Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a preposition or adverb preceded, as in: 'With you, you are concerned,' the scholars permitted."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And a preposition or adverb preceded, as in: 'With you, you are concerned,' the scholars permitted". We parse the verse.
"Preceded" is a fronted object, and its operator is the word "permitted." "The scholars" is the subject, and the original order is: "And the scholars permitted the preceding of a preposition or an adverb."
The student: Or an adverb.
The Shaykh : Or an adverb is the apparent meaning. "And a preposition or adverb preceded" means "And the scholars permitted the preceding of a preposition or an adverb." Then the author gave an example to clarify his meaning, saying: "As in: 'With you, you are concerned.'"
The Student: ... O Shaykh
The Shaykh : I have an adverb.
The student: I have "And a preposition or adverb or negation".
The Shaykh : No mistake, or an adverb, certainly. But it is "or," otherwise it would be "and." Yes, good.
"With you, you are concerned." What is fronted now? Is it the predicate or the object of the predicate? It is the object of the predicate that is fronted, because "with you"
"Ma" is a negation.
And "with you" is a preposition and its object, attached to "concerned."
The original order of this sentence is: "You are not concerned with me." This is the original order. So the object of the predicate is fronted before the subject. Ibn Malik says "the scholars permitted," and the apparent meaning of his words is that this is consensus, but that is not the case; rather, there is disagreement in it.
Good. What about "Zayd is not with you, residing"? "Zayd is not with you, residing." "With" is an adverb attached to what? To "residing." Is it permissible? Yes, it is permissible for the object of the predicate to precede the subject, but it is not permissible for the predicate to precede the subject. And this is strange: the branch is permitted to precede, but the root is not. This is contrary to the original principle. This is contrary to the original principle. In reality, if the branch is permitted to precede, the root is permitted to precede. But they say that what is excused in adverbs and prepositional phrases is not excused in others. And this is also refuted in our saying: "Zayd is not with you," where they said "with" cannot be in the position of accusative. Good.
And it is known from his saying: "And a preposition or adverb preceded," that if the object of the predicate precedes and it is not an adverb or a preposition with its object, then it is not correct.
So if I say "Your food is not Zayd, eating," it is not correct. It is not permissible unless you omit it. If you omit it, there is no harm.
So if you say "Your food is Zayd, I eat," there is no harm. But if you want to front the object of the predicate while keeping the operation, and it is not an adverb or a preposition with its object, this is prohibited.
And Ibn Malik's saying "the scholars permitted" appears to be consensus, but there is also disagreement in this issue. There is disagreement. Some scholars said it is permissible to say "Your food is not Zayd, eating," and they argued by analogy. They said that if fronting the object is permitted, fronting the operator is permitted. And you, O grammarians, argued for the permissibility of fronting the predicate of "laysa" by fronting its operator. "Laysa" is the object of the predicate, and the object of the predicate is fronted. Do you remember this? Or did it fly away? What is it?[Hud 11:8] We said that fronting the object indicates the permissibility of fronting the operator. So we say here also that fronting the object of the predicate indicates the permissibility of fronting the predicate, because it is its object and its branch. And for this reason, the correct view is permissibility, and there is no difference between saying "With you, you are not concerned" and saying: "Your food is not Zayd, eating." There is no difference; both are permissible.
Good. It remains to be said: Is it permissible for the predicate to precede "ma"? I say: "Residing, is not Zayd?" No, because it has been established for us that the negation "ma" in "kana" and its sisters does not permit the predicate to precede it.
"So the predicate of the negation 'ma' preceded, *** So bring it following, not succeeding"
This is while the operator is a verb, which is stronger than the operation of a preposition. So how if the operator is a preposition? And by this, it becomes clear that the issue has forms: "Your food is not Zayd, eating."
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not correct, unanimously. Good. "Your food is not Zayd, eating."
The student: There is disagreement.
The Shaykh : There is disagreement. Good, on two views. And Ibn Malik's words indicate prohibition. Good. "Is not Zayd, eating, your food."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, unanimously. "Is not Zayd, your food, eating."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is permissible and there is no harm, because "ma" is now fronted before the subject, meaning it is between the subject and the predicate. Good. "Eating, your food, is not Zayd."
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : O Khalid, do not rush. "Eating, your food, is not Zayd" is correct.
The student: It is not correct...
The Shaykh : It is correct. Why is it not correct?
The student: And the order of "Zayd, food, eating."
The Shaykh : Here, his saying: "And the order of Zayd, food, eating". So it is not permissible to say: "Your food, eating, is not Zayd," nor "Eating, your food, is not Zayd," because the order between the subject and the predicate is necessary. And there is disagreement in this. And if there is disagreement, the correct view is facilitation. It is easySahih al-Bukhari 6786 and there is no sin, as long as it is not from the Qur'an, there is no sin. Good.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The time has ended.
The student : A question, O Shaykh
The Shaykh : Yes
"Preceded" is a fronted object, and its operator is the word "permitted." "The scholars" is the subject, and the original order is: "And the scholars permitted the preceding of a preposition or an adverb."
The student: Or an adverb.
The Shaykh : Or an adverb is the apparent meaning. "And a preposition or adverb preceded" means "And the scholars permitted the preceding of a preposition or an adverb." Then the author gave an example to clarify his meaning, saying: "As in: 'With you, you are concerned.'"
The Student: ... O Shaykh
The Shaykh : I have an adverb.
The student: I have "And a preposition or adverb or negation".
The Shaykh : No mistake, or an adverb, certainly. But it is "or," otherwise it would be "and." Yes, good.
"With you, you are concerned." What is fronted now? Is it the predicate or the object of the predicate? It is the object of the predicate that is fronted, because "with you"
"Ma" is a negation.
And "with you" is a preposition and its object, attached to "concerned."
The original order of this sentence is: "You are not concerned with me." This is the original order. So the object of the predicate is fronted before the subject. Ibn Malik says "the scholars permitted," and the apparent meaning of his words is that this is consensus, but that is not the case; rather, there is disagreement in it.
Good. What about "Zayd is not with you, residing"? "Zayd is not with you, residing." "With" is an adverb attached to what? To "residing." Is it permissible? Yes, it is permissible for the object of the predicate to precede the subject, but it is not permissible for the predicate to precede the subject. And this is strange: the branch is permitted to precede, but the root is not. This is contrary to the original principle. This is contrary to the original principle. In reality, if the branch is permitted to precede, the root is permitted to precede. But they say that what is excused in adverbs and prepositional phrases is not excused in others. And this is also refuted in our saying: "Zayd is not with you," where they said "with" cannot be in the position of accusative. Good.
And it is known from his saying: "And a preposition or adverb preceded," that if the object of the predicate precedes and it is not an adverb or a preposition with its object, then it is not correct.
So if I say "Your food is not Zayd, eating," it is not correct. It is not permissible unless you omit it. If you omit it, there is no harm.
So if you say "Your food is Zayd, I eat," there is no harm. But if you want to front the object of the predicate while keeping the operation, and it is not an adverb or a preposition with its object, this is prohibited.
And Ibn Malik's saying "the scholars permitted" appears to be consensus, but there is also disagreement in this issue. There is disagreement. Some scholars said it is permissible to say "Your food is not Zayd, eating," and they argued by analogy. They said that if fronting the object is permitted, fronting the operator is permitted. And you, O grammarians, argued for the permissibility of fronting the predicate of "laysa" by fronting its operator. "Laysa" is the object of the predicate, and the object of the predicate is fronted. Do you remember this? Or did it fly away? What is it?
Unquestionably, on the Day it comes to them, it will not be averted from them
ألا يوم يأتيهم ليس مصروفاً عنهمGood. It remains to be said: Is it permissible for the predicate to precede "ma"? I say: "Residing, is not Zayd?" No, because it has been established for us that the negation "ma" in "kana" and its sisters does not permit the predicate to precede it.
"So the predicate of the negation 'ma' preceded, *** So bring it following, not succeeding"
This is while the operator is a verb, which is stronger than the operation of a preposition. So how if the operator is a preposition? And by this, it becomes clear that the issue has forms: "Your food is not Zayd, eating."
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not correct, unanimously. Good. "Your food is not Zayd, eating."
The student: There is disagreement.
The Shaykh : There is disagreement. Good, on two views. And Ibn Malik's words indicate prohibition. Good. "Is not Zayd, eating, your food."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, unanimously. "Is not Zayd, your food, eating."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is permissible and there is no harm, because "ma" is now fronted before the subject, meaning it is between the subject and the predicate. Good. "Eating, your food, is not Zayd."
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : O Khalid, do not rush. "Eating, your food, is not Zayd" is correct.
The student: It is not correct...
The Shaykh : It is correct. Why is it not correct?
The student: And the order of "Zayd, food, eating."
The Shaykh : Here, his saying: "And the order of Zayd, food, eating". So it is not permissible to say: "Your food, eating, is not Zayd," nor "Eating, your food, is not Zayd," because the order between the subject and the predicate is necessary. And there is disagreement in this. And if there is disagreement, the correct view is facilitation. It is easy
Whenever the Prophet (ﷺ) was given an option between two things, he used to select the easier of the tow as long as it was not sinful
ما خير النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بين أمرين إلا اختار أيسرهما ما لم يكن إثماًThe student: ...
The Shaykh : The time has ended.
The student : A question, O Shaykh
The Shaykh : Yes