Discussion of what was previously covered in the chapter on *Inna* and its sisters.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : What is the function of *Inna* with the subject and the predicate?
The student: It makes the subject its noun and raises the predicate as its predicate.
The Shaykh : So it functions with both parts.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, is there another language usage different from this one?
The student: That it makes both the subject and the predicate accusative.
The Shaykh : That it makes both parts accusative. Now, from this is the saying: "Indeed our guards are a barrier," and from this is the layman's testimony: "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Yes, is that correct? It is correct. If you had not said this, I would have said his testimony is invalid.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : He intended it, he intended it, there is no doubt. The layman intended that "Muhammad" is the name and "Messenger" is the predicate. He testifies that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, there is no doubt in it. But the fact that he says this on the language of those who obligate the accusative case, people do not know this thing. Now, is it permissible to place the predicate before the name? Ahmad.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible to place the predicate before the name.
The student: Except if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun.
The Shaykh : Except if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun. Tell us, is this from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: He said "And mind the order, except in the one *** Like *layta* in it or here" *layta* in it.
The Shaykh : *layta* in it.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Be patient, be patient, complete the verse.
The student: " *** *layta* in it or here, other than the indecent"
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Meaning, *layta* in it, other than the indecent, or *layta* here, other than the indecent. Why did he give two examples?
The student: Because ... the adverb and
The Shaykh : Which one is the adverb?
The student: *layta* here.
The Shaykh : Here
The student: And the preposition with its noun is in this.
The Shaykh : Well done, may Allah bless you.
What is the rule for opening the hamza of *Inna* in "Inna 'Abd"?
The student: That the verb fills its place.
The Shaykh : That the verb fills its place. Well done. For example,
The student: His saying: "I knew,"[Al-Baqarah 2:196]
The Shaykh :[Al-Baqarah 2:196] Correct.
It pleased me that you understood. What pleased me
The student: Your understanding pleased me.
The Shaykh : Your understanding, perfect.
If *Inna* occurs in the answer to an oath, what is the ruling on its hamza?
The student: The ruling on its hamza is to break it.
The Shaykh : To break it.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: No, it is not absolute.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: If it occurs in the answer
The Shaykh : The oath.
The student: to an oath, it is broken.
The Shaykh : It is broken.
The student: Except if the oath is a verb and it is not attached to the *lam* and it is not suspended by the *lam*.
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning, if the verb of the oath is not mentioned, yes.
The student: And it is not suspended, and it is not after it.
The Shaykh : And it is not suspended by the *lam*. Now, an example. An example of the one where it is broken absolutely if it occurs in the answer to an oath.
The student: I swore that Zayd is standing. I swore that Zayd.
The Shaykh : Pay attention to his example.
The student: Do you want an example, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, an example of what must be broken, whether it has the *lam* or not.
The student: It must be broken in it.
The Shaykh : It appears that Abdullah does not ...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : I could not review ... So ... come on.
The student: By the life of Amr, you are opening, O Shaykh. The condition now is that the verb
The Shaykh : ... finished. Give us a correct ruling. We want you to give an example that you apply to what you said, just.
The student: That the oath is by other than
The Shaykh : You understood from your words that if it is accompanied by the *lam*, breaking is obligatory.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the verb of the oath is not mentioned, breaking is obligatory.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the verb of the oath is without the *lam*, two ways are permissible.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is your statement. Three categories.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We want an example that is obligatory in all cases.
The student: By Allah, you are ...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: By Allah, Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : Error.
The student: Suspended by the *lam*.
The Shaykh : Yes, I do not want it suspended by the *lam*.
The student: The example of the obligatory breaking, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, the obligatory breaking in all cases.
The student: I swore that you are ...
The Shaykh : Error.
The student: O Shaykh, by Allah, Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : By Allah, Zayd is standing.
The student: By Allah, Zayd is standing. Correct. It is not permissible for me to say "By Allah, that Zayd." Now, an example of what is accompanied by the *lam*.
The student: By Allah, Zayd is indeed standing. By Allah, Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : Now, is the example correct? But if a person says this, breaking is obligatory ... the *lam*, and we want something where breaking is obligatory because of the *lam*.
The student: Because of the *lam*.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I knew that Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : This is not a category.
