Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And you lightened *in* if its work is little *** and the *lam* is obligatory if it is neglected."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: In explaining the rulings of these *nawasikh* (particles that put the subject in the accusative and raise the predicate), many rulings have preceded, among them this ruling which he has just begun.
He said: "And you lightened *in* if its work is little". We begin first with the grammatical analysis:
*Khaffafat* (you lightened): A past tense verb, with the *ta* for the feminine, and the verb is built for the passive because its agent was not named.
*Wa-in* (and *in*): It is the passive agent in terms of its form.
"So its work is little". The *fa* is a conjunction, and it is either dependent on what came before or causal.
*Al-'amal* (the work): The *al* here is for mental reference, meaning "so its work is little." Thus, the *al* here stands in place of the pronoun, and *al-'amal* is the subject.
"And the *lam* is obligatory if it is neglected". "The *lam* is obligatory." The *lam* here could be the *lam* of the genus, it could be the *al* of the genus, or it could be for reference. If we say it is for reference, then the *lam* here is the *lam* of the beginning, which enters the predicate of *in*. And if we say it is for the genus, then the *lam* here is a new *lam* brought in to distinguish between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*.
In any case,
the *lam* is the subject.
*Idha* (if) is conditional.
And *ma* is superfluous.
*Tuhmal* (it is neglected): A verb, and it is built for the passive because its agent was not named, and the passive agent is hidden, referring back to the *lam*. It refers back to *in*.
We said *ma* is superfluous because it occurred after *idha*, and it has been said:
"O seeker, take a benefit *** *ma* after *idha* is superfluous". Yes.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "You lightened *in*". Who lightened it? The Arabs lightened it. The Arabs lightened it, not the grammarians, because grammarians cannot manipulate the Arabic language. They analyze the Arabic language, but they do not manipulate it. So, those who lightened it are the Arabs.
"So its work is little", meaning its work is little. This implies and "its neglect is frequent". If the work is little, it means neglect is frequent. So we benefit from this: if *in* is lightened, two options are permissible in it: its use (making it operative), which is the lesser, and its neglect, which is the greater. It is clear. If you make it operative, the matter is clear. You say: *In Zaydan qayyum* (In Zayd is standing). *In Zaydan qayyum* now is operative, operative. *In Zaydan qayyum*, like saying *Inna Zaydan qayyum* (Indeed Zayd is standing).
Neglect: you say *In Zaydun qayyum* (In Zayd is standing). *In Zaydun qayyum*, so here it is neglected.
The author says: "The lam is obligatory if it is neglected", so you must say: "Inna Zaydan laqayyim", as an obligation. "Inna Zaydan laqayyim," because I said the lam is obligatory when it is neglected. But if it is made active, it is not obligatory. Why is it obligatory when neglected and not obligatory when active? Because the obligation of the lam is for the sake of distinguishing it from the negating "inna." If it is made active, the ambiguity is removed.
An example of that? *In Zaydun qayyum*. Am I now negating his standing or affirming his standing? We do not know. We do not know whether you are now affirming his standing or negating his standing. *In Zaydan qayyum*, you affirm, and there is no problem. It is clear. In the first example, the first example, you must bring the *lam* and say: *In Zaydun la-qayyum* in order to distinguish between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*. The reason for this is that the negating *in* does not come with the *lam*, because the *lam* is for emphasis, and the negating *in* is for negation. So, the *lam* cannot come with *in*, with the negating *in*. Is that clear?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it not clear?
The student: Clear.
The Shaykh : No, some people say it is not clear... Come on, Ahmad. *In Zaydun qayyum*. Is this sentence negative or affirmative?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, *In Zaydun qayyum*.
The student: Negative
The Shaykh : Is *In Zaydun qayyum* me negating his standing or affirming it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : I am asking you now. Okay, is there a possibility? If I say *In Zaydan qayyum*, is there a possibility?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : There is none, because the negating *in* does not put the subject in the accusative. Okay. *In Zaydun la-qayyum*. Is there a possibility that *in* is negating? Yes... So, the *lam* here is the distinguishing *lam*. It distinguishes between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*. Is that clear? Okay.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) benefited us by stating that if *in* is lightened, it is permissible to make it operative or neglect it, or not?
The student : Yes
The Shaykh : Where do we take this from his words? From his saying: "So its work is little".
And he benefited us in the second half by stating that if it is neglected, it is obligatory to join its predicate with the *lam*. It is called the distinguishing *lam* because it distinguishes between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*. Then, is it the *lam* of the beginning or a new *lam*? There is disagreement, but it does not matter. This disagreement is not... anything.
Now, is the *lam* obligatory if it is neglected and if it is made active?
The student: It is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory. Why?
He said: "And you lightened *in* if its work is little". We begin first with the grammatical analysis:
*Khaffafat* (you lightened): A past tense verb, with the *ta* for the feminine, and the verb is built for the passive because its agent was not named.
*Wa-in* (and *in*): It is the passive agent in terms of its form.
"So its work is little". The *fa* is a conjunction, and it is either dependent on what came before or causal.
*Al-'amal* (the work): The *al* here is for mental reference, meaning "so its work is little." Thus, the *al* here stands in place of the pronoun, and *al-'amal* is the subject.
"And the *lam* is obligatory if it is neglected". "The *lam* is obligatory." The *lam* here could be the *lam* of the genus, it could be the *al* of the genus, or it could be for reference. If we say it is for reference, then the *lam* here is the *lam* of the beginning, which enters the predicate of *in*. And if we say it is for the genus, then the *lam* here is a new *lam* brought in to distinguish between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*.
In any case,
the *lam* is the subject.
*Idha* (if) is conditional.
And *ma* is superfluous.
*Tuhmal* (it is neglected): A verb, and it is built for the passive because its agent was not named, and the passive agent is hidden, referring back to the *lam*. It refers back to *in*.
We said *ma* is superfluous because it occurred after *idha*, and it has been said:
"O seeker, take a benefit *** *ma* after *idha* is superfluous". Yes.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "You lightened *in*". Who lightened it? The Arabs lightened it. The Arabs lightened it, not the grammarians, because grammarians cannot manipulate the Arabic language. They analyze the Arabic language, but they do not manipulate it. So, those who lightened it are the Arabs.
"So its work is little", meaning its work is little. This implies and "its neglect is frequent". If the work is little, it means neglect is frequent. So we benefit from this: if *in* is lightened, two options are permissible in it: its use (making it operative), which is the lesser, and its neglect, which is the greater. It is clear. If you make it operative, the matter is clear. You say: *In Zaydan qayyum* (In Zayd is standing). *In Zaydan qayyum* now is operative, operative. *In Zaydan qayyum*, like saying *Inna Zaydan qayyum* (Indeed Zayd is standing).
Neglect: you say *In Zaydun qayyum* (In Zayd is standing). *In Zaydun qayyum*, so here it is neglected.
The author says: "The lam is obligatory if it is neglected", so you must say: "Inna Zaydan laqayyim", as an obligation. "Inna Zaydan laqayyim," because I said the lam is obligatory when it is neglected. But if it is made active, it is not obligatory. Why is it obligatory when neglected and not obligatory when active? Because the obligation of the lam is for the sake of distinguishing it from the negating "inna." If it is made active, the ambiguity is removed.
An example of that? *In Zaydun qayyum*. Am I now negating his standing or affirming his standing? We do not know. We do not know whether you are now affirming his standing or negating his standing. *In Zaydan qayyum*, you affirm, and there is no problem. It is clear. In the first example, the first example, you must bring the *lam* and say: *In Zaydun la-qayyum* in order to distinguish between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*. The reason for this is that the negating *in* does not come with the *lam*, because the *lam* is for emphasis, and the negating *in* is for negation. So, the *lam* cannot come with *in*, with the negating *in*. Is that clear?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it not clear?
The student: Clear.
The Shaykh : No, some people say it is not clear... Come on, Ahmad. *In Zaydun qayyum*. Is this sentence negative or affirmative?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, *In Zaydun qayyum*.
The student: Negative
The Shaykh : Is *In Zaydun qayyum* me negating his standing or affirming it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : I am asking you now. Okay, is there a possibility? If I say *In Zaydan qayyum*, is there a possibility?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : There is none, because the negating *in* does not put the subject in the accusative. Okay. *In Zaydun la-qayyum*. Is there a possibility that *in* is negating? Yes... So, the *lam* here is the distinguishing *lam*. It distinguishes between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*. Is that clear? Okay.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) benefited us by stating that if *in* is lightened, it is permissible to make it operative or neglect it, or not?
The student : Yes
The Shaykh : Where do we take this from his words? From his saying: "So its work is little".
And he benefited us in the second half by stating that if it is neglected, it is obligatory to join its predicate with the *lam*. It is called the distinguishing *lam* because it distinguishes between the negating *in* and the lightening *in*. Then, is it the *lam* of the beginning or a new *lam*? There is disagreement, but it does not matter. This disagreement is not... anything.
Now, is the *lam* obligatory if it is neglected and if it is made active?
The student: It is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory. Why?