Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the object of the operator does not follow the operator of the predicate *** except if an adverbial phrase or a preposition is brought."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And the object of the operator does not follow the operator of the predicate *** except if an adverbial phrase or a preposition is brought"
"The object of the operator does not follow":
The operator: The object of the predicate is the one in the accusative case, and its operator is "follows" (yali), and the object in the nominative case is the subject of "follows." This means that the object of the predicate does not follow the operator.
"*** except if an adverbial phrase or a preposition is brought"
"Except": This is a particle of exception.
"If": A non-subordinating conditional particle.
"Came": A past tense verb.
"Adverbial phrase": A state (hal) of the subject of "came," placed before the operator.
"Or": A conjunction particle.
"Preposition": Conjoined to "adverbial phrase," and "preposition" is a noun in the genitive case.
"Genitive": The noun in the genitive case.
The meaning is that the object of the predicate does not follow the operator except if it is an adverbial phrase or a preposition with a noun in the genitive case. The author was content with saying "preposition" without mentioning the noun in the genitive case, because a preposition cannot exist without what? Without a noun in the genitive case. So the preposition cannot stand alone; it must have a companion. Therefore, the object of the predicate does not follow the operator except in these two cases: if an adverbial phrase is brought, or if a preposition is brought. Now, an example of this: you say, "Your food, Zayd was eating it." "Your food, Zayd was eating it." The operator is "was" (kana), and "food" is the object of the predicate, which is "eating" (aakilan). Here, "your food" followed the operator in "Your food, Zayd was eating it." The author says that this is not permissible because the food is neither an adverbial phrase nor a preposition with a noun in the genitive case. Now, "Zayd was residing with you."
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Permissible
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is an adverbial phrase.
The Shaykh : Because it is an adverbial phrase. "In the mosque, Zayd was in i'tikaf."
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible because
The student: A preposition and a noun in the genitive case.
The Shaykh : A preposition and a noun in the genitive case. And they expand on adverbial phrases and nouns in the genitive case in ways they do not expand on others.
Some scholars, namely the Kufis, said: It is permissible for the object of the predicate to follow the operator even if it is not an adverbial phrase or a preposition with a noun in the genitive case. According to this opinion, "Your food, Zayd was eating it" is permissible. In the apparent wording of the author, there is no difference between the predicate being placed before the subject or after it, for it is prohibited for the object of the predicate to follow the operator even if the predicate is placed before the subject. That is, if you say, "Your food, eating was Zayd," it is prohibited, just as if you say, "Your food, Zayd was eating it." Now, the object of the predicate does not follow the operator.
But if the object of the predicate precedes the particle, what is the ruling?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It was mentioned previously that it is permissible, except if it is accompanied by the negation "ma" or the "ma" of the adverbial source, as mentioned before. Now, this is one of the peculiarities: we permit "Your food, was Zayd eating it" but we do not permit "Your food, Zayd was eating it," even though the second might be more deserving of permission because it is smoother than the first. "Your food, was Zayd eating it" has a heaviness on the tongue and the ear, but "Your food, Zayd was eating it" is lighter without a doubt. So, if the first form, "Your food, was Zayd eating it," is permissible, then "Your food, Zayd was eating it" should be permissible. For this reason, we are on the principle we established in the chapter of grammar that in case of disagreement, one returns to the easier.
It is permissible: "Your food, Zayd was eating it," "Zayd, your food was eating it," "Your food, eating was Zayd," "Your food, was Zayd eating it."
"Your food, was eating Zayd," meaning all forms, all forms have no prohibition, because if something is permissible, then what is similar to it or more deserving of it is permissible, and there is no difference between an adverbial phrase and a preposition with a noun in the genitive case.
Now, His saying, Exalted is He:[Al-A'raf 7:177] What is in it?
The student: The operator precedes...
