Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "The activation of *laysa* is the activation of *ma* below *in* *** with the preservation of negation and the arrangement of *z-k-n*."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "The activation of *laysa* is the activation of *ma* below *in* ***"
The student: *In*
The Shaykh : Yes, below *in*
"Activation": This is a verbal noun specifying the type, and its operator is *a'malt*, and it is attached to *laysa*
And his saying "you activated *ma*"
*Ma*: This is the substitute for the subject of *a'mala*, and the estimated meaning of the speech in its original order is: "You activated *ma* [by] the activation of *laysa*." And as you have just heard and read, *a'mala* is a verb built for the passive or built for what its agent is not named. So what activated it with this activation? The one who activated it is the Arabs, and Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) did not coin this verb in the agreed-upon form, so he said *u'milat*, meaning "people activated it." So who are those who activated it?
The Hijazis activated it, unlike the Tamim tribe. The Tamim tribe did not activate it; they neglected it because the principle with them is that particles do not operate except what is specific. This is the rule: a particle does not operate except the specific particle. Therefore, does the interrogative particle operate? No, it does not operate because it is shared between nouns and verbs, between nouns and verbs. But *ila*, *min*, *'ala*, *lam*, and the conditional *in* operate because *lam* and the conditional *in* are specific to verbs, and *ila* and *'ala* are specific to nouns.
So the rule is that if a particle is shared between nouns and verbs, it does not operate. This rule is the majority of what is consistent in every case.
So then, those who activated *ma* with the activation of *laysa* are the Hijazis, and the Qur'an came in their language. Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said:. And the Banu Tamim, before the unification of the Qur'an on one reading, used to read "ma hadha basharun" (this is not a human) before the Companions unified it on one reading. But after its unification, it is obligatory to read it as the Companions unified it. And here is a verse by a poet in which he says:
"And [I saw] a bird with drooping wings, and I said to it: State your lineage *** So it replied: 'Ma qatal al-muhibb haram' (It is not forbidden for the lover to kill)"
To which tribe does this lover belong?
The student: Tamim
The Shaykh : The bird with drooping wings, [it belongs to] Tamim, because he said: "Ma qatal al-muhibb haram" (It is not forbidden for the lover to kill). And this language is specific to Tamim. If he had been a Hijazi, he would have said: "Ma qatal al-muhibb haraman" (It is not forbidden for the lover to kill [accusative]).
Fine, but it is a condition for the activation of *ma* as the activation of *laysa* that it not be accompanied by *in*. For this reason, Ibn Malik said: "below *in*". If it is accompanied by *in*, it does not operate. And the intended meaning of *in* here is the redundant *in*. And of that is the saying of the poet, of that is the saying of the poet:
"O Banu Ghadana, ma in antum dhahab *** wa la sarif, bal antum al-khazaf" (O Banu Ghadana, you are not gold *** nor silver, but you are pottery)
Is this praise or satire?
"Ma in antum dhahab *** wa la sarif, bal antum al-khazaf" (You are not gold *** nor silver, but you are pottery)
The student: Satire
The Shaykh : Satire, yes, yes. Pottery is made of clay, and gold is known, and silver is silver. So he says: You have no origin; your origin is bad, from pottery. He does not intend to inform people that the origin of the children of Adam is clay. If that were the case, it would be...
Fine, here why did it not operate? Because it was accompanied by the redundant *in*. Fine, if I said: "Ma Zaydun qaiman" (Zayd is not standing), is that correct? Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, "Ma in Zaydun qaiman" (It is not that Zayd is standing)
The student: Error
The Shaykh : This is a mistake. Why? Because it was accompanied by the redundant *in*. And if it is accompanied by the redundant *in*, its operation is invalid. For this reason, Ibn Malik said: "below *in*"
The second condition is his saying: "*** with the preservation of negation and the arrangement of *z-k-n*"
*Ma'a* is a preposition of place, in the accusative case due to being a preposition. And it may be said that it is *ma'a*, but that is rare, as Ibn Malik said: "And with *ma'a* in it is rare, and the opening and breaking were transmitted for a sukun that connects"
*Ma'a* allows *ma'a* (with fatha) and *ma'* (with sukun), but here *ma'* is not allowed because it would break the meter of the verse. So it is said *ma'a* (with fatha) *baqa* al-nafy (the preservation of negation). And *baqa* is originally *baqa'* with a hamza, but the hamza was deleted for the sake of the meter of the poetry. *Ma'a baqa al-nafy* and the construction, meaning and with the construction of *z-k-n*. These are two conditions.
The first condition: that the negation remains. If the negation is negated, then it does not operate.
Its example is "Ma Zaydun illa qaim" (Zayd is not but standing). So it is not permissible for you to say "Ma Zaydun illa qaiman" (Zayd is not but standing [accusative]). Why? Because the negation was negated. Because the negation was negated. And Ibn Malik says: "with the preservation of negation". And it is said that it operates even if the negation is negated.
So you say: "Ma Zaydun illa qaiman" (Zayd is not but standing [accusative]). But this opinion is weak because the Qur'an indicates that if its negation is negated, its operation is invalid.
Allah the Exalted said:. So *bashar* is in the nominative case because the negation was negated by *illa*. And on this basis, how do we parse "Ma hadha illa bashar" (This is not but a human)? We say: *Ma* is a negator that is nullified, and *hadha* is the subject, and *illa* is a particle of restriction, and *bashar* is the predicate of the subject. Fine, with the preservation of negation.
If I said "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) or "Ma ma Zaydun qaiman" (Not that Zayd is standing [accusative])?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Listen, I am now saying from my own example: "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) *qaimun*
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Is both a mistake?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Both are correct? Mistake, mistake, no, yes. If you said "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing), if you said *qaim* (nominative) it is correct, or *qaiman* (accusative) it is correct? You made a mistake. It is necessary to detail. If the first *ma* is a negator and the second *ma* is a negator, then here the nominative case is obligatory. The nominative case is obligatory because the negation was negated. How was it negated? Because the negation of negation is affirmation.
"Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) means that the matter is not the absence of Zayd's standing. So if we make the second *ma* a negator and the first a negator, the nominative case is obligatory because the negation was negated.
And if we make the second *ma* an emphasis of the first, not independent, yes, it operated, it operated because the negation remained, indeed it was emphasized. As if I said "Ma Zaydun qaiman, ma Zaydun qaiman" (Zayd is not standing, Zayd is not standing). Here I repeated the whole sentence. So if I repeated *ma* alone, yes, if I repeated *ma* alone, it is emphasis. But if you started by saying "Ma ma Zaydun qaiman" (Not that Zayd is standing [accusative]), is this correct? We say no, this is contrary to the principle, because the principle in speech is establishment, not emphasis. And if the principle in speech is establishment, then the negation here is negated, so it is negated. But if it is assumed that this was found in the language of the Arabs, "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) or "Ma ma Zaydun qaiman" (Not that Zayd is standing [accusative]) with the accusative, we say the speaker intended the second *ma* to be emphasis. Fine, the important thing is with the preservation of negation.
The third condition: "and the arrangement of *z-k-n*". Arrangement between what? Between the noun and the predicate. The arrangement is necessary, meaning that its predicate does not precede its noun, but it does not precede it either. It is necessary that the noun occurs, then the predicate. So if I said: "Ma qaiman Zayd" (Not standing Zayd), what is the ruling?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Mistake. I must say "Ma qaimun Zaydun" (Not standing Zayd [nominative]). "Ma qaimun Zaydun" (Not standing Zayd [nominative]). Did you understand, everyone? Fine, and if I said: "Ma 'indak Zayd" (You do not have Zayd)
The student: There is disagreement, correct
The Shaykh : Wait, do not rush. This is correct, but is it nullified or operating?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Nullified
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Nullified. May Allah reward you. Because Ibn Malik says the arrangement is necessary. So if I said "Ma 'indak Zayd" (You do not have Zayd), here you preceded the predicate, so you say Zayd is a postponed subject, and do not say Zayd is the noun of *ma*, because the arrangement is what? It differed. Fine.
The student: *In*
The Shaykh : Yes, below *in*
"Activation": This is a verbal noun specifying the type, and its operator is *a'malt*, and it is attached to *laysa*
And his saying "you activated *ma*"
*Ma*: This is the substitute for the subject of *a'mala*, and the estimated meaning of the speech in its original order is: "You activated *ma* [by] the activation of *laysa*." And as you have just heard and read, *a'mala* is a verb built for the passive or built for what its agent is not named. So what activated it with this activation? The one who activated it is the Arabs, and Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) did not coin this verb in the agreed-upon form, so he said *u'milat*, meaning "people activated it." So who are those who activated it?
The Hijazis activated it, unlike the Tamim tribe. The Tamim tribe did not activate it; they neglected it because the principle with them is that particles do not operate except what is specific. This is the rule: a particle does not operate except the specific particle. Therefore, does the interrogative particle operate? No, it does not operate because it is shared between nouns and verbs, between nouns and verbs. But *ila*, *min*, *'ala*, *lam*, and the conditional *in* operate because *lam* and the conditional *in* are specific to verbs, and *ila* and *'ala* are specific to nouns.
So the rule is that if a particle is shared between nouns and verbs, it does not operate. This rule is the majority of what is consistent in every case.
So then, those who activated *ma* with the activation of *laysa* are the Hijazis, and the Qur'an came in their language. Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said:
This is not a human, this is only a noble angel
ما هذا بشراً إن هذا إلا ملك كريم"And [I saw] a bird with drooping wings, and I said to it: State your lineage *** So it replied: 'Ma qatal al-muhibb haram' (It is not forbidden for the lover to kill)"
To which tribe does this lover belong?
The student: Tamim
The Shaykh : The bird with drooping wings, [it belongs to] Tamim, because he said: "Ma qatal al-muhibb haram" (It is not forbidden for the lover to kill). And this language is specific to Tamim. If he had been a Hijazi, he would have said: "Ma qatal al-muhibb haraman" (It is not forbidden for the lover to kill [accusative]).
Fine, but it is a condition for the activation of *ma* as the activation of *laysa* that it not be accompanied by *in*. For this reason, Ibn Malik said: "below *in*". If it is accompanied by *in*, it does not operate. And the intended meaning of *in* here is the redundant *in*. And of that is the saying of the poet, of that is the saying of the poet:
"O Banu Ghadana, ma in antum dhahab *** wa la sarif, bal antum al-khazaf" (O Banu Ghadana, you are not gold *** nor silver, but you are pottery)
Is this praise or satire?
"Ma in antum dhahab *** wa la sarif, bal antum al-khazaf" (You are not gold *** nor silver, but you are pottery)
The student: Satire
The Shaykh : Satire, yes, yes. Pottery is made of clay, and gold is known, and silver is silver. So he says: You have no origin; your origin is bad, from pottery. He does not intend to inform people that the origin of the children of Adam is clay. If that were the case, it would be...
Fine, here why did it not operate? Because it was accompanied by the redundant *in*. Fine, if I said: "Ma Zaydun qaiman" (Zayd is not standing), is that correct? Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, "Ma in Zaydun qaiman" (It is not that Zayd is standing)
The student: Error
The Shaykh : This is a mistake. Why? Because it was accompanied by the redundant *in*. And if it is accompanied by the redundant *in*, its operation is invalid. For this reason, Ibn Malik said: "below *in*"
The second condition is his saying: "*** with the preservation of negation and the arrangement of *z-k-n*"
*Ma'a* is a preposition of place, in the accusative case due to being a preposition. And it may be said that it is *ma'a*, but that is rare, as Ibn Malik said: "And with *ma'a* in it is rare, and the opening and breaking were transmitted for a sukun that connects"
*Ma'a* allows *ma'a* (with fatha) and *ma'* (with sukun), but here *ma'* is not allowed because it would break the meter of the verse. So it is said *ma'a* (with fatha) *baqa* al-nafy (the preservation of negation). And *baqa* is originally *baqa'* with a hamza, but the hamza was deleted for the sake of the meter of the poetry. *Ma'a baqa al-nafy* and the construction, meaning and with the construction of *z-k-n*. These are two conditions.
The first condition: that the negation remains. If the negation is negated, then it does not operate.
Its example is "Ma Zaydun illa qaim" (Zayd is not but standing). So it is not permissible for you to say "Ma Zaydun illa qaiman" (Zayd is not but standing [accusative]). Why? Because the negation was negated. Because the negation was negated. And Ibn Malik says: "with the preservation of negation". And it is said that it operates even if the negation is negated.
So you say: "Ma Zaydun illa qaiman" (Zayd is not but standing [accusative]). But this opinion is weak because the Qur'an indicates that if its negation is negated, its operation is invalid.
Allah the Exalted said:
This is not but a human like you
ما هذا إلا بشرٌ مثلكمIf I said "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) or "Ma ma Zaydun qaiman" (Not that Zayd is standing [accusative])?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Listen, I am now saying from my own example: "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) *qaimun*
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Is both a mistake?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Both are correct? Mistake, mistake, no, yes. If you said "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing), if you said *qaim* (nominative) it is correct, or *qaiman* (accusative) it is correct? You made a mistake. It is necessary to detail. If the first *ma* is a negator and the second *ma* is a negator, then here the nominative case is obligatory. The nominative case is obligatory because the negation was negated. How was it negated? Because the negation of negation is affirmation.
"Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) means that the matter is not the absence of Zayd's standing. So if we make the second *ma* a negator and the first a negator, the nominative case is obligatory because the negation was negated.
And if we make the second *ma* an emphasis of the first, not independent, yes, it operated, it operated because the negation remained, indeed it was emphasized. As if I said "Ma Zaydun qaiman, ma Zaydun qaiman" (Zayd is not standing, Zayd is not standing). Here I repeated the whole sentence. So if I repeated *ma* alone, yes, if I repeated *ma* alone, it is emphasis. But if you started by saying "Ma ma Zaydun qaiman" (Not that Zayd is standing [accusative]), is this correct? We say no, this is contrary to the principle, because the principle in speech is establishment, not emphasis. And if the principle in speech is establishment, then the negation here is negated, so it is negated. But if it is assumed that this was found in the language of the Arabs, "Ma ma Zaydun qaim" (Not that Zayd is standing) or "Ma ma Zaydun qaiman" (Not that Zayd is standing [accusative]) with the accusative, we say the speaker intended the second *ma* to be emphasis. Fine, the important thing is with the preservation of negation.
The third condition: "and the arrangement of *z-k-n*". Arrangement between what? Between the noun and the predicate. The arrangement is necessary, meaning that its predicate does not precede its noun, but it does not precede it either. It is necessary that the noun occurs, then the predicate. So if I said: "Ma qaiman Zayd" (Not standing Zayd), what is the ruling?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Mistake. I must say "Ma qaimun Zaydun" (Not standing Zayd [nominative]). "Ma qaimun Zaydun" (Not standing Zayd [nominative]). Did you understand, everyone? Fine, and if I said: "Ma 'indak Zayd" (You do not have Zayd)
The student: There is disagreement, correct
The Shaykh : Wait, do not rush. This is correct, but is it nullified or operating?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Nullified
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Nullified. May Allah reward you. Because Ibn Malik says the arrangement is necessary. So if I said "Ma 'indak Zayd" (You do not have Zayd), here you preceded the predicate, so you say Zayd is a postponed subject, and do not say Zayd is the noun of *ma*, because the arrangement is what? It differed. Fine.