Continuation of the discussion on the chapter of the subject (mubtada').
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So if he said: "But for the sheath, it would have flowed."
The student: It would have flowed, and that is sufficient.
The Shaykh : That is sufficient, is it correct, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So we attribute the permissibility of mentioning it to the fact that it is
The student: Specific.
The Shaykh : specific, and its omission to the presence of?
The student: Evidence
The Shaykh : That indicates it, okay.
The student: We do not know of an example for it.
The Shaykh : But we are not going to search; we will take the rule, and when something like it comes, and like what the brother Ali said, for example, if it were said: "Who did you do good to?" you would say, "But for Zayd, he would have done good to me," the implied meaning being
The student: It is correct, O Shaykh, but for the supporters of Zayd protecting him, he would not have been safe, perhaps protecting him.
The Shaykh : Perhaps, perhaps, based on our understanding that protection is from support, from support. In any case, may Allah reward you. You now know the rule. Examples sometimes come to one, excuse me, either one thinks a little or one finds it in the books, and it passes by.
Okay, secondly, he says: The second place is Ahmad.
The student: That the subject (mubtada') be a noun in an oath, that the subject (mubtada') be a noun in an oath.
The Shaykh : That the subject (mubtada')
The student: Be a noun in an oath.
The Shaykh : Are we talking about the predicate (khabar) or the subject (mubtada')?
The student: The predicate (khabar) is omitted if the subject (mubtada') is a noun in an oath.
The Shaykh : For example
The student: By your life, I will certainly do it.
The Shaykh : the implied meaning is
The student: By your life, I swear, I will certainly do it.
The Shaykh : Okay, but now, is the noun in the oath the subject (mubtada') or the predicate (khabar)?
The student: The subject (mubtada').
The Shaykh : Now we are talking about the omission of the predicate (khabar), my brothers. "And in a noun of an oath, it is established", meaning if the predicate (khabar) is a noun in an oath, it must be omitted.
The student: Amr, it is finished, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, Amr, it is finished, but what is omitted? The oath. So the oath is a noun in an oath. If the predicate (khabar) is a noun in an oath, it must be omitted.
Okay, the third place, Sa'd.
The student: That the subject (mubtada') occurs...
The Shaykh : That the subject (mubtada') occurs, or the predicate (khabar)? We are talking now about the omission of the predicate (khabar).
The student: Shaykh, our problem is if we review
The Shaykh : Come on, Sa'd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Who knows?
The student: That it be after a waw...
The Shaykh : That it be after a waw, it is a noun in accompaniment. It is not necessary to give the author's wording, because we do not know if the one who gives the author's wording understands or does not understand.
Yes, did the news not reach you of the man who was given in the exam: "What is the ruling on interlacing the fingers in prayer and what is the ruling on cracking them?" And he wrote the answer: "In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. Chapter: It is disliked in prayer to turn one's head, raise one's eyes to the sky, crack one's fingers, and interlace them. Yes, and he would list a complete chapter, then write at the end: Take what you want and leave what you want."
So if a person mentions the author's wording, we do not know if he understood or did not understand. Therefore, the predicate (khabar) must be omitted after a waw that is a noun in accompaniment. Okay, its example is:
The student: Every craftsman and his craft.
The Shaykh : Every craftsman and his craft, you
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Be patient, let us see. "Every craftsman and his craft," do you want the craft that is his description and his action, or do you want by "craft" his product?
The student: His action.
The Shaykh : His action, why? Because it is permissible for him to be separate from his product, just as Zayd is separate from 'Amr. And for this reason, if I say "Zayd and 'Amr," it is obligatory for you to say in the predicate "they are associated," why? Because Zayd might part from 'Amr.
The student: It would have flowed, and that is sufficient.
The Shaykh : That is sufficient, is it correct, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So we attribute the permissibility of mentioning it to the fact that it is
The student: Specific.
The Shaykh : specific, and its omission to the presence of?
The student: Evidence
The Shaykh : That indicates it, okay.
The student: We do not know of an example for it.
The Shaykh : But we are not going to search; we will take the rule, and when something like it comes, and like what the brother Ali said, for example, if it were said: "Who did you do good to?" you would say, "But for Zayd, he would have done good to me," the implied meaning being
The student: It is correct, O Shaykh, but for the supporters of Zayd protecting him, he would not have been safe, perhaps protecting him.
The Shaykh : Perhaps, perhaps, based on our understanding that protection is from support, from support. In any case, may Allah reward you. You now know the rule. Examples sometimes come to one, excuse me, either one thinks a little or one finds it in the books, and it passes by.
Okay, secondly, he says: The second place is Ahmad.
The student: That the subject (mubtada') be a noun in an oath, that the subject (mubtada') be a noun in an oath.
The Shaykh : That the subject (mubtada')
The student: Be a noun in an oath.
The Shaykh : Are we talking about the predicate (khabar) or the subject (mubtada')?
The student: The predicate (khabar) is omitted if the subject (mubtada') is a noun in an oath.
The Shaykh : For example
The student: By your life, I will certainly do it.
The Shaykh : the implied meaning is
The student: By your life, I swear, I will certainly do it.
The Shaykh : Okay, but now, is the noun in the oath the subject (mubtada') or the predicate (khabar)?
The student: The subject (mubtada').
The Shaykh : Now we are talking about the omission of the predicate (khabar), my brothers. "And in a noun of an oath, it is established", meaning if the predicate (khabar) is a noun in an oath, it must be omitted.
The student: Amr, it is finished, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, Amr, it is finished, but what is omitted? The oath. So the oath is a noun in an oath. If the predicate (khabar) is a noun in an oath, it must be omitted.
Okay, the third place, Sa'd.
The student: That the subject (mubtada') occurs...
The Shaykh : That the subject (mubtada') occurs, or the predicate (khabar)? We are talking now about the omission of the predicate (khabar).
The student: Shaykh, our problem is if we review
The Shaykh : Come on, Sa'd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Who knows?
The student: That it be after a waw...
The Shaykh : That it be after a waw, it is a noun in accompaniment. It is not necessary to give the author's wording, because we do not know if the one who gives the author's wording understands or does not understand.
Yes, did the news not reach you of the man who was given in the exam: "What is the ruling on interlacing the fingers in prayer and what is the ruling on cracking them?" And he wrote the answer: "In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. Chapter: It is disliked in prayer to turn one's head, raise one's eyes to the sky, crack one's fingers, and interlace them. Yes, and he would list a complete chapter, then write at the end: Take what you want and leave what you want."
So if a person mentions the author's wording, we do not know if he understood or did not understand. Therefore, the predicate (khabar) must be omitted after a waw that is a noun in accompaniment. Okay, its example is:
The student: Every craftsman and his craft.
The Shaykh : Every craftsman and his craft, you
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Be patient, let us see. "Every craftsman and his craft," do you want the craft that is his description and his action, or do you want by "craft" his product?
The student: His action.
The Shaykh : His action, why? Because it is permissible for him to be separate from his product, just as Zayd is separate from 'Amr. And for this reason, if I say "Zayd and 'Amr," it is obligatory for you to say in the predicate "they are associated," why? Because Zayd might part from 'Amr.