Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the hidden pronoun of the matter is a noun if it occurs *** suggesting what has become clear that it is prohibited."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And the hidden pronoun of the matter is a noun if it occurs *** suggesting what has become clear that it is prohibited"
The hidden pronoun of the matter: a hidden object placed before the word "is" (in the phrase "is a noun").
And "a noun": an adverbial state, meaning that the pronoun of the matter is a noun.
"If it occurs suggesting what has become clear that it is prohibited": meaning if in the speech of the Arabs there occurs something that suggests it is prohibited according to the rule mentioned, then the pronoun of the matter is estimated in it.
And the pronoun of the matter is easy; whenever you find a sentence that contradicts the rule, the pronoun of the matter makes the matter easy for you. So what is the rule that Ibn Malik established? Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) established that it is not permissible for the operator to follow the object of the predicate unless it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun. This is the principle.
Now, if in the speech of the Arabs there occurs something indicating that the object is the object of the predicate and the operator follows it, what do we say? We say: Did the Arabs deviate from the rule, so they are mistaken? No, because they are the judges. But we resort to a device: we estimate the pronoun of the matter. We estimate the pronoun of the matter.
Its example is the saying of the poet:
"Hedgehogs, shambling, around their houses *** by what was to them a gift of return"
There is nothing wrong with the first hemistich. In the second hemistich, "by what was to them a gift of return," "them" (Iyyahum) here is the object of "return" (awda), and it followed...
The student: The doer
The Shaykh : ...and it followed the operator, which is "was" (kana), and it is the object of the predicate. So what do we do with the speech of the Arab poet? They said the matter is simple: we estimate the pronoun of the matter. A noun for what? A noun for what?
The student: "Was" (kana).
The Shaykh : A noun for "was" (kana), and we say: "It was he, that is, the matter."
And "them" (Iyyahum): the object of "return" (awda), placed before it.
And "gift" (atayyah): the subject (mubtada'), which is the noun of "was" (kana), the subject.
And "return" (awda): a verb and a hidden subject, and the sentence is the predicate of "gift" (atayyah), and the sentence consisting of the subject and predicate is the predicate of "was" (kana), the predicate of "was." And this is considered a distortion of the text for the sake of a school of thought, like the saying of the Asha'irah: meaning "And the command of your Lord came." They entered the command for the sake of what? For the sake of their school of thought that it is the command of Allah that comes, not Allah. These people entered the pronoun of the matter for the sake of what? To correct their school of thought that "by what was he, that is, the matter." And you know that if you said the estimation of the speech is thus: "The hearing is unknown by what was he, that is, the matter, to them a gift of return." And therefore the saying of the Kufans is more lion-like and more correct, and the principle is not to delete. The matter is simple: we say it is permissible for the operator to follow the object of the predicate, and there is no harm. What is the obstacle, when you have permitted it in the adverb of time or place and the preposition with its noun? They said: Yes, this is where expansion is allowed that is not allowed in other parts of this original rule? Yes.
The student: They.
The Shaykh : So the principle and the branch return to their school of thought. Therefore, the correct view is that it is permissible to say: "It was your food that Zayd ate." Yes, and note that in this example, it is not possible to estimate the pronoun of the matter. It is not possible, why? Because "ate" (akilan) is in the accusative case and it is not correct for it to be a predicate. And on this basis, the sentence is not a valid nominal sentence as a predicate for the pronoun of the matter. Now.
"And the hidden pronoun of the matter is a noun if it occurs" Yes. "*** suggesting what has become clear that it is prohibited"
He says this verse—... rest—He says this is from the saying of al-Farazdaq, mocking the tribe of Jarir: "Hedgehogs, shambling" Yes, meaning "It was he, that is, the matter." Yes, and the sentence "a gift of return" is the predicate of "was" (kana), "and to them" is the object of "return" (awda), and "shambling" (hudajun) means they walk the walk of the weak old man for theft.
And "gift" (atayyah): Abu Jarir.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, this is avoided. In any case, this verse is according to the opinion of the author and a group of people who followed his path, on the estimation of what?
The student: The pronoun of the matter.
The Shaykh : The pronoun of the matter. Then he said: "And 'was' (kana) may be added in the middle, just as ***" Yes.
"And the hidden pronoun of the matter is a noun if it occurs *** suggesting what has become clear that it is prohibited"
The hidden pronoun of the matter: a hidden object placed before the word "is" (in the phrase "is a noun").
And "a noun": an adverbial state, meaning that the pronoun of the matter is a noun.
"If it occurs suggesting what has become clear that it is prohibited": meaning if in the speech of the Arabs there occurs something that suggests it is prohibited according to the rule mentioned, then the pronoun of the matter is estimated in it.
And the pronoun of the matter is easy; whenever you find a sentence that contradicts the rule, the pronoun of the matter makes the matter easy for you. So what is the rule that Ibn Malik established? Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) established that it is not permissible for the operator to follow the object of the predicate unless it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun. This is the principle.
Now, if in the speech of the Arabs there occurs something indicating that the object is the object of the predicate and the operator follows it, what do we say? We say: Did the Arabs deviate from the rule, so they are mistaken? No, because they are the judges. But we resort to a device: we estimate the pronoun of the matter. We estimate the pronoun of the matter.
Its example is the saying of the poet:
"Hedgehogs, shambling, around their houses *** by what was to them a gift of return"
There is nothing wrong with the first hemistich. In the second hemistich, "by what was to them a gift of return," "them" (Iyyahum) here is the object of "return" (awda), and it followed...
The student: The doer
The Shaykh : ...and it followed the operator, which is "was" (kana), and it is the object of the predicate. So what do we do with the speech of the Arab poet? They said the matter is simple: we estimate the pronoun of the matter. A noun for what? A noun for what?
The student: "Was" (kana).
The Shaykh : A noun for "was" (kana), and we say: "It was he, that is, the matter."
And "them" (Iyyahum): the object of "return" (awda), placed before it.
And "gift" (atayyah): the subject (mubtada'), which is the noun of "was" (kana), the subject.
And "return" (awda): a verb and a hidden subject, and the sentence is the predicate of "gift" (atayyah), and the sentence consisting of the subject and predicate is the predicate of "was" (kana), the predicate of "was." And this is considered a distortion of the text for the sake of a school of thought, like the saying of the Asha'irah:
And your Lord has come
وجاء ربكThe student: They.
The Shaykh : So the principle and the branch return to their school of thought. Therefore, the correct view is that it is permissible to say: "It was your food that Zayd ate." Yes, and note that in this example, it is not possible to estimate the pronoun of the matter. It is not possible, why? Because "ate" (akilan) is in the accusative case and it is not correct for it to be a predicate. And on this basis, the sentence is not a valid nominal sentence as a predicate for the pronoun of the matter. Now.
"And the hidden pronoun of the matter is a noun if it occurs" Yes. "*** suggesting what has become clear that it is prohibited"
He says this verse—... rest—He says this is from the saying of al-Farazdaq, mocking the tribe of Jarir: "Hedgehogs, shambling" Yes, meaning "It was he, that is, the matter." Yes, and the sentence "a gift of return" is the predicate of "was" (kana), "and to them" is the object of "return" (awda), and "shambling" (hudajun) means they walk the walk of the weak old man for theft.
And "gift" (atayyah): Abu Jarir.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, this is avoided. In any case, this verse is according to the opinion of the author and a group of people who followed his path, on the estimation of what?
The student: The pronoun of the matter.
The Shaykh : The pronoun of the matter. Then he said: "And 'was' (kana) may be added in the middle, just as ***" Yes.