Summary of the explanation previously given on the verse: "Perhaps it may be dispensed with if it seems *** what the speaker intended"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Well, in any case, the summary, my brothers, is that Arabs lighten the *in* used for emphasis, and consequently, it is permissible to use it actively or to leave it inactive. The more common practice is
The student: Leaving it inactive.
The Shaykh : Leaving it inactive. If it is left inactive, it is obligatory to connect its predicate with the *lam*, unless the meaning becomes clear. If the meaning becomes clear through a contextual or verbal indication, it is permissible to omit the *lam*; otherwise, it is not. Now, a contextual indication is like when the speaker says:
"I am the son of Abu al-Dhamm from the family of Malik *** And if Malik was the noblest of lineages"
A verbal indication can be illustrated by what the brother Mansur said: "Musa is standing and 'Amr," this is a verbal indication. And also the saying of the poet: "Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight""Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight" Is this *in* a lightened one or a negative one? "Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight"
The student: A lightened one.
The Shaykh : It must be a lightened one, because it is not appropriate to say: "What is the truth not hidden from one with insight," because *la* is negative and *ma* is negative, and two negatives do not combine on one ruling due to contradiction. For this reason, the scholars consider this indication to be what? Verbal. Unlike if you said: "Indeed, the truth," because the lightened *in* from the heavy one is for affirmation, meaning "Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight," and there is no harm in that.
And the summary, so we do not bore you, is: if *in* is left inactive, what is the ruling? It is obligatory to connect its predicate with the *lam*, except if the meaning becomes clear by any means. If the meaning becomes clear, it is permissible to omit the *lam* and it is permissible to mention it. This is clear because the purpose of speech and the construction of speech is understanding the meaning. Yes.
The student: If the predicate is a past tense verb...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: If the predicate is a past tense verb
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: It is prohibited to enter the *lam* upon it.
The Shaykh : This will come to us. If the predicate is a verb, there will be conditions for it, the verb... and so on.
The student: Leaving it inactive.
The Shaykh : Leaving it inactive. If it is left inactive, it is obligatory to connect its predicate with the *lam*, unless the meaning becomes clear. If the meaning becomes clear through a contextual or verbal indication, it is permissible to omit the *lam*; otherwise, it is not. Now, a contextual indication is like when the speaker says:
"I am the son of Abu al-Dhamm from the family of Malik *** And if Malik was the noblest of lineages"
A verbal indication can be illustrated by what the brother Mansur said: "Musa is standing and 'Amr," this is a verbal indication. And also the saying of the poet: "Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight""Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight" Is this *in* a lightened one or a negative one? "Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight"
The student: A lightened one.
The Shaykh : It must be a lightened one, because it is not appropriate to say: "What is the truth not hidden from one with insight," because *la* is negative and *ma* is negative, and two negatives do not combine on one ruling due to contradiction. For this reason, the scholars consider this indication to be what? Verbal. Unlike if you said: "Indeed, the truth," because the lightened *in* from the heavy one is for affirmation, meaning "Indeed, the truth is not hidden from one with insight," and there is no harm in that.
And the summary, so we do not bore you, is: if *in* is left inactive, what is the ruling? It is obligatory to connect its predicate with the *lam*, except if the meaning becomes clear by any means. If the meaning becomes clear, it is permissible to omit the *lam* and it is permissible to mention it. This is clear because the purpose of speech and the construction of speech is understanding the meaning. Yes.
The student: If the predicate is a past tense verb...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: If the predicate is a past tense verb
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: It is prohibited to enter the *lam* upon it.
The Shaykh : This will come to us. If the predicate is a verb, there will be conditions for it, the verb... and so on.