Continuation of the discussion of what was previously taken from the last chapter on *kana* and its sisters.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in the last chapter on *kana* the characteristics of *kana*, stating that it is added in the *hashw* (filler). What is meant by *hashw*? Saud
The student: Increase.
The Shaykh : There is no meaning in *hashw*. What does it mean that it is added in *hashw*? It is superfluous.
The student: I mean, it is added in the *hashw*, meaning it becomes between two connected things.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Like the subject and the predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes, and others.
The student: ... the relative pronoun and the relative clause, the attribute and the described ... are connected.
The Shaykh : Okay, do you have the example the author used?
The student: ... the expression of wonder.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And the wonder-form.
The Shaykh : And the wonder-form, okay.
Is it required that it be in the past tense form? Yasser
The student: Yes, it is required that it be in the past tense form.
The Shaykh : That it be in the past tense form, where did you take that from Ibn Malik’s words?
The student: And *kana* may be added.
The Shaykh : And it may be added.
The student: And *kana* may be added.
The Shaykh : Was
The student: *Kana*, and it is in the past tense form.
The Shaykh : And it is in the past tense form, okay.
The student: The correct view is that it is added in the present tense.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Due to His saying, the Glorious and Exalted ...
The Shaykh : This is omitted, Shaykh. This is the opposite of addition. It is not added much in the present tense form, like the saying of Umm 'Aqil, and she was dancing with her small son, saying: "You will be Majid, noble", "You will be Majid, noble". So *Majid* here is in the nominative case based on the fact that it is not superfluous, because if it were not superfluous, the correct form would be: *Majidan* (accusative) *Nabila* (accusative). She says:
"You will be Majid, noble *** If the north wind blows at night"
The north wind is the north, and it is cold at night. At night means with dew, so the cold in it increases.
Okay, in any case, so it is added, *kana* in the *hashw* in the past tense form, and it may be added in the present tense form rarely.
Among its characteristics also: its deletion and the retention of the predicate. Its example, O Abdullah.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What was before it?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, before the thing, the referent of the pronoun of *kana*.
The student: The evidence.
The Shaykh : No, the evidence is longer than this: People are recompensed for their deeds, if good then good.
The student: And if evil then evil.
The Shaykh : And the implied meaning is.
The student: If it were good.
The Shaykh : Yes, and is it deleted in others?
The student: It is deleted ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: If, if.
The Shaykh : With *law* (if), its example is in the hadith, the hadith of the woman who offered herself, and what did he say to the man who asked?
The student: He sought, even if it were a ring.
The Shaykh :Sunan an-Nasa'i 3359Sahih (Darussalam)
Okay, is it added, is it deleted in other than the past tense form and in other than these two topics?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Like the saying of Allah the Exalted:[An-Nisa 4:171]
The Shaykh :[An-Nisa 4:171] The implied meaning is: it would be better for you, correct, yes.
Does what we mentioned now, that it is deleted in the present tense form in other than the place after *law* and *in*, contradict what Ibn Malik mentioned? Kamil
The student : Yes, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Does it contradict what Ibn Malik mentioned?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How is that?
The student: Shaykh, I ... the addition in other than ... repeat your question one more time ...
The Shaykh : Yes, go ahead, O Ibn Dawud.
The student: It contradicts because he came in the past and this is ...
The Shaykh : Okay, and his saying: "After *in* and *law* often this became famous" means it became famous after *in* and *law*.
The student: Its deletion became famous, its deletion.
The Shaykh : Yes, and after others.
The student: Yes, rarely.
The Shaykh : Not famous. Okay, I think we stopped at the third characteristic.
The student: We took it.
The Shaykh : We took it, okay, what is it?
The student: After ...
The Shaykh : That it is deleted and replaced by *ma*, yes, is it deleted alone or with its noun?
The student: Alone.
The Shaykh : Alone and replaced by *ma*, okay, the example, O Sharafi.
The student: The saying of the poet ..., his saying: As for you.
The Shaykh : His saying: As for you, the original of this, O Nishan.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : As for you ... then my people, Bandar.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, it is not ...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Complete it, this is not enough, give me the whole sentence.
The student: ... you were a man of many followers ...
The Shaykh : Because you were a man of many followers ...
The student: "Because you were a man of many followers, then my people were not eaten by the hyena"
The Shaykh : Give me ... or leave it.
The student: ... the verse.
The Shaykh :"As for you, a man of many followers, then my people were not eaten by the hyena"
The student: Basically, Shaykh ... the hyena did not eat my people because you were a man of many followers.
The Shaykh : Meaning, even if it were ... few, the hyena would have eaten them, yes.
The student: ....
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning it is as if he said: O Abu ... you boasted over me and elevated yourself over me because you were a man of many followers, and I have more followers than you. My people were not eaten by the hyena, meaning the years of drought.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, are you infallible, do you not make mistakes?
The student: No, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : So you made a mistake this time.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, in any case, do not think that his saying: "then my people," is the object of "because you were a man of many followers." Rather, its object is omitted, meaning: you boasted that you were a man of many followers. Okay, what did we do after that? What did we do, Nasser?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : First, we deleted "boasted," the poet deleted it, yes, this is one.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, and the *lam*.
The student: And we deleted the *lam*.
The Shaykh : We deleted the *lam* and *kana*, so its attached pronoun remained.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, the attached pronoun remained separated. Okay, so the attached pronoun became separated, why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because its operator was deleted, because its operator was deleted, so it separated. Okay, and we replaced it with *ma*.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Ibn Malik said: "As for you, a righteous man, then draw near". The original is: draw near because you were a righteous man. So we advanced "because you were a righteous man," and we deleted the *lam*, and we deleted *kana*, and we replaced it with *ma*, and we separated the attached pronoun. So the result after these operations is: As for you, a righteous man.
Okay, if someone said: Why do we not make *amma* conditional? "As for you, a righteous man, then draw near," based on the connection of the answer with *fa*, whether in Ibn Malik’s words in Ibn Malik’s example or in the evidence, it is strong.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, we say yes, I say *kana* was deleted, and I say *amma*, yes, I say: As for you, a righteous man, as for you were a righteous man.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But they say: As for you, as for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, it exists,[Ad-Duhaa 93:9]
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Why? The reason is: As for you were a man of many followers, then my people. As for you were a righteous man, yes, then draw near. But it appears to me that the reason they did not interpret it that way is that it is not possible to delete the *an* of the verbal noun with *kana*. And on this interpretation, if *amma* comes as explanatory or conditional, it becomes necessary to say: As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. And as if the *an* of the verbal noun is not deleted, so they deviated from this. Otherwise, if it were possible, this would be easier: As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. As for that you were a man of many followers, then my people were not eaten by the hyena. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Many scholars held that it is conditional.
The Shaykh : If one of the scholars held that it is conditional, then according to the rule, we take the easier one. Do you have anything on this?
The student: Increase.
The Shaykh : There is no meaning in *hashw*. What does it mean that it is added in *hashw*? It is superfluous.
The student: I mean, it is added in the *hashw*, meaning it becomes between two connected things.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Like the subject and the predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes, and others.
The student: ... the relative pronoun and the relative clause, the attribute and the described ... are connected.
The Shaykh : Okay, do you have the example the author used?
The student: ... the expression of wonder.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And the wonder-form.
The Shaykh : And the wonder-form, okay.
Is it required that it be in the past tense form? Yasser
The student: Yes, it is required that it be in the past tense form.
The Shaykh : That it be in the past tense form, where did you take that from Ibn Malik’s words?
The student: And *kana* may be added.
The Shaykh : And it may be added.
The student: And *kana* may be added.
The Shaykh : Was
The student: *Kana*, and it is in the past tense form.
The Shaykh : And it is in the past tense form, okay.
The student: The correct view is that it is added in the present tense.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Due to His saying, the Glorious and Exalted ...
The Shaykh : This is omitted, Shaykh. This is the opposite of addition. It is not added much in the present tense form, like the saying of Umm 'Aqil, and she was dancing with her small son, saying: "You will be Majid, noble", "You will be Majid, noble". So *Majid* here is in the nominative case based on the fact that it is not superfluous, because if it were not superfluous, the correct form would be: *Majidan* (accusative) *Nabila* (accusative). She says:
"You will be Majid, noble *** If the north wind blows at night"
The north wind is the north, and it is cold at night. At night means with dew, so the cold in it increases.
Okay, in any case, so it is added, *kana* in the *hashw* in the past tense form, and it may be added in the present tense form rarely.
Among its characteristics also: its deletion and the retention of the predicate. Its example, O Abdullah.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What was before it?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, before the thing, the referent of the pronoun of *kana*.
The student: The evidence.
The Shaykh : No, the evidence is longer than this: People are recompensed for their deeds, if good then good.
The student: And if evil then evil.
The Shaykh : And the implied meaning is.
The student: If it were good.
The Shaykh : Yes, and is it deleted in others?
The student: It is deleted ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: If, if.
The Shaykh : With *law* (if), its example is in the hadith, the hadith of the woman who offered herself, and what did he say to the man who asked?
The student: He sought, even if it were a ring.
The Shaykh :
Look (for something), even if it is only an iron ring
التمس ولو خاتماً من حديدOkay, is it added, is it deleted in other than the past tense form and in other than these two topics?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Like the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you.
ولا تقولوا ثلاثة انتهوا خيراً لكمThe Shaykh :
And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you.
ولا تقولوا ثلاثة انتهوا خيراً لكمDoes what we mentioned now, that it is deleted in the present tense form in other than the place after *law* and *in*, contradict what Ibn Malik mentioned? Kamil
The student : Yes, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Does it contradict what Ibn Malik mentioned?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How is that?
The student: Shaykh, I ... the addition in other than ... repeat your question one more time ...
The Shaykh : Yes, go ahead, O Ibn Dawud.
The student: It contradicts because he came in the past and this is ...
The Shaykh : Okay, and his saying: "After *in* and *law* often this became famous" means it became famous after *in* and *law*.
The student: Its deletion became famous, its deletion.
The Shaykh : Yes, and after others.
The student: Yes, rarely.
The Shaykh : Not famous. Okay, I think we stopped at the third characteristic.
The student: We took it.
The Shaykh : We took it, okay, what is it?
The student: After ...
The Shaykh : That it is deleted and replaced by *ma*, yes, is it deleted alone or with its noun?
The student: Alone.
The Shaykh : Alone and replaced by *ma*, okay, the example, O Sharafi.
The student: The saying of the poet ..., his saying: As for you.
The Shaykh : His saying: As for you, the original of this, O Nishan.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : As for you ... then my people, Bandar.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, it is not ...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Complete it, this is not enough, give me the whole sentence.
The student: ... you were a man of many followers ...
The Shaykh : Because you were a man of many followers ...
The student: "Because you were a man of many followers, then my people were not eaten by the hyena"
The Shaykh : Give me ... or leave it.
The student: ... the verse.
The Shaykh :"As for you, a man of many followers, then my people were not eaten by the hyena"
The student: Basically, Shaykh ... the hyena did not eat my people because you were a man of many followers.
The Shaykh : Meaning, even if it were ... few, the hyena would have eaten them, yes.
The student: ....
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning it is as if he said: O Abu ... you boasted over me and elevated yourself over me because you were a man of many followers, and I have more followers than you. My people were not eaten by the hyena, meaning the years of drought.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, are you infallible, do you not make mistakes?
The student: No, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : So you made a mistake this time.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, in any case, do not think that his saying: "then my people," is the object of "because you were a man of many followers." Rather, its object is omitted, meaning: you boasted that you were a man of many followers. Okay, what did we do after that? What did we do, Nasser?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : First, we deleted "boasted," the poet deleted it, yes, this is one.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, and the *lam*.
The student: And we deleted the *lam*.
The Shaykh : We deleted the *lam* and *kana*, so its attached pronoun remained.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, the attached pronoun remained separated. Okay, so the attached pronoun became separated, why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because its operator was deleted, because its operator was deleted, so it separated. Okay, and we replaced it with *ma*.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Ibn Malik said: "As for you, a righteous man, then draw near". The original is: draw near because you were a righteous man. So we advanced "because you were a righteous man," and we deleted the *lam*, and we deleted *kana*, and we replaced it with *ma*, and we separated the attached pronoun. So the result after these operations is: As for you, a righteous man.
Okay, if someone said: Why do we not make *amma* conditional? "As for you, a righteous man, then draw near," based on the connection of the answer with *fa*, whether in Ibn Malik’s words in Ibn Malik’s example or in the evidence, it is strong.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, we say yes, I say *kana* was deleted, and I say *amma*, yes, I say: As for you, a righteous man, as for you were a righteous man.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But they say: As for you, as for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, it exists,
So as for the orphan, do not oppress [him].
فأما اليتيم فلا تقربThe student: ...
The Shaykh : Why? The reason is: As for you were a man of many followers, then my people. As for you were a righteous man, yes, then draw near. But it appears to me that the reason they did not interpret it that way is that it is not possible to delete the *an* of the verbal noun with *kana*. And on this interpretation, if *amma* comes as explanatory or conditional, it becomes necessary to say: As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. And as if the *an* of the verbal noun is not deleted, so they deviated from this. Otherwise, if it were possible, this would be easier: As for that you were a righteous man, then draw near. As for that you were a man of many followers, then my people were not eaten by the hyena. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Many scholars held that it is conditional.
The Shaykh : If one of the scholars held that it is conditional, then according to the rule, we take the easier one. Do you have anything on this?