Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And do not place after the one with the lam what has been negated *** Nor from the verbs what is like raziya."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And do not place after the one with the lam what has been negated ***"
"And do not place after the one with the lam": "the one with the lam" is a demonstrative noun, built on sukun, in the position of a fronted object; and "what" is the delayed subject, which is a relative pronoun. "And has been negated" is the relative clause of the relative pronoun. "Nor from the verbs" to the end of it.
He means that the lam of inception that occurs in the predicate of "inna" is not followed by what is negated. Why? Because the lam is for emphasis, and negation is for the absence of emphasis. The lam indicates confirmed affirmation, and negation is the opposite of that. So it is not possible to combine a thing with its opposite or its contrary. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say: "Inna Zaydan laqama" (Indeed Zayd did stand). How? "Inna Zaydan laqama" is a negation and this is an affirmation, so it is not correct. Some grammarians said that it is correct, and that this would be an emphasis of the negation, not an emphasis of the affirmation. And some of them said that what is prohibited is the negation particle, not the word indicating negation, so it is permissible to say "Inna Zaydan li-ghayri fahim" (Indeed Zayd is not a comprehender), but it is not permissible to say "Inna Zaydan li-ma fahima" (Indeed Zayd did not comprehend), because "ma" with the lam is manifestly contradictory, unlike "ghayr" and its like. But the famous view, which Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) followed, is that anything that indicates negation cannot be combined with the lam of what? With the lam of emphasis. This is one point.
He said: "Nor from the verbs what is like raziya", meaning nor is it followed by any of the verbs that is like "raziya," i.e., that is like "raziya." And his saying: "what is like raziya", it is permissible for us to make the kaf here a noun, to make it a noun and say "what is like raziya," i.e., what is like "raziya," and it would be in the position of a raised subject, and the subject is omitted, and the sentence is the relative clause of the relative pronoun, i.e., what is like "raziya." And it is permissible for us to make it a preposition, and the intended meaning by his saying "raziya," the intended meaning is the word, so it would be included in the verb considering its word, and the preposition and the genitive would be the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., what is like "raziya."
Let us look at "raziya" and we will find that it is a verb, and that it is past tense, and that it is a variable verb. So we take from this the rule that it does not enter the predicate of "inna" if it is a past tense variable verb. So by our saying "if it is a verb," we exclude what if it is a noun, and that has been mentioned before. By "past tense," we exclude what if it is a present tense verb, like: "Inna Zaydan layaqumu" (Indeed Zayd will stand). And is this permissible or not permissible?
The student: Not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, yes, because it is prohibited for it to be a past tense verb.
And by our saying: "variable," we exclude what if it is not variable, like: "Inna Zaydan la-asa an yahuma" (Indeed Zayd is likely to comprehend), because "asa" is a fixed verb, so it is permissible for the lam to be associated with it. So we took the rule from what? From the example he gave, "what is like raziya." Then he said.
"And do not place after the one with the lam": "the one with the lam" is a demonstrative noun, built on sukun, in the position of a fronted object; and "what" is the delayed subject, which is a relative pronoun. "And has been negated" is the relative clause of the relative pronoun. "Nor from the verbs" to the end of it.
He means that the lam of inception that occurs in the predicate of "inna" is not followed by what is negated. Why? Because the lam is for emphasis, and negation is for the absence of emphasis. The lam indicates confirmed affirmation, and negation is the opposite of that. So it is not possible to combine a thing with its opposite or its contrary. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say: "Inna Zaydan laqama" (Indeed Zayd did stand). How? "Inna Zaydan laqama" is a negation and this is an affirmation, so it is not correct. Some grammarians said that it is correct, and that this would be an emphasis of the negation, not an emphasis of the affirmation. And some of them said that what is prohibited is the negation particle, not the word indicating negation, so it is permissible to say "Inna Zaydan li-ghayri fahim" (Indeed Zayd is not a comprehender), but it is not permissible to say "Inna Zaydan li-ma fahima" (Indeed Zayd did not comprehend), because "ma" with the lam is manifestly contradictory, unlike "ghayr" and its like. But the famous view, which Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) followed, is that anything that indicates negation cannot be combined with the lam of what? With the lam of emphasis. This is one point.
He said: "Nor from the verbs what is like raziya", meaning nor is it followed by any of the verbs that is like "raziya," i.e., that is like "raziya." And his saying: "what is like raziya", it is permissible for us to make the kaf here a noun, to make it a noun and say "what is like raziya," i.e., what is like "raziya," and it would be in the position of a raised subject, and the subject is omitted, and the sentence is the relative clause of the relative pronoun, i.e., what is like "raziya." And it is permissible for us to make it a preposition, and the intended meaning by his saying "raziya," the intended meaning is the word, so it would be included in the verb considering its word, and the preposition and the genitive would be the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., what is like "raziya."
Let us look at "raziya" and we will find that it is a verb, and that it is past tense, and that it is a variable verb. So we take from this the rule that it does not enter the predicate of "inna" if it is a past tense variable verb. So by our saying "if it is a verb," we exclude what if it is a noun, and that has been mentioned before. By "past tense," we exclude what if it is a present tense verb, like: "Inna Zaydan layaqumu" (Indeed Zayd will stand). And is this permissible or not permissible?
The student: Not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, yes, because it is prohibited for it to be a past tense verb.
And by our saying: "variable," we exclude what if it is not variable, like: "Inna Zaydan la-asa an yahuma" (Indeed Zayd is likely to comprehend), because "asa" is a fixed verb, so it is permissible for the lam to be associated with it. So we took the rule from what? From the example he gave, "what is like raziya." Then he said.