Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And as for the conjunction, if it does not repeat, do not make it valid *** for it by what belongs to the attribute with the separator."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And as for the conjunction, if it does not repeat, do not make it valid *** for it by what belongs to the attribute with the separator"
The conjunction: the subject
And his saying: "do not make it valid" the sentence consisting of the verb and the subject is the predicate of the conjunction, meaning, and the conjunction is made valid for it
And the sentence: "if it does not repeat" is an interjected sentence
And his saying: "by what belongs to the attribute with the separator" the preposition and the noun in the genitive case are connected to his saying "do not make it valid"
And the alif in his saying "do not make it valid" is permissible to be for generality and permissible to be for emphasis, and its original form is "do not make it valid" (with a nun) as Ibn Malik said: "And we replaced it" meaning the nun of emphasis, the light nun of emphasis "after an open alif *** in pausing, just as you say in 'Qifa Qifa'"
And his saying: "by what belongs to the attribute" "ma" is a relative pronoun, and "li-l-na't" is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case connected to an omitted relative clause, and it is permissible for "li-l-na't" to be connected to "intama" (belonged), meaning by what belonged to the attribute with the separator, and this is more appropriate than saying it is connected to an omitted word, because when the matter revolves between omission and non-omission, taking the non-omission is more appropriate
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If you conjoin with "la" and its noun, then either "la" is repeated or it is not repeated. If "la" is repeated, the ruling has already been mentioned in his saying: "La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah" (There is no power nor strength except in Allah)
And it has already been mentioned that if it is repeated, two options are permissible for the first and three options for the second. It is permissible for the first to be in the nominative case or the accusative case, and it is permissible for the second to be in the nominative, accusative, or accusative cases, except if you make the first nominative, then you do not make the second accusative. This has been fully discussed before. But if "la" is repeated, yes, but if the conjunction occurs and "la" is not repeated, like if you say "La karim wa la jabban" (Not a noble man and not a coward) in the house, yes, "La karim wa la jabban"
The student: and a coward
The Shaykh : Yes, "La karim wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house, "La karim wa jabban" in the house is permissible. The author says, make it valid by what belongs to the attribute with the separator, and what belongs to the attribute with the separator, what is permissible in it?
The student: the accusative and the nominative
The Shaykh : The accusative and the nominative, due to his saying: "And other than what follows and other than the singular *** do not make it accusative, and aim for the accusative or the nominative"
So based on this, you say: "La karim" and what? "Wa jabban" (and a coward) in the accusative case, and do not say "La karim wa jabban" (and a coward) with an open fatha, and the reason is clear, because when the conjunction "wa" comes, the construction is prevented due to the presence of the separator with the letter of conjunction, and the conjunction implies difference, so only the accusative case remains for us. And what else?
The student: and the nominative
The Shaykh : And the nominative, so you say: "La karim wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house in the accusative case, or "La karim wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house in the nominative case. As for the accusative case, it is conjoined to the position of the noun of "la", the accusative case is conjoined to the position of the noun of "la", and as for the nominative case, it is conjoined to the position of "la" and its noun, because their position is the nominative case for the beginning of a sentence
And the summary... that we say the summary is that we say: If you conjoin with the noun of "la", then there are two cases for it:
The first case: with repetition
And the second case: without repetition
So as for with repetition, the explanation of the options in it has already been mentioned, and as for without repetition, one thing is prevented from it, which is only the accusative case, and the accusative and nominative cases are permissible
Okay, but what is the noun of "la"... what is the ruling of the noun? The noun is built on the fatha, it is built on the fatha, because the discussion now is about the conjoined word, and as for the noun of "la", it is singular, and it is known that the singular is built on the fatha in construction with
The student: No.
The Shaykh : with "la", and do not neglect "la" in this case, do not neglect it, meaning we do not raise its noun, because it is only neglected with repetition, and at that time we say: "La kariman wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house, correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Okay, "La kariman wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house is incorrect, "La karimun wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect, where is the error?
The student: "karimun"
The Shaykh : "La karimun wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house
The student: The first one
The Shaykh : The first one, okay, correct it: "La kariman wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house, like this? Therefore, the author said: "And as for the conjunction, if it does not repeat, do not make it valid *** for it by what belongs to the attribute with the separator"
Okay, if I say "La rajulan wa sahib 'ilmin" (Not a man and a man of knowledge) in the house
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "La rajul wa sahib 'ilmin" (Not a man and a man of knowledge) in the house, "La rajul wa sahib 'ilmin" (Not a man and a man of knowledge) in the house
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Do you not say that the construction is prevented? Now it is open and "sahiban 'ilmin" (a man of knowledge) in the accusative case
The student: a compound noun
The Shaykh : The tanween was omitted not for the construction, but for
The student: The addition (i'dafah).
The Shaykh : for the reason of the compound noun, yes.
The conjunction: the subject
And his saying: "do not make it valid" the sentence consisting of the verb and the subject is the predicate of the conjunction, meaning, and the conjunction is made valid for it
And the sentence: "if it does not repeat" is an interjected sentence
And his saying: "by what belongs to the attribute with the separator" the preposition and the noun in the genitive case are connected to his saying "do not make it valid"
And the alif in his saying "do not make it valid" is permissible to be for generality and permissible to be for emphasis, and its original form is "do not make it valid" (with a nun) as Ibn Malik said: "And we replaced it" meaning the nun of emphasis, the light nun of emphasis "after an open alif *** in pausing, just as you say in 'Qifa Qifa'"
And his saying: "by what belongs to the attribute" "ma" is a relative pronoun, and "li-l-na't" is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case connected to an omitted relative clause, and it is permissible for "li-l-na't" to be connected to "intama" (belonged), meaning by what belonged to the attribute with the separator, and this is more appropriate than saying it is connected to an omitted word, because when the matter revolves between omission and non-omission, taking the non-omission is more appropriate
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If you conjoin with "la" and its noun, then either "la" is repeated or it is not repeated. If "la" is repeated, the ruling has already been mentioned in his saying: "La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah" (There is no power nor strength except in Allah)
And it has already been mentioned that if it is repeated, two options are permissible for the first and three options for the second. It is permissible for the first to be in the nominative case or the accusative case, and it is permissible for the second to be in the nominative, accusative, or accusative cases, except if you make the first nominative, then you do not make the second accusative. This has been fully discussed before. But if "la" is repeated, yes, but if the conjunction occurs and "la" is not repeated, like if you say "La karim wa la jabban" (Not a noble man and not a coward) in the house, yes, "La karim wa la jabban"
The student: and a coward
The Shaykh : Yes, "La karim wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house, "La karim wa jabban" in the house is permissible. The author says, make it valid by what belongs to the attribute with the separator, and what belongs to the attribute with the separator, what is permissible in it?
The student: the accusative and the nominative
The Shaykh : The accusative and the nominative, due to his saying: "And other than what follows and other than the singular *** do not make it accusative, and aim for the accusative or the nominative"
So based on this, you say: "La karim" and what? "Wa jabban" (and a coward) in the accusative case, and do not say "La karim wa jabban" (and a coward) with an open fatha, and the reason is clear, because when the conjunction "wa" comes, the construction is prevented due to the presence of the separator with the letter of conjunction, and the conjunction implies difference, so only the accusative case remains for us. And what else?
The student: and the nominative
The Shaykh : And the nominative, so you say: "La karim wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house in the accusative case, or "La karim wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house in the nominative case. As for the accusative case, it is conjoined to the position of the noun of "la", the accusative case is conjoined to the position of the noun of "la", and as for the nominative case, it is conjoined to the position of "la" and its noun, because their position is the nominative case for the beginning of a sentence
And the summary... that we say the summary is that we say: If you conjoin with the noun of "la", then there are two cases for it:
The first case: with repetition
And the second case: without repetition
So as for with repetition, the explanation of the options in it has already been mentioned, and as for without repetition, one thing is prevented from it, which is only the accusative case, and the accusative and nominative cases are permissible
Okay, but what is the noun of "la"... what is the ruling of the noun? The noun is built on the fatha, it is built on the fatha, because the discussion now is about the conjoined word, and as for the noun of "la", it is singular, and it is known that the singular is built on the fatha in construction with
The student: No.
The Shaykh : with "la", and do not neglect "la" in this case, do not neglect it, meaning we do not raise its noun, because it is only neglected with repetition, and at that time we say: "La kariman wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house, correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Okay, "La kariman wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house is incorrect, "La karimun wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect, where is the error?
The student: "karimun"
The Shaykh : "La karimun wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house
The student: The first one
The Shaykh : The first one, okay, correct it: "La kariman wa jabban" (Not a noble man and a coward) in the house, like this? Therefore, the author said: "And as for the conjunction, if it does not repeat, do not make it valid *** for it by what belongs to the attribute with the separator"
Okay, if I say "La rajulan wa sahib 'ilmin" (Not a man and a man of knowledge) in the house
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "La rajul wa sahib 'ilmin" (Not a man and a man of knowledge) in the house, "La rajul wa sahib 'ilmin" (Not a man and a man of knowledge) in the house
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Do you not say that the construction is prevented? Now it is open and "sahiban 'ilmin" (a man of knowledge) in the accusative case
The student: a compound noun
The Shaykh : The tanween was omitted not for the construction, but for
The student: The addition (i'dafah).
The Shaykh : for the reason of the compound noun, yes.