The Shaykh : Yes, the operator precedes the particle. The object precedes, the object precedes the particle, because "themselves" is the object of "they wronged," which is the predicate, and it was placed before the particle.
"The object of the operator does not follow":
The operator: The object of the predicate is the one in the accusative case, and its operator is "follows" (yali), and the object in the nominative case is the subject of "follows." This means that the object of the predicate does not follow the operator.
"*** except if an adverbial phrase or a preposition is brought"
"Except": This is a particle of exception.
"If": A non-subordinating conditional particle.
"Came": A past tense verb.
"Adverbial phrase": A state (hal) of the subject of "came," placed before the operator.
"Or": A conjunction particle.
"Preposition": Conjoined to "adverbial phrase," and "preposition" is a noun in the genitive case.
"Genitive": The noun in the genitive case.
The meaning is that the object of the predicate does not follow the operator except if it is an adverbial phrase or a preposition with a noun in the genitive case. The author was content with saying "preposition" without mentioning the noun in the genitive case, because a preposition cannot exist without what? Without a noun in the genitive case. So the preposition cannot stand alone; it must have a companion. Therefore, the object of the predicate does not follow the operator except in these two cases: if an adverbial phrase is brought, or if a preposition is brought. Now, an example of this: you say, "Your food, Zayd was eating it." "Your food, Zayd was eating it." The operator is "was" (kana), and "food" is the object of the predicate, which is "eating" (aakilan). Here, "your food" followed the operator in "Your food, Zayd was eating it." The author says that this is not permissible because the food is neither an adverbial phrase nor a preposition with a noun in the genitive case. Now, "Zayd was residing with you."
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Permissible
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is an adverbial phrase.
The Shaykh : Because it is an adverbial phrase. "In the mosque, Zayd was in i'tikaf."
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible because
The student: A preposition and a noun in the genitive case.
The Shaykh : A preposition and a noun in the genitive case. And they expand on adverbial phrases and nouns in the genitive case in ways they do not expand on others.
Some scholars, namely the Kufis, said: It is permissible for the object of the predicate to follow the operator even if it is not an adverbial phrase or a preposition with a noun in the genitive case. According to this opinion, "Your food, Zayd was eating it" is permissible. In the apparent wording of the author, there is no difference between the predicate being placed before the subject or after it, for it is prohibited for the object of the predicate to follow the operator even if the predicate is placed before the subject. That is, if you say, "Your food, eating was Zayd," it is prohibited, just as if you say, "Your food, Zayd was eating it." Now, the object of the predicate does not follow the operator.
But if the object of the predicate precedes the particle, what is the ruling?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It was mentioned previously that it is permissible, except if it is accompanied by the negation "ma" or the "ma" of the adverbial source, as mentioned before. Now, this is one of the peculiarities: we permit "Your food, was Zayd eating it" but we do not permit "Your food, Zayd was eating it," even though the second might be more deserving of permission because it is smoother than the first. "Your food, was Zayd eating it" has a heaviness on the tongue and the ear, but "Your food, Zayd was eating it" is lighter without a doubt. So, if the first form, "Your food, was Zayd eating it," is permissible, then "Your food, Zayd was eating it" should be permissible. For this reason, we are on the principle we established in the chapter of grammar that in case of disagreement, one returns to the easier.
It is permissible: "Your food, Zayd was eating it," "Zayd, your food was eating it," "Your food, eating was Zayd," "Your food, was Zayd eating it."
"Your food, was eating Zayd," meaning all forms, all forms have no prohibition, because if something is permissible, then what is similar to it or more deserving of it is permissible, and there is no difference between an adverbial phrase and a preposition with a noun in the genitive case.
Now, His saying, Exalted is He:
and used to wrong themselves.
وأنفسهم كانوا يظلمونThe student: The operator precedes...
The Shaykh : Yes, the operator precedes the particle. The object precedes, the object precedes the particle, because "themselves" is the object of "they wronged," which is the predicate, and it was placed before the particle.