Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And observe this order, except in the one *** where the predicate is a prepositional phrase or an adverb, other than the one."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : For this reason, he said: "And observe this order"
"Observe" is an imperative verb, and the imperative implies obligation. It is built on the deletion of the yā' and the kasrah before it is a sign of it, and the original form is "observe" (rā'i).
"This order": "This"
The student: A demonstrative noun...
The Shaykh : Yes, it is in the accusative case.
The student: And the sign of its accusative case is the alif because it is one of the five nouns.
The Shaykh : The alif because it is one of the five nouns, and the meaning is: "And observe the possessor of the order."
The student: ... a demonstrative noun.
The Shaykh : ... a demonstrative noun, yes.
"And observe this order": "This" is a demonstrative noun, built on sukūn in the position of the accusative case, and "order" is a noun in the genitive case, with "this" being the noun it is attached to and "order" being the noun it is attached to.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, correct, wrong. "This order" is a substitute for "that," except in the one, meaning "except in the one *** where the predicate is a prepositional phrase or an adverb, other than the one"
"May it be in it other than the one": "May it be in it other than the one." Here we have placed the predicate before the subject because the predicate is a prepositional phrase.
"May it be here other than the one": We placed the predicate first because it is an adverb.
So it is obligatory in "in" and its sisters that the subject precede the predicate, except if the predicate is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, in which case it is permissible for it to precede, it is permissible for it to precede.
If someone asks, what is the difference between "kāna" and "in"?
We say that "kāna" is a verb, so it is stronger in its grammatical effect than "in" and its sisters. Pay attention, the effect of verbs is stronger than the effect of particles, without doubt. Therefore, if the subject of "in" is separated from it, its effect is nullified, so it must be immediately followed by it in order to what? To be strong enough to exert its effect. Unlike "kāna" and its sisters, which are verbs, and verbs are the original source of grammatical effects, so they are strong enough to exert their effect on their subject even if it is delayed from them. But the prepositional phrase, the prepositional phrase, as Allah wills, its matter is easy, light-hearted. Put it at the end, it says "welcome and easy." Put it in the middle, "welcome and easy." Put it at the beginning, "welcome and easy." It means easy and flexible. So if the predicate is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, then what? Is it permissible or obligatory? It is permissible for it to precede, but it is not obligatory. You say "In is Zayd with you," or "In with you is Zayd."
The predicate was placed first because it is a prepositional phrase. Good.
[Al-Muzzammil 73:12] The predicate was placed first because it is
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, because it is an adverb. "In we have shackles" is an adverb.
Good, so what is the ruling on the order between the subject of "in" and its predicate? It is obligatory, according to the words of Ibn Malik: "And observe this order", right? Except if it is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, in which case it is permissible to place it first. Good, and is it permissible for it to precede the particle? No, even if it is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, it is not permissible to say "In is Zayd" or "Here is Zayd." And that is because the effect in particles is what? Weak. It is not strong enough to exert its effect on what precedes it. Clear? The poet says:
"As if I am from the news of 'in', and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"
Is this person modest or pessimistic? Which one? Yes.
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second one says:
"As if I am from the news of 'in', and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"
Is he pessimistic or modest? Or according to the circumstances? Make it according to the circumstances, because perhaps in one of the gatherings he says, "Come forward, so-and-so," at the head of the gathering, and he says, "No, I will not come forward." "As if I am from the news of 'in', and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"
This person is being modest, he is being modest. He might be being pessimistic, and this is the apparent meaning, but the apparent meaning changes with the circumstances. But is this verse absolute in its statement: "and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"?
The student: ... the adverb.
The Shaykh : What is excepted from it? The adverb and the prepositional phrase are excepted. Good. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) came with the example, making it sufficient for the ruling, and this is considered a form of conciseness. To come with the example and derive the ruling from it, to come with the example and derive the ruling from it. And this is from the man's ability to come with the example so that the ruling is derived from it. But better than that is what? To come with the ruling and then follow it with the example. This is the best. Then he said: "And the hamza of 'in' is opened to block a source ***" We will start, leave it for the next lesson, if Allah wills.
