Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Maf'ūlan or mansūban or murakkaban *** And if you raise the first, you do not lower the second."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And his saying: "Maf'ūlan or mansūban or murakkaban ***"
How do we parse "maf'ūlan"?
We parse "maf'ūlan" as the second object of "aj'al" (to make), and the first object is omitted, with the implied meaning being "I make it maf'ūlan or mansūban or murakkaban." The author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed you that if you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," you build the first word on the fathah, compounded with what?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : With "lā." For the second word, three options are permissible for you: make it maf'ūlan, or mansūban, or murakkaban. How many is that? Three options. So you say: "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," what is this?
The student: It is raised.
The Shaykh : lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah
The student: Maf'ūl
The Shaykh : I am not asking if it is maf'ūl or mabnī; is it marfū' or not?
The student: It is raised.
The Shaykh : Okay, "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah"
The student: Mansūb
The Shaykh : Okay, "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah"
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : Murakkab. So the first word in "ḥawla" in "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah" is built on the fathah, and the reason for its being built is clear: it is compounded with "lā," compounded with "lā." For the second word, "quwwah," three options are permissible: maf'ūlan. The second one, Ibn Dawud, the second one.
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : Where did you go?
The student: I don't know
The Shaykh : You don't know, and you don't know where your eyes went?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, what is the second one? Mansūb. The third one?
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : Murakkab. So you say: "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah." Is it clear from the author's words? Okay, if you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," what is the reason for the raising? The reason for the raising is that it is conjoined to the position of "lā" and its noun, or to the position of its noun, because its noun was originally a subject (mubtada').
Mansūban: It is conjoined to the position of the noun of "lā" in form, because we said in "lā ḥawla" that "ḥawla" is its noun, built on the fathah in the position of accusative. So if you make it accusative and say "wa lā quwwah," it becomes conjoined to the position of the noun of "lā" in what? In form, meaning that the position of the noun of "lā" in your saying "lā ḥawla" is accusative, so it is conjoined to the position of its noun in form.
Or murakkaban: It becomes independent, compounded with the second "lā," and the conjunction here is not the conjunction of a single word to a single word, but the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, meaning we conjoined "wa lā quwwah" in its entirety to the sentence "lā ḥawla." So it is from the category of conjoining a sentence to a sentence, and the second "quwwah" is compounded with "lā." So we say in the parsing:
The wāw: a letter of conjunction
Lā: a negator of the genus
Quwwah: its noun, built on the fathah in the position of what? In the position of a noun. And the conjunction here is the conjunction of what? A sentence to a sentence. Is it clear now? Okay, so now the first one is built on the fathah, and how many are permissible in the second one?
The student: Three options
The Shaykh : Three options. Another option is permissible for you in the first one, which is the raising. If you raise it, you do not lower the second one: "And if you raise the first, you do not lower the second". What remains with us is the raising and the compounding on the fathah. If you raise the first one, you do not lower the second one because the reason is absent. You raise the first one and say: "lā ḥawla," this is raised. What is the reason for the raising? The reason for the raising is the cancellation of "lā." We say "lā" is a negator and does not operate; we canceled it. We said it has no place. Yes, so "lā" is a negator and "quwwah" is a subject. Okay, he says "you do not lower." What is permissible if the lowering is prevented, out of the three? The raising and the building on the fathah. So you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah illā billāh," and you have canceled "lā" in the first one and what? And in the second one. And you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," and you have canceled "lā" in the first one and operated it in the second one. Okay, and do not say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah." Why? Because the original permissibility of the accusative is when the first one is built on the fathah, [based on] the conjunction to the position in form. And here, and here, yes, and here the noun of "lā" is raised. It is not possible to conjoin an accusative to it.
So the summary of the matter now: Two options are permissible for you in the first one. What are they? The operation and the cancellation. In the case of operation, it is built on the fathah, and in the case of cancellation, it is raised. In the case where you operate in the first one, three options are permissible for you in the second one: the raising, the lowering, and the building/compounding. And we have explained the reason for that.
And another option is permissible in the first one, which is the cancellation, in which case what comes after it is raised.
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : No, what comes after it, what comes after the first "lā," what comes after the first "lā" is raised.
As for the second one, only two options are permissible for what comes after it: the raising and the building. The raising and the building, and the lowering is not permissible because its requirement is absent. Is it clear? Mā shā' Allāh.
How do we parse "maf'ūlan"?
We parse "maf'ūlan" as the second object of "aj'al" (to make), and the first object is omitted, with the implied meaning being "I make it maf'ūlan or mansūban or murakkaban." The author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed you that if you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," you build the first word on the fathah, compounded with what?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : With "lā." For the second word, three options are permissible for you: make it maf'ūlan, or mansūban, or murakkaban. How many is that? Three options. So you say: "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," what is this?
The student: It is raised.
The Shaykh : lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah
The student: Maf'ūl
The Shaykh : I am not asking if it is maf'ūl or mabnī; is it marfū' or not?
The student: It is raised.
The Shaykh : Okay, "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah"
The student: Mansūb
The Shaykh : Okay, "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah"
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : Murakkab. So the first word in "ḥawla" in "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah" is built on the fathah, and the reason for its being built is clear: it is compounded with "lā," compounded with "lā." For the second word, "quwwah," three options are permissible: maf'ūlan. The second one, Ibn Dawud, the second one.
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : Where did you go?
The student: I don't know
The Shaykh : You don't know, and you don't know where your eyes went?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, what is the second one? Mansūb. The third one?
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : Murakkab. So you say: "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah." Is it clear from the author's words? Okay, if you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," what is the reason for the raising? The reason for the raising is that it is conjoined to the position of "lā" and its noun, or to the position of its noun, because its noun was originally a subject (mubtada').
Mansūban: It is conjoined to the position of the noun of "lā" in form, because we said in "lā ḥawla" that "ḥawla" is its noun, built on the fathah in the position of accusative. So if you make it accusative and say "wa lā quwwah," it becomes conjoined to the position of the noun of "lā" in what? In form, meaning that the position of the noun of "lā" in your saying "lā ḥawla" is accusative, so it is conjoined to the position of its noun in form.
Or murakkaban: It becomes independent, compounded with the second "lā," and the conjunction here is not the conjunction of a single word to a single word, but the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, meaning we conjoined "wa lā quwwah" in its entirety to the sentence "lā ḥawla." So it is from the category of conjoining a sentence to a sentence, and the second "quwwah" is compounded with "lā." So we say in the parsing:
The wāw: a letter of conjunction
Lā: a negator of the genus
Quwwah: its noun, built on the fathah in the position of what? In the position of a noun. And the conjunction here is the conjunction of what? A sentence to a sentence. Is it clear now? Okay, so now the first one is built on the fathah, and how many are permissible in the second one?
The student: Three options
The Shaykh : Three options. Another option is permissible for you in the first one, which is the raising. If you raise it, you do not lower the second one: "And if you raise the first, you do not lower the second". What remains with us is the raising and the compounding on the fathah. If you raise the first one, you do not lower the second one because the reason is absent. You raise the first one and say: "lā ḥawla," this is raised. What is the reason for the raising? The reason for the raising is the cancellation of "lā." We say "lā" is a negator and does not operate; we canceled it. We said it has no place. Yes, so "lā" is a negator and "quwwah" is a subject. Okay, he says "you do not lower." What is permissible if the lowering is prevented, out of the three? The raising and the building on the fathah. So you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah illā billāh," and you have canceled "lā" in the first one and what? And in the second one. And you say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah," and you have canceled "lā" in the first one and operated it in the second one. Okay, and do not say "lā ḥawla wa lā quwwah." Why? Because the original permissibility of the accusative is when the first one is built on the fathah, [based on] the conjunction to the position in form. And here, and here, yes, and here the noun of "lā" is raised. It is not possible to conjoin an accusative to it.
So the summary of the matter now: Two options are permissible for you in the first one. What are they? The operation and the cancellation. In the case of operation, it is built on the fathah, and in the case of cancellation, it is raised. In the case where you operate in the first one, three options are permissible for you in the second one: the raising, the lowering, and the building/compounding. And we have explained the reason for that.
And another option is permissible in the first one, which is the cancellation, in which case what comes after it is raised.
The student: Murakkab
The Shaykh : No, what comes after it, what comes after the first "lā," what comes after the first "lā" is raised.
As for the second one, only two options are permissible for what comes after it: the raising and the building. The raising and the building, and the lowering is not permissible because its requirement is absent. Is it clear? Mā shā' Allāh.