Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And its being without *an* after *'asa* is rare, and the matter with *kadda* is the opposite."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And its being without *an* after *'asa* is rare, and the matter with *kadda* is the opposite"
We will parse the verse first.
"Being" (*kawn*): is the subject, and its predicate is "rare" (*nazar*), which is a verbal noun of *kana*, so it functions like *kana*. What is the name of this verbal noun? The name of this verbal noun is the pronoun *hu* in his phrase "and its being" (*wa kawnuhu*), so it is attached to the noun. And "without *an*" (*bi-dun an*) is the predicate, the predicate of *kawn*, and it is a preposition and its object, connected to a deleted predicate of *kawn*.
"Without" (*bi-dun*): is attached, and *an* is what it is attached to. The attachment to it is valid even though it is a particle, because the intended meaning is the word itself.
"After *'asa*" (*ba'da 'asa*): is an adverb of time, also connected to a deleted word. "Its being without *an* after *'asa*" means occurring, so it is a circumstantial phrase (*hal*) for the deleted word, which becomes a circumstantial phrase. "After" (*ba'da*) is attached, and *'asa* is what it is attached to. The attachment to it is valid even though it is a verb, because the intended meaning is its word. As for "rare" (*nazar*), it is the predicate of "its being" (*kawnuhu*).
"And the matter with *kadda* is the opposite". *Kadda* is the subject, and "the matter" (*al-amr*) is a second subject. "The opposite" (*'aksan*) is the predicate for the second subject. The second subject and its predicate are in the position of the predicate of the first subject. The connector is the pronoun in "in it" (*fihi*), meaning the matter with *kadda* is the opposite. What is the most common in its predicate? Its being stripped of *an*. The predicate being stripped of *an*.
And the summary of the matter now is that *kadda* and *'asa* share a commonality.
First: *Kadda* and *'asa* differed from *kana* in that their predicate is a present tense verb, and it is rare for anything else. They agreed in that the predicate is a present tense verb. They agreed and differed in that the most common with *'asa* is the predicate being accompanied by *an*, and with *kadda* it is the opposite.
Now look at the Qur'an:[Al-Baqarah 2:71] You will find that the predicate is stripped of *an*. And read the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Al-Baqarah 2:216] You will find that the predicate is accompanied by *an*. The Qur'an is the most eloquent of speech.
So, after *'asa*, the predicate is frequently accompanied by *an*. After *kadda*, the predicate is rarely accompanied by *an*. The apparent meaning of the author's words (may Allah have mercy on him) is that it is permissible for the predicate to be accompanied by *an* with *kadda*, and it is permissible to omit *an* with *'asa*. Yes. An example with *'asa*:
"Perhaps the hardship in which you have spent the evening *** will be" –may Allah have mercy on you– "followed by a near relief"
"Perhaps the hardship in which you have spent the evening *** will be followed by" Where is the predicate, Ibn Dawud? Are you with us or daydreaming? Where is the predicate?
The student: It will be.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the most eloquent and common form is for it to be, well, in the case of: "The soul was on the verge of overflowing over him" "The soul was on the verge of overflowing over him" Here, the report is coupled with "an," and the more common way to say it is: "The soul was on the verge of overflowing over him," is that correct? Good.
We return now to parsing the predicate, so we say:[Al-Baqarah 2:71] *Kadda* is a past tense auxiliary verb that functions like *kana*. The *waw* is a connected pronoun, built on sukun, in the position of nominative. "They do" (*yaf'ulun*) is a present tense verb, raised by the presence of the *nun*. The *waw* is the doer. The sentence of the verb and the doer is the predicate of what? The predicate of *kadda*. There is no ambiguity in this.
We say *'asa*: is a past tense auxiliary verb that functions like *kana*, meaning it raises the subject and accusses the predicate. Where is its subject? Its subject is a hidden pronoun of the matter (*al-shan*). "Perhaps the matter is your hatred of something."
And *an*: is a particle of verbal noun.
And "you hate" (*takrahu*): is a present tense verb, accussed by *an*, and the sign of its accusative is the deletion of the *nun*. The *waw* is the doer.
And "something" (*shay'an*): is the object of "you hate." *An* and what it entered upon are in the interpretation of a verbal noun, which is the predicate of *'asa*. The estimation is: "Perhaps the matter is your hatred of something, and it is better for you." Yes... Then he said:
We return a fourth time. The difference between *kadda* and *'asa* in meaning: are they for nearness or what?
We say: As for *kadda*, it is for nearness. And as for *'asa*, it is for hope. So they also differ in this aspect in meaning. *Kadda* is for nearness, right? And *'asa* is for hope.
Good, *kadda*. The student understands.
The student: For nearness.
The Shaykh : For nearness. You explain it to him in *Al-Afiyyah*, and it means he is pushing himself, but he nearly understands. Among the students, there are those who understand less than these. I say: "Perhaps the student, what? That he understands." "Perhaps that he understands." There is a difference between the two expressions. It is famous among some grammarians that affirming *kadda* is negation, and negating it is affirmation. This is famous: affirming *kadda* is negation, and negating it is affirmation. So if you say: "Zayd nearly does it," he did not do it. The sentence indicates that he did not do it, right?
The student: Yes, correct.
The Shaykh : Here, how?
The student: We have [one] for whom this is famous.
The Shaykh : Yes, *kadda* does it, but did he do it? Good. They said: So we negate the action, and it is affirmed, so its negation is affirmation.
The student: Its affirmation is negation.
The Shaykh : And they said: Yes, its affirmation is negation. And they said that its negation is affirmation. So if it is said: "He did not nearly see her," he saw her. "He did not nearly see her," so he saw her. "He did not nearly do it," so he is a doer, but he did not nearly [do it].[Al-Baqarah 2:71] So its negation is affirmation.
But the correct view is the opposite. The correct view is that it is like other verbs: its affirmation is affirmation, and its negation is negation. It is not possible for its negation to be affirmation except by a circumstance, and circumstances have their own conditions. This is what Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) preferred in *Al-Mughni*, and it is correct. So for example, if I say: "The student nearly understood," correct, he did not understand, but does *kadda* indicate that he understood or that he neared understanding?
The student: He neared understanding.
The Shaykh : That he neared understanding. So if I say: "He nearly understood," it means he is close to understanding. Is this affirmation or negation? Affirmation. So its affirmation is affirmation. If I say "He nearly understood," it means he did not understand, but he neared. And this is the indication of the word *kadda*. Clear, everyone? Good. His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:71] [Al-Baqarah 2:71] They said: "They slaughtered it." And Allah says: [Al-Baqarah 2:71] And they had done it. We say: Glory be to Allah, we understood that they did it, not from "and they did not nearly do it." We understood it from His saying: "They did it" as it is, meaning they did not near doing it. They did not near doing it, but after much back and forth, they did it. So His saying: [Al-Baqarah 2:71] This is a condemnation of them, meaning that they did it after they nearly did not do it. And as for His saying, the Exalted: [An-Nur 24:40] Does it mean that he saw it? According to their claim, he saw it, but the verse does not indicate this. In a deep, vast sea, waves above it, waves above it, clouds, darknesses some above others. Is it possible for him to see his hand? Or to near seeing his hand? Or to near seeing his hand? So its negation is what? Negation. And this is the reality. But because when a person says: "He did not nearly do it," he thinks that *kadda* is focused on the action, and the action...
We will parse the verse first.
"Being" (*kawn*): is the subject, and its predicate is "rare" (*nazar*), which is a verbal noun of *kana*, so it functions like *kana*. What is the name of this verbal noun? The name of this verbal noun is the pronoun *hu* in his phrase "and its being" (*wa kawnuhu*), so it is attached to the noun. And "without *an*" (*bi-dun an*) is the predicate, the predicate of *kawn*, and it is a preposition and its object, connected to a deleted predicate of *kawn*.
"Without" (*bi-dun*): is attached, and *an* is what it is attached to. The attachment to it is valid even though it is a particle, because the intended meaning is the word itself.
"After *'asa*" (*ba'da 'asa*): is an adverb of time, also connected to a deleted word. "Its being without *an* after *'asa*" means occurring, so it is a circumstantial phrase (*hal*) for the deleted word, which becomes a circumstantial phrase. "After" (*ba'da*) is attached, and *'asa* is what it is attached to. The attachment to it is valid even though it is a verb, because the intended meaning is its word. As for "rare" (*nazar*), it is the predicate of "its being" (*kawnuhu*).
"And the matter with *kadda* is the opposite". *Kadda* is the subject, and "the matter" (*al-amr*) is a second subject. "The opposite" (*'aksan*) is the predicate for the second subject. The second subject and its predicate are in the position of the predicate of the first subject. The connector is the pronoun in "in it" (*fihi*), meaning the matter with *kadda* is the opposite. What is the most common in its predicate? Its being stripped of *an*. The predicate being stripped of *an*.
And the summary of the matter now is that *kadda* and *'asa* share a commonality.
