Discussion of the last part of the chapter on *Inna* and its sisters.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
It is well known that *Inna* and its sisters are six particles, some of which are emphatic and some are non-emphatic. What is the non-emphatic one?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The non-emphatic one is *La't*. *Inna* is emphatic, *Anna* is emphatic, *Kanna* is emphatic, *La'all* is emphatic, and *Lakin* is emphatic. What remains is only *La't*. If *Inna* is made non-emphatic, it has already been mentioned. So what is the ruling? If *Inna* is made non-emphatic, what is the ruling: does it function or is it ignored?
The student: It is permissible to either make it function or ignore it.
The Shaykh : Which is more common?
The student: Ignoring it is more common.
The Shaykh : Yes. Where do you take this from, from Ibn Malik's words? You are not supposed to read it; you are supposed to have it memorized.
The student: "And if you make *Inna* non-emphatic, its function is reduced"
The Shaykh : And if you make *Inna* non-emphatic
The student: Its function is reduced
The Shaykh : Its function is reduced. That is complete. If you ignore it, is the *lam* obligatory in its predicate?
The student: Yes, the *lam* is obligatory if you do not ignore it.
The Shaykh : Is it obligatory in all cases?
The student: It is obligatory for it, except if it is conditioned and he said "and" (*wa*).
The Shaykh : Give us the answer from your own knowledge, and then cite Ibn Malik's words.
The student: No, first, the *lam* is obligatory for it if the meaning is not clear without it.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: As for when the meaning is clear
The Shaykh : Without it
The student: ... a context
The Shaykh : If the meaning is clear without it, it is not obligatory.
The student: It is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : Its presence, correct? Do you agree with this?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, an example where the meaning is clear...
The student: Where the meaning is clear
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : An example. But give me an example of what is obligatory, a detailed example.
The student: *Inna Zaydan lam yaqum* (Indeed, Zayd did not stand up).
The Shaykh : *Inna Zaydan liyaqum* (Indeed, Zayd does stand up).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, correct.
The student: Or...
The Shaykh : Is there no evidence from the speech of the Arabs?
The student: *Inna al-haqq la yakhfa 'alaykum* (Indeed, the truth is not hidden from you).
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And also, *Inna Malikan kanat kiram* (Indeed, the Banu Malik were noble)...
The Shaykh : He curses them.
The student: Praising them.
The Shaykh : And what is the evidence that he is praising them?
The student: The beginning of the verse, and the poet is from the Banu Malik in the first place.
The Shaykh : Yes, say the hemistich.
The student: ...
Another student: And we are those who reject oppression.
The Shaykh : No, I am the son of those who reject.
The student: No, we are those who reject. In the commentary, it says...
Another student: I am the son of those who reject.
The Shaykh : No, the correct one is "I am the son of those who reject." There is no problem. "I am the son of those who reject oppression."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Attach two copies.
The student: The *Muhadhdhab* (the commentary).
The Shaykh : In any case, the one who has it memorized and the one who is clearer is "I am the son of those who reject oppression."
The student: ... and he transmitted it as "And we are those who reject oppression."
The Shaykh : Yes, okay, the important thing, in any case, "I am the son of those who reject oppression, from the family of Malik". This contains a context that his saying "And indeed, the Banu Malik were noble in their origins" is what? An affirmative sentence, not a negative one, because if it were negative, it would be contradictory. Okay, where do we take this from, from Ibn Malik's words? You? You? No, my brother, the one behind.
The student: "*** What the speaker intended, relying on it"
The Shaykh : And what comes before it? Because with "what the speaker intended," we do not know what comes before it.
The student: "And perhaps one dispenses with it if it appears *** What the speaker intended, relying on it"
The Shaykh : Well done. That is complete. Okay, the author says: The beginning of today's lesson.
It is well known that *Inna* and its sisters are six particles, some of which are emphatic and some are non-emphatic. What is the non-emphatic one?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The non-emphatic one is *La't*. *Inna* is emphatic, *Anna* is emphatic, *Kanna* is emphatic, *La'all* is emphatic, and *Lakin* is emphatic. What remains is only *La't*. If *Inna* is made non-emphatic, it has already been mentioned. So what is the ruling? If *Inna* is made non-emphatic, what is the ruling: does it function or is it ignored?
The student: It is permissible to either make it function or ignore it.
The Shaykh : Which is more common?
The student: Ignoring it is more common.
The Shaykh : Yes. Where do you take this from, from Ibn Malik's words? You are not supposed to read it; you are supposed to have it memorized.
The student: "And if you make *Inna* non-emphatic, its function is reduced"
The Shaykh : And if you make *Inna* non-emphatic
The student: Its function is reduced
The Shaykh : Its function is reduced. That is complete. If you ignore it, is the *lam* obligatory in its predicate?
The student: Yes, the *lam* is obligatory if you do not ignore it.
The Shaykh : Is it obligatory in all cases?
The student: It is obligatory for it, except if it is conditioned and he said "and" (*wa*).
The Shaykh : Give us the answer from your own knowledge, and then cite Ibn Malik's words.
The student: No, first, the *lam* is obligatory for it if the meaning is not clear without it.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: As for when the meaning is clear
The Shaykh : Without it
The student: ... a context
The Shaykh : If the meaning is clear without it, it is not obligatory.
The student: It is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : Its presence, correct? Do you agree with this?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, an example where the meaning is clear...
The student: Where the meaning is clear
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : An example. But give me an example of what is obligatory, a detailed example.
The student: *Inna Zaydan lam yaqum* (Indeed, Zayd did not stand up).
The Shaykh : *Inna Zaydan liyaqum* (Indeed, Zayd does stand up).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, correct.
The student: Or...
The Shaykh : Is there no evidence from the speech of the Arabs?
The student: *Inna al-haqq la yakhfa 'alaykum* (Indeed, the truth is not hidden from you).
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And also, *Inna Malikan kanat kiram* (Indeed, the Banu Malik were noble)...
The Shaykh : He curses them.
The student: Praising them.
The Shaykh : And what is the evidence that he is praising them?
The student: The beginning of the verse, and the poet is from the Banu Malik in the first place.
The Shaykh : Yes, say the hemistich.
The student: ...
Another student: And we are those who reject oppression.
The Shaykh : No, I am the son of those who reject.
The student: No, we are those who reject. In the commentary, it says...
Another student: I am the son of those who reject.
The Shaykh : No, the correct one is "I am the son of those who reject." There is no problem. "I am the son of those who reject oppression."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Attach two copies.
The student: The *Muhadhdhab* (the commentary).
The Shaykh : In any case, the one who has it memorized and the one who is clearer is "I am the son of those who reject oppression."
The student: ... and he transmitted it as "And we are those who reject oppression."
The Shaykh : Yes, okay, the important thing, in any case, "I am the son of those who reject oppression, from the family of Malik". This contains a context that his saying "And indeed, the Banu Malik were noble in their origins" is what? An affirmative sentence, not a negative one, because if it were negative, it would be contradictory. Okay, where do we take this from, from Ibn Malik's words? You? You? No, my brother, the one behind.
The student: "*** What the speaker intended, relying on it"
The Shaykh : And what comes before it? Because with "what the speaker intended," we do not know what comes before it.
The student: "And perhaps one dispenses with it if it appears *** What the speaker intended, relying on it"
The Shaykh : Well done. That is complete. Okay, the author says: The beginning of today's lesson.