition (i'dafah).
The Shaykh : The addition, correct? That it was added, so there became some specification.
"A desire for good is good" Musa, what justified the beginning with an indefinite noun in this example: "A desire for good"
The student: Deeds.
The Shaykh : The work, correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the work, because if you said "A desire for good," a desire for what? For evil? For good? So if you said "for good," it conveys benefit.
The questioner : Is there a difference, O Shaykh, between working for someone and adding to their account?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : What is the difference?
The Shaykh : The difference between them is that the work is in the position of the object, "a desire for good" is in the position of an object, and the addition is in the genitive case. Good.
"Is there a youth among you" What justified the beginning, yes, correct.