First: *Kadda* and *'asa* differed from *kana* in that their predicate is a present tense verb, and it is rare for anything else. They agreed in that the predicate is a present tense verb. They agreed and differed in that the most common with *'asa* is the predicate being accompanied by *an*, and with *kadda* it is the opposite.
Now look at the Qur'an:
but they could hardly do it.
وما كادوا يفعلونhe could hardly see it
لم يكد يراهاBut perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you
وعسى أن تكرهوا شيئاً وهو خيراً لكمSo, after *'asa*, the predicate is frequently accompanied by *an*. After *kadda*, the predicate is rarely accompanied by *an*. The apparent meaning of the author's words (may Allah have mercy on him) is that it is permissible for the predicate to be accompanied by *an* with *kadda*, and it is permissible to omit *an* with *'asa*. Yes. An example with *'asa*:
"Perhaps the hardship in which you have spent the evening *** will be" –may Allah have mercy on you– "followed by a near relief"
"Perhaps the hardship in which you have spent the evening *** will be followed by" Where is the predicate, Ibn Dawud? Are you with us or daydreaming? Where is the predicate?
The student: It will be.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the most eloquent and common form is for it to be, well, in the case of: "The soul was on the verge of overflowing over him" "The soul was on the verge of overflowing over him" Here, the report is coupled with "an," and the more common way to say it is: "The soul was on the verge of overflowing over him," is that correct? Good.
We return now to parsing the predicate, so we say:
but they could hardly do it.
وما كادوا يفعلونPerhaps you will hate something.
عسى أن تكرهوا شيئاًPerhaps you will hate something.
عسى أن تكرهوا شيئاًWe say *'asa*: is a past tense auxiliary verb that functions like *kana*, meaning it raises the subject and accusses the predicate. Where is its subject? Its subject is a hidden pronoun of the matter (*al-shan*). "Perhaps the matter is your hatred of something."
And *an*: is a particle of verbal noun.
And "you hate" (*takrahu*): is a present tense verb, accussed by *an*, and the sign of its accusative is the deletion of the *nun*. The *waw* is the doer.
And "something" (*shay'an*): is the object of "you hate." *An* and what it entered upon are in the interpretation of a verbal noun, which is the predicate of *'asa*. The estimation is: "Perhaps the matter is your hatred of something, and it is better for you." Yes... Then he said:
We return a fourth time. The difference between *kadda* and *'asa* in meaning: are they for nearness or what?
We say: As for *kadda*, it is for nearness. And as for *'asa*, it is for hope. So they also differ in this aspect in meaning. *Kadda* is for nearness, right? And *'asa* is for hope.
Good, *kadda*. The student understands.
The student: For nearness.
The Shaykh : For nearness. You explain it to him in *Al-Afiyyah*, and it means he is pushing himself, but he nearly understands. Among the students, there are those who understand less than these. I say: "Perhaps the student, what? That he understands." "Perhaps that he understands." There is a difference between the two expressions. It is famous among some grammarians that affirming *kadda* is negation, and negating it is affirmation. This is famous: affirming *kadda* is negation, and negating it is affirmation. So if you say: "Zayd nearly does it," he did not do it. The sentence indicates that he did not do it, right?
The student: Yes, correct.
The Shaykh : Here, how?
The student: We have [one] for whom this is famous.
The Shaykh : Yes, *kadda* does it, but did he do it? Good. They said: So we negate the action, and it is affirmed, so its negation is affirmation.
The student: Its affirmation is negation.
The Shaykh : And they said: Yes, its affirmation is negation. And they said that its negation is affirmation. So if it is said: "He did not nearly see her," he saw her. "He did not nearly see her," so he saw her. "He did not nearly do it," so he is a doer, but he did not nearly [do it].
So they slaughtered her, but they could hardly do it.
فذبحوها وما كادوا يفعلونBut the correct view is the opposite. The correct view is that it is like other verbs: its affirmation is affirmation, and its negation is negation. It is not possible for its negation to be affirmation except by a circumstance, and circumstances have their own conditions. This is what Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) preferred in *Al-Mughni*, and it is correct. So for example, if I say: "The student nearly understood," correct, he did not understand, but does *kadda* indicate that he understood or that he neared understanding?
The student: He neared understanding.
The Shaykh : That he neared understanding. So if I say: "He nearly understood," it means he is close to understanding. Is this affirmation or negation? Affirmation. So its affirmation is affirmation. If I say "He nearly understood," it means he did not understand, but he neared. And this is the indication of the word *kadda*. Clear, everyone? Good. His saying, the Exalted: