Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "The best is to separate with qad or negation, or *** tanaffis or law, and little is the mention of law."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author's statement: "The best is to separate". This fa, we are now analyzing the verse. The fa: it occurs in the answer to the condition. The source is with inna and inna lam yakun, even if it is not a verb.
"The best": and "the best" is the subject (mubtada').
"And the separation": is the predicate (khabar) of the subject. It is permissible to reverse it, meaning it is permissible to make "the separation" the subject and "the best" the predicate placed before it. "The separation with qad," yes, but the best is to make "the best" the subject and "the separation" the predicate of the subject, so that you do not separate between the attached and the attached-to with a foreign separator. So we say: "with qad" is a preposition and its object, attached to "separation." "Or negation" is conjoined to it. "Or tanaffis" likewise. "Or law" likewise. And "little is the mention of law." "Little" is the predicate placed before, and "mention" is the subject placed after. "Or the mention of law is little". According to whom?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : Not according to the scholars. It means that few of the grammarians mentioned it. So "little is the mention of law" means that most grammarians did not mention separation with law, even though it is established in the Qur'an, such as His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Jinn 72:16]. We take examples for this.
First, the author said: "The best is to separate". And it is known from his expression "the best" that this is not obligatory. It was said, rather, that separation is obligatory. This is the view of Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him), that separation is obligatory with one of these separators, because it has not been reported except as separated. And if it has not been reported except as separated, its implication is that the Arabic language obligates separation, and what is anomalous is rare. Now, the best is separation with qad, for example, if you say: "I knew that qad Zayd stood up." "I knew that qad Zayd stood up." If you said "I knew that Zayd stood up," it is permissible according to Ibn Malik, but it is little, or it is contrary to the best. Or negation, such as His saying, the Exalted:. Here, separation is with the negating la.
The third, he said: "Or tanaffis". By tanaffis, he means two things: the sin and سوف (sawfa). An example of the sin is His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Muzzammil 73:20]. And an example of سوف is the saying of the poet: "Know, for the knowledge of a man benefits him *** that sawfa will come all that is decreed"
"That sawfa will come all that is decreed." The evidence in it is his saying "that sawfa will come."
"Or law". Meaning, or you separate with law, such as His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Jinn 72:16]. So the inna here is the lightened form of the heavy inna, and its name is the pronoun of the matter, which is omitted. And the sentence "law they had stood firm on the path" is its predicate.
So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has benefited us by informing us that inna comes as the lightened form. And when it comes in this manner, it is obligatory that its name be omitted. And it is called what?
The student: The pronoun of the matter.
The Shaykh : The pronoun of the matter. And it comes, and its predicate is a sentence. Then, if it is a nominal sentence or a verbal sentence that is a supplication, or a verbal sentence with a static verb, separation is not obligatory, nor is separation with any of the separators recommended. But if it is a verbal sentence whose verb is a transitive verb and is not a supplication, then the best, according to the opinion of Ibn Malik, is to separate with one of four or five things: qad, negation, tanaffis, law. And four are permissible. Yes, and it is permissible, according to the words of Ibn Malik, not to separate, but it is contrary to the best.
Now, if I said: "I knew that Zayd returned from the journey," what do you say about this?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But is it the best, or is its absence the best? Here, the absence is contrary to the best. "I knew that Zayd will come from the journey." Say "I knew that siya will come," correct. "I knew that sawfa will come." And as for "I knew," yes, now.
If I said: "I knew that Zayd traveled," yes, "that Zayd traveled," is it correct or not?
The student: Is valid.
The Shaykh : But it is contrary to the best. So the best is that we say "I knew that qad," that qad he traveled.
"I wished that law Zayd traveled," correct. Now, the discussion on inna is finished.
So inna comes as the lightened form of the heavy inna, and its name is the pronoun of the matter, which is omitted. This is one.
Thirdly, its predicate is a nominal sentence or a verbal sentence. But if it is a supplication, or the verb is static, then it does not require separation. Otherwise, the best is separation, according to the opinion of Ibn Malik, and separation is obligatory according to Ibn Hisham and others. Yes.
"The best": and "the best" is the subject (mubtada').
"And the separation": is the predicate (khabar) of the subject. It is permissible to reverse it, meaning it is permissible to make "the separation" the subject and "the best" the predicate placed before it. "The separation with qad," yes, but the best is to make "the best" the subject and "the separation" the predicate of the subject, so that you do not separate between the attached and the attached-to with a foreign separator. So we say: "with qad" is a preposition and its object, attached to "separation." "Or negation" is conjoined to it. "Or tanaffis" likewise. "Or law" likewise. And "little is the mention of law." "Little" is the predicate placed before, and "mention" is the subject placed after. "Or the mention of law is little". According to whom?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : Not according to the scholars. It means that few of the grammarians mentioned it. So "little is the mention of law" means that most grammarians did not mention separation with law, even though it is established in the Qur'an, such as His saying, the Exalted:
And [Allah revealed] that if they had remained straight on the way
وألّو استقاموا على الطريقةFirst, the author said: "The best is to separate". And it is known from his expression "the best" that this is not obligatory. It was said, rather, that separation is obligatory. This is the view of Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him), that separation is obligatory with one of these separators, because it has not been reported except as separated. And if it has not been reported except as separated, its implication is that the Arabic language obligates separation, and what is anomalous is rare. Now, the best is separation with qad, for example, if you say: "I knew that qad Zayd stood up." "I knew that qad Zayd stood up." If you said "I knew that Zayd stood up," it is permissible according to Ibn Malik, but it is little, or it is contrary to the best. Or negation, such as His saying, the Exalted:
And they thought that there would be no fitnah
وحسبوا أن لا تكون فتنةThe third, he said: "Or tanaffis". By tanaffis, he means two things: the sin and سوف (sawfa). An example of the sin is His saying, the Exalted:
He has known that there will be among you those who are ill
علم أن سيكون منكم مرضى"That sawfa will come all that is decreed." The evidence in it is his saying "that sawfa will come."
"Or law". Meaning, or you separate with law, such as His saying, the Exalted:
And [Allah revealed] that if they had remained straight on the way, We would have given them abundant provision
وألو استقاموا على الطريقة لأسقيناهم ماءً غدقاSo the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has benefited us by informing us that inna comes as the lightened form. And when it comes in this manner, it is obligatory that its name be omitted. And it is called what?
The student: The pronoun of the matter.
The Shaykh : The pronoun of the matter. And it comes, and its predicate is a sentence. Then, if it is a nominal sentence or a verbal sentence that is a supplication, or a verbal sentence with a static verb, separation is not obligatory, nor is separation with any of the separators recommended. But if it is a verbal sentence whose verb is a transitive verb and is not a supplication, then the best, according to the opinion of Ibn Malik, is to separate with one of four or five things: qad, negation, tanaffis, law. And four are permissible. Yes, and it is permissible, according to the words of Ibn Malik, not to separate, but it is contrary to the best.
Now, if I said: "I knew that Zayd returned from the journey," what do you say about this?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But is it the best, or is its absence the best? Here, the absence is contrary to the best. "I knew that Zayd will come from the journey." Say "I knew that siya will come," correct. "I knew that sawfa will come." And as for "I knew," yes, now.
If I said: "I knew that Zayd traveled," yes, "that Zayd traveled," is it correct or not?
The student: Is valid.
The Shaykh : But it is contrary to the best. So the best is that we say "I knew that qad," that qad he traveled.
"I wished that law Zayd traveled," correct. Now, the discussion on inna is finished.
So inna comes as the lightened form of the heavy inna, and its name is the pronoun of the matter, which is omitted. This is one.
Thirdly, its predicate is a nominal sentence or a verbal sentence. But if it is a supplication, or the verb is static, then it does not require separation. Otherwise, the best is separation, according to the opinion of Ibn Malik, and separation is obligatory according to Ibn Hisham and others. Yes.