Good, if I said: "In the house is its owner," what is the ruling on placing the predicate first here? It is obligatory. Why?
The student: Because "its owner" is connected to... owner.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Connected to...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: It is obligatory to place first... because the pronoun returns to...
The Shaykh : Yes, it is obligatory to place the predicate first because "its owner" refers back to "the house." So if it were placed first and it were said "In its owner is in the house," the pronoun would refer back to something that is delayed in both word and rank, and this is not permissible.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, "In its owner is in the house." "The house" is delayed relative to "owner"... why?
The student: Because "its owner"...
The Shaykh : Yes, why is it delayed in rank relative to it? Because the predicate of "in" is delayed from its subject, and the rank of the predicate of "in" is delay. Clear? Good, in word. Now it is advanced. If I said "its owner," it became advanced over "in the house" in both word and rank. So the pronoun would be referring back to something that is delayed in both word and rank, and this is not permissible. Good, if the pronoun referred back to something that is delayed in word but not in rank, is it permissible or not? The pronoun referred back to something that is delayed in word but not in rank? Is it permissible?
The student: Meaning it referred back to...
The Shaykh : That is another matter. If the pronoun referred back to something that is delayed in rank but not in word.
The student: Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If the pronoun referred back to—this is the question—something that is delayed in word but not in rank.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible
The student: It is not possible
The Shaykh : It is not possible. Allah the Exalted said:
The student: His Lord.
The Shaykh : His Lord. The pronoun refers back to what?
The student: Advanced in word.
The Shaykh : Now the pronoun referred back to something that is advanced in word but not in rank. Clear? So it is permissible for the pronoun to refer back to something that is advanced in word but not in rank. Good.
So what is the rule now that is prohibited? That the pronoun refers back to something that is delayed in both word and rank. This is what is prohibited, except that some matters are excepted, such as: "His Lord, a man," and the like. Except them, or the original rule is this.
"Observe" is an imperative verb, and the imperative implies obligation. It is built on the deletion of the yā' and the kasrah before it is a sign of it, and the original form is "observe" (rā'i).
"This order": "This"
The student: A demonstrative noun...
The Shaykh : Yes, it is in the accusative case.
The student: And the sign of its accusative case is the alif because it is one of the five nouns.
The Shaykh : The alif because it is one of the five nouns, and the meaning is: "And observe the possessor of the order."
The student: ... a demonstrative noun.
The Shaykh : ... a demonstrative noun, yes.
"And observe this order": "This" is a demonstrative noun, built on sukūn in the position of the accusative case, and "order" is a noun in the genitive case, with "this" being the noun it is attached to and "order" being the noun it is attached to.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, correct, wrong. "This order" is a substitute for "that," except in the one, meaning "except in the one *** where the predicate is a prepositional phrase or an adverb, other than the one"
"May it be in it other than the one": "May it be in it other than the one." Here we have placed the predicate before the subject because the predicate is a prepositional phrase.
"May it be here other than the one": We placed the predicate first because it is an adverb.
So it is obligatory in "in" and its sisters that the subject precede the predicate, except if the predicate is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, in which case it is permissible for it to precede, it is permissible for it to precede.
If someone asks, what is the difference between "kāna" and "in"?
We say that "kāna" is a verb, so it is stronger in its grammatical effect than "in" and its sisters. Pay attention, the effect of verbs is stronger than the effect of particles, without doubt. Therefore, if the subject of "in" is separated from it, its effect is nullified, so it must be immediately followed by it in order to what? To be strong enough to exert its effect. Unlike "kāna" and its sisters, which are verbs, and verbs are the original source of grammatical effects, so they are strong enough to exert their effect on their subject even if it is delayed from them. But the prepositional phrase, the prepositional phrase, as Allah wills, its matter is easy, light-hearted. Put it at the end, it says "welcome and easy." Put it in the middle, "welcome and easy." Put it at the beginning, "welcome and easy." It means easy and flexible. So if the predicate is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, then what? Is it permissible or obligatory? It is permissible for it to precede, but it is not obligatory. You say "In is Zayd with you," or "In with you is Zayd."
Indeed, in that is a lesson
إن في ذلك لعبرةIndeed, with Us [for them] are shackles
إن لدينا أنكالاًThe student: ...
The Shaykh : No, because it is an adverb. "In we have shackles" is an adverb.
Good, so what is the ruling on the order between the subject of "in" and its predicate? It is obligatory, according to the words of Ibn Malik: "And observe this order", right? Except if it is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, in which case it is permissible to place it first. Good, and is it permissible for it to precede the particle? No, even if it is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, it is not permissible to say "In is Zayd" or "Here is Zayd." And that is because the effect in particles is what? Weak. It is not strong enough to exert its effect on what precedes it. Clear? The poet says:
"As if I am from the news of 'in', and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"
Is this person modest or pessimistic? Which one? Yes.
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second one says:
"As if I am from the news of 'in', and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"
Is he pessimistic or modest? Or according to the circumstances? Make it according to the circumstances, because perhaps in one of the gatherings he says, "Come forward, so-and-so," at the head of the gathering, and he says, "No, I will not come forward." "As if I am from the news of 'in', and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"
This person is being modest, he is being modest. He might be being pessimistic, and this is the apparent meaning, but the apparent meaning changes with the circumstances. But is this verse absolute in its statement: "and it is not permissible for any one in grammar to precede it"?
The student: ... the adverb.
The Shaykh : What is excepted from it? The adverb and the prepositional phrase are excepted. Good. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) came with the example, making it sufficient for the ruling, and this is considered a form of conciseness. To come with the example and derive the ruling from it, to come with the example and derive the ruling from it. And this is from the man's ability to come with the example so that the ruling is derived from it. But better than that is what? To come with the ruling and then follow it with the example. This is the best. Then he said: "And the hamza of 'in' is opened to block a source ***" We will start, leave it for the next lesson, if Allah wills.
Good, if I said: "In the house is its owner," what is the ruling on placing the predicate first here? It is obligatory. Why?
The student: Because "its owner" is connected to... owner.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Connected to...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: It is obligatory to place first... because the pronoun returns to...
The Shaykh : Yes, it is obligatory to place the predicate first because "its owner" refers back to "the house." So if it were placed first and it were said "In its owner is in the house," the pronoun would refer back to something that is delayed in both word and rank, and this is not permissible.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, "In its owner is in the house." "The house" is delayed relative to "owner"... why?
The student: Because "its owner"...
The Shaykh : Yes, why is it delayed in rank relative to it? Because the predicate of "in" is delayed from its subject, and the rank of the predicate of "in" is delay. Clear? Good, in word. Now it is advanced. If I said "its owner," it became advanced over "in the house" in both word and rank. So the pronoun would be referring back to something that is delayed in both word and rank, and this is not permissible. Good, if the pronoun referred back to something that is delayed in word but not in rank, is it permissible or not? The pronoun referred back to something that is delayed in word but not in rank? Is it permissible?
The student: Meaning it referred back to...
The Shaykh : That is another matter. If the pronoun referred back to something that is delayed in rank but not in word.
The student: Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If the pronoun referred back to—this is the question—something that is delayed in word but not in rank.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible
The student: It is not possible
The Shaykh : It is not possible. Allah the Exalted said:
And when Abraham was tested
وإذ ابتلى ابراهيمThe student: His Lord.
The Shaykh : His Lord. The pronoun refers back to what?
And when Abraham was tested by his Lord
وإذ ابتلى إبراهيم ربهThe student: Advanced in word.
The Shaykh : Now the pronoun referred back to something that is advanced in word but not in rank. Clear? So it is permissible for the pronoun to refer back to something that is advanced in word but not in rank. Good.
So what is the rule now that is prohibited? That the pronoun refers back to something that is delayed in both word and rank. This is what is prohibited, except that some matters are excepted, such as: "His Lord, a man," and the like. Except them, or the original rule is this.