Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Or you narrated it in speech, or it took the place of *** a state, like 'I visited you and I am one who has hope.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Or you narrated it in speech" To narrate it in speech means it became the object of a statement. In that case, it is broken (kasrah), like the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Maryam 19:30] Therefore, whenever "in" (inna) is the object of a statement, it is broken. Now, if I said, "O Mahjub: So-and-so said that so-and-so is standing," is that correct? What do we say?
The student: So-and-so said that so-and-so is standing.
The Shaykh : "That so-and-so is standing" because it is the object of the statement.
"Or it took the place of a state." If "in" (inna) and its clause take the place of a state, it is obligatory to break it, because in reality it occurred in the beginning, like "I visited you and I am one who has hope."
"I visited you": This is a verb and a subject. "And I am one who has hope" is a state describing the "ta" (you) in "I visited." The clause that functions as a state is, in reality, a nominal sentence that is independent. For this reason, it is obligatory to break the "in" (inna) in it. So, in how many places is "in" (inna) broken?
First, at the beginning.
Second, at the beginning of a relative clause.
Third: When it is the answer to an oath.
Fourth, when it is narrated in speech.
Fifth: When it takes the place of a state.
These are five places where the hamza of "in" (inna) is broken. If I said that the rule for breaking it is that the verbal noun (masdar) does not take its place, is that correct or not? Where do we take from that it is correct? We take from the fact that it is correct because it says it is opened (fathah) when the verbal noun takes its place. Therefore, it is broken when the verbal noun does not take its place. But these places are an explanation of a general statement. Other places may also occur, as long as the rule for us is that if the verbal noun does not take its place, it is broken. There may be others in the Arabic language. These five places are a detailing of a general statement.
[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah
قال إني عبد اللهThe student: So-and-so said that so-and-so is standing.
The Shaykh : "That so-and-so is standing" because it is the object of the statement.
"Or it took the place of a state." If "in" (inna) and its clause take the place of a state, it is obligatory to break it, because in reality it occurred in the beginning, like "I visited you and I am one who has hope."
"I visited you": This is a verb and a subject. "And I am one who has hope" is a state describing the "ta" (you) in "I visited." The clause that functions as a state is, in reality, a nominal sentence that is independent. For this reason, it is obligatory to break the "in" (inna) in it. So, in how many places is "in" (inna) broken?
First, at the beginning.
Second, at the beginning of a relative clause.
Third: When it is the answer to an oath.
Fourth, when it is narrated in speech.
Fifth: When it takes the place of a state.
These are five places where the hamza of "in" (inna) is broken. If I said that the rule for breaking it is that the verbal noun (masdar) does not take its place, is that correct or not? Where do we take from that it is correct? We take from the fact that it is correct because it says it is opened (fathah) when the verbal noun takes its place. Therefore, it is broken when the verbal noun does not take its place. But these places are an explanation of a general statement. Other places may also occur, as long as the rule for us is that if the verbal noun does not take its place, it is broken. There may be others in the Arabic language. These five places are a detailing of a general statement.