Text copied Link copied

Al-Fatawa – home

﴿ فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ﴾

Scholar
Search mode

Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And raise the conjoined with *bal* or *lakin* *** from after a noun in the accusative case governed by *ma* where it is placed."

Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Okay, he says...
"And raise the conjoined with *bal* or *lakin* *** from after a noun in the accusative case governed by *ma* where it is placed"
The grammatical analysis of the verse
"Raise": an object placed before the verb, and the word governing it is "governed" (*zama*). "Raise" is conjoined to "raise," which is a possessive noun, and "conjoined" is conjoined to the possessive noun.
"With *bal* or with *lakin*" are prepositional phrases attached to "conjoined."
"From after a noun in the accusative case governed by *ma*": "From after" is a prepositional phrase and a possessive noun attached to "conjoined." "By *ma*" is a prepositional phrase attached to "accusative." "Governed" is a verb in the imperative mood, and its subject is hidden and obligatory, estimated to be "you." "Where" is an adverb of place, built on the damma, in the position of the accusative. "Placed" is a past tense verb, and its subject is hidden. "Where" is a possessive noun, and the sentence is the possessive noun.
And the meaning of the verse is: Adhere to raising the conjoined with *bal* or *lakin* when it comes after a noun in the accusative case governed by *ma*. For example: "Zayd is not standing, but sitting." It is not correct to say "but sitting" (in the accusative). Why? Because the negation is negated. If you say "Zayd is not standing," you negate his standing. "But sitting" affirms his sitting, so the negation is negated, and thus the nominative case is obligatory. It is not correct to say "but sitting" (in the accusative); rather, the nominative case is obligatory as the predicate of a hidden subject, and the estimation is "but he is sitting."
And so with *lakin*: "Zayd is not standing, but sitting." It is not permissible to say "but sitting" (in the accusative) for the reason we mentioned, because the negation is now negated in the conjoined. And one of the conditions for its operation is that the negation not be negated. How do we analyze "but sitting"? We say: "Sitting" is the predicate of a hidden subject, and the estimation is "but he is sitting." "But he is sitting," good.
If you conjoin with something other than *lakin* or *bal*, then it remains in the accusative case. You say: "Zayd is not standing, nor sitting." "Zayd is not standing, nor sitting," because the negation remains. "Zayd is not eating, nor drinking," correct? Because the negation remains, because the negation remains.
And all the conjunctions are like the *waw*, meaning that if you conjoin with the *waw* or any of the other letters except *bal* and *lakin*, then the conjoined is in the accusative case. As for *lakin* or *bal*, the conjoined is in the nominative case as the predicate of a hidden subject. The reason for this is that the negation is negated, because what comes after *lakin* or *bal* is contrary to what comes before it. Then he said: "And after *ma* and *laysa*, the genitive of the predicate"
The student: Where it is placed

The Shaykh : Meaning, in whatever order it is
The student: ... the lam
Source alathar.net

The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.

Similar fatwas