Is it obligatory to pair "in" with the lam if the meaning is not apparent?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: We said if...
The Shaykh : No, except if the meaning becomes clear, we say that the light "in" (mukhaffafah), if it is omitted, requires its predicate to be paired with the lam, unless the meaning is apparent.
The questioner : Here the meaning is apparent.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt in it. If he says: "I am the son of Abu al-Dhamm from the family of Malik", he is now boasting about them. So if he says: "And Malik was of noble lineage", is it possible to make "in" a negation and have the meaning "And Malik was not of noble lineage"? Yes, you, Sa'd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Good, good.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Repelling.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The Shaykh : No, except if the meaning becomes clear, we say that the light "in" (mukhaffafah), if it is omitted, requires its predicate to be paired with the lam, unless the meaning is apparent.
The questioner : Here the meaning is apparent.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt in it. If he says: "I am the son of Abu al-Dhamm from the family of Malik", he is now boasting about them. So if he says: "And Malik was of noble lineage", is it possible to make "in" a negation and have the meaning "And Malik was not of noble lineage"? Yes, you, Sa'd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Good, good.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Repelling.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes