Discussion of what was previously taken from the chapter on *Inna* and its sisters.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : What are the positions where it is permissible to break the hamza of *inna* or open it? The first one, the one behind you.
The student: I
The Shaykh : You.
The student: Four positions.
The Shaykh : What are they? The first one.
The student: The first is after *idha* of suddenness.
The Shaykh : After *idha* of suddenness, meaning it is called *idha* al-faj'ah. What is the meaning of *idha* al-faj'ah?
The student: It surprises what comes after it, not what comes before it.
The Shaykh : Yes, such that it is not expected, so it comes as a surprise. The example.
The student: I saw...
The Shaykh : No, *inna* is not used here. This is an example of *idha* al-faj'ah, but we need an example with *inna*.
The student: I went out, and then *inna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : I went out, and then *inna* Zayd is standing, and it is permissible.
The student: And then *anna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : And then *anna* Zayd is standing. Now, we need to parse it according to the first way, *inna*.
The student: Shaykh, this is my first time attending.
The Shaykh : Yes, okay.
The student: I went out.
The Shaykh : No, "I went out" is a verb and a known subject. And then *inna* Zayd is standing.
The student: ... *Inna* is a particle of nominalization that makes the name accusative and the predicate nominative. Zayd is the name of *inna*, in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah on its end. Zayd is standing. Standing: the predicate of *inna*. The sentence...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: An introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : Yes, which sentence?
The student: *Inna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : And on the language of opening (fath).
The student: Our Shaykh, we say: it is in the position of genitive by addition.
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: The introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : No, he sees that *idha* is a particle, and there are two opinions regarding it.
The student: *Anna* Zayd is standing:
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: *Anna* and its name and its predicate are interpreted as a verbal noun, in the position of nominative as a subject, and the predicate is omitted, estimated to be "existing."
The Shaykh : So, Zayd's standing is existing. Now, the second position, Saud.
The student: If it occurs in the answer to an oath, and there is no *lam* in its predicate...
The Shaykh : If it occurs.
The student: In the answer to an oath.
The Shaykh : And there is not in.
The student : The predicate of "inna" (indeed)
The Shaykh : Is there another condition? Is there a second condition?
The student: That it occurs in the answer to a condition.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: And there is not in its predicate.
The Shaykh : And not in a second condition?
The student: It occurs after the verb of the oath.
The Shaykh : And the verb of the oath is mentioned.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, come on, Saud, give an example.
The student: For example, I swore.
The Shaykh : I swore.
The student: Or I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : *Anna* Zayd is standing. Now, what is the reason for the opening (fath)?
The student: The reason for the opening.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The reason for the opening is that it is interpreted as a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : What is the estimation?
The student: I swore, I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Did you swear by his standing, or on his standing?
The student: I swore on his standing.
The Shaykh : So the estimation is.
The student: I swore on Zayd's standing.
The Shaykh : Yes, I swore on Zayd's standing. And on the narration and on the way of breaking (kasr)?
The student: And on the way of breaking.
The Shaykh : I swore that *inna* Zayd is standing.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : 'Abd.
The student: An introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : It becomes an introductory sentence, is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, if the oath is not mentioned, then breaking (kasr) is obligatory, whether the *lam* is mentioned or not. This is the position of the Basrans, and they weakened the position of the Kufans who said that breaking is permissible with the omission of the verb of the oath, and they said that this is not correct and has not been transmitted. Yes.
The student: An example of this oath.
The Shaykh : Ah
The student: An example of this oath.
The Shaykh : By Allah, *inna* Zayd is standing. By Allah, *inna* Zayd is standing. And it is not permissible to say "By Allah, *anna* Zayd," because there is no reason for the opening. But if the verb is mentioned, the opening has a reason because the related thing is mentioned, and the cause for opening the hamza is omitted, which is "on." I swore on *anna* Zayd is standing. Now, the third position.
The student: If it occurs after the *fa* of the condition.
The Shaykh : After the *fa* of the condition. Here is its example.
The student: Whoever comes to me, *fa-inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Whoever comes to me, *fa-inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : Good, and it is permissible.
The student: *Fa-anna* he.
The Shaykh : *Fa-anna* he is honored. What is the reason for the breaking?
The student: That it is an introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : Yes, the reason for the opening.
The student: That it is a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : A verbal noun, and the predicate.
The student: So his honoring is existing.
The Shaykh : The predicate is omitted. Now, we need an example from the Book of Allah, Khalid.
The student: His saying, Exalted is He:[Al-An'am 6:54] They read
The Shaykh : There are two readings in it: *fa-anna* and *fa-inna*. Now, the fourth position, or the fifth? The fourth, Sharaf.
The student: "In the like of 'The best of speech is that I praise'"
The Shaykh : Analyze this example so that we can measure by it, because he said: "In the like of 'The best of speech'"
The student: For example, "The best of speech is that I praise" allows both "The best of speech is *anna* I praise" and "The best of speech is *inna* I praise."
The Shaykh : Yes, but his saying "in the like of," analyze this.
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : Like what?
The student: Like saying: "The best of speech is that I praise."
The Shaykh : Now, suppose the subject is not "speech."
The student: Which subject?
The Shaykh : The one that is "best." "The best of speech" is now "speech," and "that I praise" is also a sentence of speech. But suppose you say "The best of the situation is that I eat," there is no "speech" in the subject nor in the sentence.
The student: There is no "speech."
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "Speech" is necessary.
The Shaykh : So the subject must be "speech" and the predicate of *inna*.
The student : The predicate of "inna" (indeed)
The Shaykh : The statement
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because of his saying: "that I praise." Now, what is the reason for the breaking?
The student: The breaking is because it is an introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: And the opening is because it is a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : That the sentence.
The student: Is interpreted as a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : Interpreted as a verbal noun, and the predicate is omitted. As for the first one, they said that the reason is that this sentence occurred as the predicate of the subject and did not need a connector because it is the meaning of the subject. And Ibn Malik said previously:
"And if it is its meaning, it suffices with it ** Like 'The speech of Allah is sufficient for me and enough'" Now.
The student: Shaykh, is this example by hearing or by rule?
The Shaykh : No, by rule.
The student: What is the rule?
The Shaykh : The rule is as I said: if *inna* occurs as the predicate of "speech" and its predicate is "speech" and the doer of both speeches is the same. Now.
The student: I
The Shaykh : You.
The student: Four positions.
The Shaykh : What are they? The first one.
The student: The first is after *idha* of suddenness.
The Shaykh : After *idha* of suddenness, meaning it is called *idha* al-faj'ah. What is the meaning of *idha* al-faj'ah?
The student: It surprises what comes after it, not what comes before it.
The Shaykh : Yes, such that it is not expected, so it comes as a surprise. The example.
The student: I saw...
The Shaykh : No, *inna* is not used here. This is an example of *idha* al-faj'ah, but we need an example with *inna*.
The student: I went out, and then *inna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : I went out, and then *inna* Zayd is standing, and it is permissible.
The student: And then *anna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : And then *anna* Zayd is standing. Now, we need to parse it according to the first way, *inna*.
The student: Shaykh, this is my first time attending.
The Shaykh : Yes, okay.
The student: I went out.
The Shaykh : No, "I went out" is a verb and a known subject. And then *inna* Zayd is standing.
The student: ... *Inna* is a particle of nominalization that makes the name accusative and the predicate nominative. Zayd is the name of *inna*, in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah on its end. Zayd is standing. Standing: the predicate of *inna*. The sentence...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: An introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : Yes, which sentence?
The student: *Inna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : And on the language of opening (fath).
The student: Our Shaykh, we say: it is in the position of genitive by addition.
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: The introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : No, he sees that *idha* is a particle, and there are two opinions regarding it.
The student: *Anna* Zayd is standing:
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: *Anna* and its name and its predicate are interpreted as a verbal noun, in the position of nominative as a subject, and the predicate is omitted, estimated to be "existing."
The Shaykh : So, Zayd's standing is existing. Now, the second position, Saud.
The student: If it occurs in the answer to an oath, and there is no *lam* in its predicate...
The Shaykh : If it occurs.
The student: In the answer to an oath.
The Shaykh : And there is not in.
The student : The predicate of "inna" (indeed)
The Shaykh : Is there another condition? Is there a second condition?
The student: That it occurs in the answer to a condition.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: And there is not in its predicate.
The Shaykh : And not in a second condition?
The student: It occurs after the verb of the oath.
The Shaykh : And the verb of the oath is mentioned.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, come on, Saud, give an example.