The student: I swore that Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : Correct. I swore that Zayd is indeed standing. Well done. Now, what is ... in the two ways?
The student: If the oath is by a verb and it is not suspended by the *lam*.
The Shaykh : For example
The student: Like "I swore that Zayd is standing."
The Shaykh : and it is permissible.
The student: And it is permissible to say "I swore that Zayd is indeed standing."
The Shaykh : No, my brother, do not answer with the *lam*.
The student: I swore that Zayd is standing, and I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Correct, everyone? Correct. Well done. Now.
The author says, or I say, if *Inna* occurs after the sudden *idha*, is breaking obligatory or not?
The student: Breaking is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Breaking is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Opening is obligatory.
The student: Both ways are obligatory.
The Shaykh : Is it obligatory or permissible?
The student: Both ways are permissible with ...
The Shaykh : Yes, now, an example.
The student: I went out, and then *Inna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Now, the second way.
The student: I went out, and then *anna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Correct, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, correct. May Allah bless you. If *Inna* occurs after the *fa* of the answer to a condition, how many ways are permissible for it, Sa'd?
The student: Two ways are permissible.
The Shaykh : Two ways. What are they?
The student: Breaking ...
The Shaykh : Give an example with the broken one.
The student: Broken?
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I went out. Whoever comes to me, *inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Whoever comes to me, *fa-inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : Whoever comes to me, whoever comes to me, *inna* he
The student: is honored.
The Shaykh : Is honored. And it is permissible
The student: *Fa-anna* he.
The Shaykh : *fa-anna* he is honored. Correct. Now, may Allah bless you.
What are the tools that accompany the *lam* of inception from *Inna* and its sisters? *Inna* and its sisters are divided, in terms of their association with the *lam*, into two categories: a category where the *lam* is associated with it, and a category where it is not. So, what is it that the *lam* is associated with in its predicate? Ibn Dawud.
The student: O Shaykh, I did not attend and I did not review, I did not know.
The Shaykh : You did not attend and did not review.
The student: I did not know, O Shaykh ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: *In*
The Shaykh : The broken *Inna* and others.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : And what do you say? Correct? Bring a witness or a supporter for your statement from the words of Ibn Malik.
The student: "And after the one with breaking, the predicate is accompanied *** by the *lam* of inception, like *Inna* I am indeed a burden"
The Shaykh :"And after the one with breaking" which is *Inna* "the predicate is accompanied *** by the *lam* of inception, like *Inna* I am indeed a burden"
Now, perfect. Is it permissible to say *Inna* Zayd is indeed standing?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: A verb, if it is
The Shaykh : I am asking you, do not tell me to distinguish. *Inna* Zayd is indeed standing.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : *Inna* Zayd is indeed standing.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Bring what supports your statement from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*"
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*"
The Shaykh :" *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*" Well done.
*Inna* Zayd is indeed *asa* that he will stand.
The student: ... because it is non-inflectable and static ...
The Shaykh : What do you say?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Bring from the words of Ibn Malik what supports your statement.
The student: The implication of his saying: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*"
The Shaykh : The implication of his saying: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*" Yes, correct. So, the prohibition is by the explicit statement with Muhammad. What is your name?
The student: Al-Tahir.
The Shaykh : pure
The student: Al-Tahir.
The Shaykh : Al-Tahir. And you have it by the implication. When does the verb that follows it, the inflectable verb, when does it follow it? The *lam* that occurs in the predicate of *Inna*, the inflectable verb?
The student: It follows it if *Inna* comes, if after it comes *qad* ... *qad* on the predicate.
The Shaykh : Its example
The student: *Inna* Zayd has indeed stood.
The Shaykh : *Inna* Zayd has indeed stood.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What supports your statement from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: And it may follow it, like *idha*, like *Inna*, if
The Shaykh : And it may follow it, like *Inna*, if. The verse is broken in wording and meaning.
The student: The verse does not come to mind, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It must come to mind.
The student: Correct, it follows it with *qad*, like *Inna*, if
The Shaykh : And it may follow it with *qad*, like *Inna*.
The student: Standing on
The Shaykh : What? Do not look.
The student: It is not here.
The Shaykh : Yes ...
The student: ... The verse does not come to mind.
The Shaykh : You see, the *Alfiyyah* is important.
The student: Correct.
