Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And perhaps it is dispensed with if it becomes clear *** what the speaker intended, relying on it."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said:
"And perhaps it is dispensed with if it becomes clear *** what the speaker intended, relying on it"
This means that perhaps it is dispensed with; we will parse the verse.
"Perhaps": This can be interpreted as indicating multiplication, or it can be interpreted as indicating diminution.
"Dispensed with it": That is, the lam is dispensed with. Is "dispensed with" a present tense verb or a past tense verb? It is a past tense verb built for the passive voice because its actor was not named, and "with it" is a preposition and its object, in the position of the substitute for the actor.
"And if it becomes clear": "If" is conditional, and "becomes clear" is the verb of the condition, meaning it appears.
"What the speaker intended": "What" is the subject of "becomes clear," "the speaker" is the beginning of the sentence, and "intended" is the predicate of the beginning of the sentence.
"Relying": This is a state describing the actor of "intended."
Now, the meaning is: Perhaps the lam is dispensed with, so the lam does not come with the omission if the meaning becomes clear. If the meaning becomes clear, then it is not obligatory to bring the lam. But by what does the meaning become clear? By the context. The meaning becomes clear by the context. An example of that is:
"I am the son of those who refuse oppression from the family of Malik *** And if Malik were the noblest of minerals"
"I am the son of those who refuse oppression" "Abu'at" is the plural of "Abi," which means the one who refuses. So I mean I am among those who refuse oppression, who do not accept oppression, from the family of Malik. "And if Malik were the noblest of minerals" This "if" is a lightened form of the heavy "if." Is it omitted or operative? It is omitted, and there is no lam in its predicate. There is no lam in its predicate. How can there be no lam in its predicate if it is omitted? We say because the meaning is clear. If you made "if" mean "that," the beginning of the speech would contradict its end. In the beginning, he boasts that he is from the family of Malik, then he says: And that Malik was not the noblest of minerals. Is that possible or not? It is not possible, it is not correct. In the beginning, he boasts of Malik, then he disparages Malik, meaning that it is not noble in minerals. Therefore, it is established that "if" here is what?
The student: A lightened form.
The Shaykh : A lightened form of the heavy "if." It is established that it must be a lightened form of the heavy "if." Now, if
We say that if it is made operative, there is no need to bring the lam, why? Because the meaning is clear. Now, if someone said: "If Musa, yes, if Musa is intelligent," and we have a student named Musa, and we said "If Musa is intelligent," and I said that I am making it operative, that "if" is a lightened form of the heavy "if," and Musa is its name.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We say here that it is not permissible, even if you make it operative, because the fathah does not appear on "Musa." So Ibn Malik's saying: "If it is not omitted" is restricted to the case where the sign of inflection appears on the name. But if it does not appear, then it is not clear, even if you make it operative, it is not clear.
And likewise, if its name is dual and we are bound by a language that mandates the alif absolutely, then the lam is necessary due to the lack of clarity. And likewise, if the name is built, then the lam is necessary. And the truth is that these forms, although they appear to a person as if Ibn Malik did not mention them, he mentioned them by his saying: "And perhaps it is dispensed with" what? "If it becomes clear *** what the speaker intended, relying on it" And it is known that what the movements do not appear on, one does not know what the speaker intended. And likewise if it is built. And likewise if its inflection does not differ between the nominative and the accusative.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The context is sufficient. The context is sufficient. For this reason, he said:
"And perhaps it is dispensed with if it becomes clear *** what the speaker intended, relying on it"
Did you understand, Sa'd?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, "Karam" is not "Kara'im" because "Kara'im" is used to describe sheep. Yes.
"And perhaps it is dispensed with if it becomes clear *** what the speaker intended, relying on it"
This means that perhaps it is dispensed with; we will parse the verse.
"Perhaps": This can be interpreted as indicating multiplication, or it can be interpreted as indicating diminution.
"Dispensed with it": That is, the lam is dispensed with. Is "dispensed with" a present tense verb or a past tense verb? It is a past tense verb built for the passive voice because its actor was not named, and "with it" is a preposition and its object, in the position of the substitute for the actor.
"And if it becomes clear": "If" is conditional, and "becomes clear" is the verb of the condition, meaning it appears.
"What the speaker intended": "What" is the subject of "becomes clear," "the speaker" is the beginning of the sentence, and "intended" is the predicate of the beginning of the sentence.
"Relying": This is a state describing the actor of "intended."
Now, the meaning is: Perhaps the lam is dispensed with, so the lam does not come with the omission if the meaning becomes clear. If the meaning becomes clear, then it is not obligatory to bring the lam. But by what does the meaning become clear? By the context. The meaning becomes clear by the context. An example of that is:
"I am the son of those who refuse oppression from the family of Malik *** And if Malik were the noblest of minerals"
"I am the son of those who refuse oppression" "Abu'at" is the plural of "Abi," which means the one who refuses. So I mean I am among those who refuse oppression, who do not accept oppression, from the family of Malik. "And if Malik were the noblest of minerals" This "if" is a lightened form of the heavy "if." Is it omitted or operative? It is omitted, and there is no lam in its predicate. There is no lam in its predicate. How can there be no lam in its predicate if it is omitted? We say because the meaning is clear. If you made "if" mean "that," the beginning of the speech would contradict its end. In the beginning, he boasts that he is from the family of Malik, then he says: And that Malik was not the noblest of minerals. Is that possible or not? It is not possible, it is not correct. In the beginning, he boasts of Malik, then he disparages Malik, meaning that it is not noble in minerals. Therefore, it is established that "if" here is what?
The student: A lightened form.
The Shaykh : A lightened form of the heavy "if." It is established that it must be a lightened form of the heavy "if." Now, if
We say that if it is made operative, there is no need to bring the lam, why? Because the meaning is clear. Now, if someone said: "If Musa, yes, if Musa is intelligent," and we have a student named Musa, and we said "If Musa is intelligent," and I said that I am making it operative, that "if" is a lightened form of the heavy "if," and Musa is its name.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We say here that it is not permissible, even if you make it operative, because the fathah does not appear on "Musa." So Ibn Malik's saying: "If it is not omitted" is restricted to the case where the sign of inflection appears on the name. But if it does not appear, then it is not clear, even if you make it operative, it is not clear.
And likewise, if its name is dual and we are bound by a language that mandates the alif absolutely, then the lam is necessary due to the lack of clarity. And likewise, if the name is built, then the lam is necessary. And the truth is that these forms, although they appear to a person as if Ibn Malik did not mention them, he mentioned them by his saying: "And perhaps it is dispensed with" what? "If it becomes clear *** what the speaker intended, relying on it" And it is known that what the movements do not appear on, one does not know what the speaker intended. And likewise if it is built. And likewise if its inflection does not differ between the nominative and the accusative.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The context is sufficient. The context is sufficient. For this reason, he said:
"And perhaps it is dispensed with if it becomes clear *** what the speaker intended, relying on it"
Did you understand, Sa'd?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, "Karam" is not "Kara'im" because "Kara'im" is used to describe sheep. Yes.