The student: For example, I swore.
The Shaykh : I swore.
The student: Or I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : *Anna* Zayd is standing. Now, what is the reason for the opening (fath)?
The student: The reason for the opening.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The reason for the opening is that it is interpreted as a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : What is the estimation?
The student: I swore, I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Did you swear by his standing, or on his standing?
The student: I swore on his standing.
The Shaykh : So the estimation is.
The student: I swore on Zayd's standing.
The Shaykh : Yes, I swore on Zayd's standing. And on the narration and on the way of breaking (kasr)?
The student: And on the way of breaking.
The Shaykh : I swore that *inna* Zayd is standing.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : 'Abd.
The student: An introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : It becomes an introductory sentence, is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, if the oath is not mentioned, then breaking (kasr) is obligatory, whether the *lam* is mentioned or not. This is the position of the Basrans, and they weakened the position of the Kufans who said that breaking is permissible with the omission of the verb of the oath, and they said that this is not correct and has not been transmitted. Yes.
The student: An example of this oath.
The Shaykh : Ah
The student: An example of this oath.
The Shaykh : By Allah, *inna* Zayd is standing. By Allah, *inna* Zayd is standing. And it is not permissible to say "By Allah, *anna* Zayd," because there is no reason for the opening. But if the verb is mentioned, the opening has a reason because the related thing is mentioned, and the cause for opening the hamza is omitted, which is "on." I swore on *anna* Zayd is standing. Now, the third position.
The student: If it occurs after the *fa* of the condition.
The Shaykh : After the *fa* of the condition. Here is its example.
The student: Whoever comes to me, *fa-inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Whoever comes to me, *fa-inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : Good, and it is permissible.
The student: *Fa-anna* he.
The Shaykh : *Fa-anna* he is honored. What is the reason for the breaking?
The student: That it is an introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : Yes, the reason for the opening.
The student: That it is a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : A verbal noun, and the predicate.
The student: So his honoring is existing.
The Shaykh : The predicate is omitted. Now, we need an example from the Book of Allah, Khalid.
The student: His saying, Exalted is He:
Your Lord has decreed upon Himself mercy: that any of you who does wrong out of ignorance and then repents after that and corrects himself - indeed, He is Forgiving and Merciful."
كتب ربكم على نفسه أنه من عمل منكم سوءاً بجهالة ثم تاب من بعده وأصلح فأنه غفور رحيمThen He is the Forgiving.
فإنه غفورThe Shaykh : There are two readings in it: *fa-anna* and *fa-inna*. Now, the fourth position, or the fifth? The fourth, Sharaf.
The student: "In the like of 'The best of speech is that I praise'"
The Shaykh : Analyze this example so that we can measure by it, because he said: "In the like of 'The best of speech'"
The student: For example, "The best of speech is that I praise" allows both "The best of speech is *anna* I praise" and "The best of speech is *inna* I praise."
The Shaykh : Yes, but his saying "in the like of," analyze this.
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : Like what?
The student: Like saying: "The best of speech is that I praise."
The Shaykh : Now, suppose the subject is not "speech."
The student: Which subject?
The Shaykh : The one that is "best." "The best of speech" is now "speech," and "that I praise" is also a sentence of speech. But suppose you say "The best of the situation is that I eat," there is no "speech" in the subject nor in the sentence.
The student: There is no "speech."
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "Speech" is necessary.
The Shaykh : So the subject must be "speech" and the predicate of *inna*.
The student : The predicate of "inna" (indeed)
The Shaykh : The statement
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because of his saying: "that I praise." Now, what is the reason for the breaking?
The student: The breaking is because it is an introductory sentence.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: And the opening is because it is a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : That the sentence.
The student: Is interpreted as a verbal noun.
The Shaykh : Interpreted as a verbal noun, and the predicate is omitted. As for the first one, they said that the reason is that this sentence occurred as the predicate of the subject and did not need a connector because it is the meaning of the subject. And Ibn Malik said previously:
"And if it is its meaning, it suffices with it ** Like 'The speech of Allah is sufficient for me and enough'" Now.
The student: Shaykh, is this example by hearing or by rule?
The Shaykh : No, by rule.
The student: What is the rule?
The Shaykh : The rule is as I said: if *inna* occurs as the predicate of "speech" and its predicate is "speech" and the doer of both speeches is the same. Now.