Another student: "And it may follow it with *qad*, like *Inna* this *** Indeed he rose above the enemies, standing"
The Shaykh :"And it may follow it with *qad*, like *Inna* this *** Indeed he rose above the enemies, standing"
Now, Ibn Malik mentioned that this *lam* accompanies three things. Samih.
The student: The first: It accompanies the object of the predicate, on the condition that it is in the middle between the name and the predicate.
And the second: It accompanies the separating pronoun.
The third: It accompanies the name if the predicate is delayed.
The Shaykh : Yes, an example, O Sharafi. An example of the name delayed from the predicate accompanied by the *lam*, from the words of Allah the Mighty.
The student:[Ali 'Imran 3:164]
The Shaykh : Error.
The student:
The Shaykh : And an example, O Ahmad, of its entry on the separating pronoun, from the words of Allah the Mighty.
The student: *Inna* Allah, He is
The Shaykh : Mansur.
The student: The saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic:
The Shaykh : His saying, Exalted is He: Correct, everyone?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Now, an example of its entry on the object of the predicate.
The student: Its entry on the object of the predicate.
The Shaykh : The middle one.
The student: *Inna* Zayd is standing and Amr. *Inna* Zayd is standing and Amr. *Inna* Zayd is standing and Amr.
The Shaykh : No, no, my brother. Our discussion is about the lam that enters the object of the predicate, which is placed between it and the subject. If you wish, use an example from outside the Qur'an, from your own mind. Yes.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is one who will eat your food.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is one who will eat your food. What is "food" the object of?
The student: Eating.
The Shaykh : Of "eating," which is the predicate. So you brought it forward, placing it between it and the noun, and the lam entered it. Correct? Yes.
What are the particles in which two options are permissible for the conjoined element among the sisters of inna?
The student: Inna, lakin, and anna.
The Shaykh : Inna, lakin, and anna. And "kanna Muhammad." Do you agree with this?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What did he say?
The student: He said inna, lakin, and anna.
The Shaykh : Inna, lakin, and anna.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, for example.
The student: For which one?
The Shaykh : For inna.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr, or and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The student: Standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Good, come on, Jamal.
Parse: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The student: Inna... it is emphatic, it makes the subject accusative and the predicate nominative.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Zayd is its name, made accusative by it, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah on its end.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Standing is the predicate of inna, made nominative by it, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end. And 'Amr, and 'Amr?
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The waw is for conjunction, and 'Amr is conjoined to Zayd.
The Shaykh : Regarding what?
The student: To Zayd.
The Shaykh : To Zayd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Continue. It is accusative, and the sign of its accusative is.
The student: The visible fathah on its end.
The Shaykh : Good, for the second option.
The student: The second option: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Inna, what?
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : We said that.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : We did not say that, but it is a mistake.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Why did you not say that it is according to the language of those who make both parts accusative, "Indeed, Zayd is standing"?
The student: I brought it...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: I brought it...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: I brought it by mistake.
The Shaykh : By mistake. Yes, good. Honesty is salvation. Come on, Abdullah.
The student: The requirement.
The Shaykh : Look, what is the requirement?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We have finished one of the two options. We need the second one.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is standing.
The student: and 'Amr
The Shaykh : Standing is nominative, and 'Amr. Good, parse it.
The student: Inna: a particle of substitution that makes the name accusative and the predicate nominative. Zayd: the name of inna, made accusative by it, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah on its end. Standing: the predicate of inna.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: and 'Amr
The Shaykh : The predicate of inna, complete.
The student: Made nominative by it, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end. And 'Amr: a subject, made nominative, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : What is the waw?
The student: The waw is a conjunction.
The Shaykh : A particle of conjunction.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: And 'Amr: a subject, made nominative, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end, and the predicate is its confirmation.
The Shaykh : Where is the predicate?
The student: The predicate is implied.
The Shaykh : Implied or omitted? The estimation.
The student: Present.
The Shaykh : This is not acceptable. It exists, so it is not acceptable, because if it existed, it would not be permissible to omit it.
The student: And 'Amr is standing.
The Shaykh : And 'Amr, yes, standing. Good, the conjunction here is from the category of conjoining what?
The student: The sentence.
The Shaykh : Is there another option?
The student: For what?
