Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the precedence of the predicate of *laysa* is forbidden, as he was chosen *** And the complete one is not satisfied with a nominative case."

The Shaykh : "Forbidden": the subject (mubtada').
"Chosen": the predicate of the subject. "Forbidden" is a noun with a genitive, and "precedence" is a noun with a genitive, and "precedence" is a noun with a genitive, and "predicate" is a noun with a genitive, so "precedence" is a verbal noun with a genitive to its agent, and "laysa" is not an object of "precedence" because "precedence" has an object, which is "precedence." The intended meaning is: "Chosen is the forbidding of the precedence of the predicate of *laysa* over it," or "Chosen is the forbidding of the precedence of the predicate of *laysa* over it." This is the meaning of the verse.
In this verse, Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) indicated that the grammarians differed regarding the permissibility of the predicate of *laysa* preceding it. What did he choose?
The student: The forbidding.

The Shaykh : The forbidding, because "chosen" means "selected." So he says, may Allah have mercy on him, "Chosen is the forbidding of the precedence of the predicate of *laysa* over it." This is an indication that there is disagreement in this issue. The correct view is that it is permissible for the predicate of *laysa* to precede it, contrary to Ibn Malik. There is no objection to us disagreeing with Ibn Malik even though we are currently studying from his book, because there is in the Qur'an what indicates the permissibility of that, which is the saying of Allah the Exalted: If it is permissible for the object of the predicate, which is a branch of its governing verb, to precede it, then the precedence of its governing verb is even more so. For this reason, the stronger opinion is that it is permissible for the predicate of *laysa* to precede it, and its proof from the Noble Qur'an is . Based on this, you would say: "Standing, *laysa* Zayd," and no one would make a mistake with you. But according to the opinion of Ibn Malik, you would make a mistake. It is not permissible to say "Standing, *laysa* Zayd"; rather, say "*Laysa* standing Zayd" or "*Laysa* Zayd standing." As for saying "Standing, *laysa* Zayd," this is forbidden according to his opinion, may Allah have mercy on him.
"And the precedence of the predicate of *laysa* is forbidden, as he was chosen ***" Now, those who forbid it made an analogy that is defective. There is no objection to us invalidating an analogy, even in grammar; there is no objection. Analogy in jurisprudence is known to be defective or valid, but in grammar as well, it is defective or valid. They said: Because *laysa* indicates negation, the precedence of its predicate over it is forbidden, just as we forbade the precedence of the predicate over *ma* (the negative particle). It is said: This analogy is not correct, because the negation of *laysa* is from its own essence, meaning it is a verb indicating negation, whereas *ma* does not indicate negation except when it is combined with what follows it. So the analogy is not valid.
The second aspect: Counter-argument. We say: We analogize it to the permissibility of the predicate preceding when the tool is not what? It is not *ma*. Is it permissible for me to say "Standing, *laysa* Zayd"? Yes. So why do we not analogize it to what is under *la*? If we counter the prohibition of precedence by analogy, we counter it with what? With another analogy. And based on this, this evidence is refuted, and the evidence for permissibility is established. And what is the evidence for permissibility? And the evidence for prohibition, you know, is refuted by a defective analogy. Yes.
He says: "*** And the complete one is not satisfied with a nominative case"
"And what is other than it is incomplete"
"The complete one": "Dhu" (possessor of) has two possible grammatical interpretations:
The first interpretation: That it is a predicate preceding *ma*. The second: That it is a subject and the predicate is *ma*, because *ma* is a relative pronoun.
"With a nominative case": A preposition and its object, connected to "is satisfied," meaning the complete one is satisfied with a nominative case.
So the author, may Allah have mercy on him, informed us that these tools are divided into two categories: a complete category and an incomplete category. What is the complete one? The complete one is that which is satisfied with its nominative case and does not wait for the addressee to expect anything. Its sign is that it is not intended to attribute a quality to something with another quality. Its sign is that it is not intended to attribute a quality to something with another quality.
An example of that: "Zayd was, then he died." "Zayd was, then he died."
Do you know now? "Was" does not wait for the addressee to expect anything if you say to him "Was, then he died." And you do not want to describe him with a quality, but you want to inform about his existence only. And at that time, we do not need the predicate. Is that clear, everyone? So now, what is satisfied with its nominative case is the complete one. What is its sign? It has two signs: The first is that the addressee does not expect anything. The second is that it is not intended to attribute a quality to something with another quality. And it has examples, for instance: "Tamsumun" (when you enter the evening) is from the sisters of *kana*, is it not? "Tasbuhun" (when you enter the morning) is from the sisters of *kana*. But is it incomplete here or complete?
The student: Complete.

The Shaykh : Complete. Meaning, the meaning of His saying: is "when you enter the evening," and is "when you enter the morning." The addressee does not expect anything now. If I say "Glory be to Allah when you enter the evening," "Glory be to Allah when you enter the morning," nothing is expected. But if the meaning were other than in the Qur'an...
"I ask Allah for healing when you enter the evening while sick." Is it incomplete now or not incomplete?
The student: Incomplete.

The Shaykh : Because the intention is to describe something with a quality. Good.
"The rain was." "The rain was" means, for example, you say "We traveled, and on the way, the rain was." This is complete because the addressee does not expect anything, and you do not want to attribute the rain to anything else except its mere existence. But if you wanted to inform about the rain that it is heavy and you say "The rain was," is the speech complete? No, because you want to describe the rain with something, so you say "The rain was heavy." Is that clear, everyone? Good. Some grammarians estimate the complete *kana* as "wujida" (existed). This is an approximate estimation and not by way of definition. The reason for that is that "wujida" is a verb in the passive voice, and it is not possible to explain the active voice with the passive voice. But they say that by way of approximation. And if it is by way of approximation, there is no harm in it. For example, they say: "Zayd was, then he died" means "Zayd existed, then he died." means "I did not find the heavens and the earth." But this is by way of approximation.
"*** And the complete one is not satisfied with a nominative case" The time is up. Yes, and Allah knows best.