The Shaykh : Regarding 'Amr, from one side. You said it is a subject.
The student: ... predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Conjoined to the position of the name of inna.
The Shaykh : To the position of inna and its name. Good, and on this basis, it does not need the predicate to be estimated. Good, come on, Yusuf. We have three left from the sisters of inna. What is the ruling of these three when conjoined to them after the predicate is completed?
The student: If conjoined to them after the predicate is completed, then one option is obligatory for them.
The Shaykh : And He
The student: And that is the accusative.
The Shaykh : The accusative. For example.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : What do you say? We have finished with inna. Inna permits both options.
The student: Layt.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Layt Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Layt Zayd is standing.
The student: *Layta* Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : And 'Amr. Is it permissible for me to say: Layt Zayd is standing, and 'Amr?
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because only one option is valid in it.
The Shaykh : Why is only one option valid in it?
The student: ... from the Arabs...
The Shaykh : Good, and why was the nominative not heard from the Arabs?
The student: Why was it not heard?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed
The student: Because it was not heard.
The Shaykh : Justifying with the ruling is not acceptable. Why did Zayd stand? Because he is standing. This is not acceptable. This is not acceptable. Yes.
The student: It was not reported from the Arabs because the meaning changes.
The Shaykh : Correct, because if we made it nominative, the meaning would change.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Zayn, I understood. If I say: Layt Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. What about 'Amr? 'Amr is standing, so it does not enter the scope of wishing. This is because if you make it nominative, it does not enter the scope of wishing that layt conveys.
La'alla is like it, but like it. What is the one that is lightened?
The student: Kanna.
The Shaykh : Kanna. Yes. And kanna is like it. What is the one that is lightened from these particles such that its function changes?
The student: ... the particles.
The Shaykh : And they are
The student: Whose function changes... inna and anna...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Anna, if it is lightened, the stronger view is... it remains as it is.
The Shaykh : What remains as it is?
The student: Inna, if it is lightened, its function is disrupted, and so is kanna.
The Shaykh : Kanna. Do you agree with this opinion?
The student: No, only inna.
The Shaykh : Only inna. The scholars differed in two opinions. So what is the stronger view?
The student: The stronger view is that the ones that are lightened are three categories.
The Shaykh : No, I mean the ones that are lightened with the function remaining or not.
The student: Yes, both options are permissible for most...
The Shaykh : For all three.
The student: No, only inna.
Another student: Regarding kanna, "As if their breasts were two firm breasts".
The Shaykh : What comes after? We have reached this.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... Inna and anna, what comes after? And kanna and lakin. But it is lightened as he said. And inna is lightened and functions, but its function is rare. And anna functions and is not lightened. And kanna functions, and its non-functioning is rare. Is that right or not? Its function is rare, and its non-functioning, I mean, mentioning its name is rare and omitting it is common. Omitting it is common and mentioning its name is rare. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes. Good. First, anna, if it is lightened, it functions and its name is omitted. Inna has two options: functioning and being lightened, and lightening is more common, but it is lightened. Yes, if it is lightened, it is omitted and becomes a particle of conjunction. What is left for us? Kanna. Kanna functions, but its name is omitted, and mentioning its name is rare.
The student: La'alla.
The Shaykh : La'alla was not lightened. Its lightening was not reported from the Arabs. So how many of the heavy ones are there?
The student: Five.
The Shaykh : Five: inna, anna, lakin, kanna, and la'alla. Is that right?
They are divided in terms of lightening into two categories: a category that is not lightened, which is.
The student: La'alla.
The Shaykh : La'alla. And a category that is lightened. Then this lightened category is divided in terms of function into categories: First: Anna, if it is lightened, its function remains.
Second: Inna, if it is lightened, its function decreases, and the most common is that it is omitted.
Third: Lakin, if it is lightened, it is omitted.
Fourth: What?
The student: Kanna.
The Shaykh : Kanna, if it is lightened, it functions, and the most common is omitting its name, and mentioning it is permissible. From this is the saying: "As if their breasts were two firm breasts."
"And a chest bright in color *** As if its two breasts were full"
All of this is taken from the author's words, but the author (may Allah have mercy on him) did not make this division. However, when a person understands the author's words, he knows that this division we mentioned results from it.
The time is up. He says, good.
The student: It makes the subject its noun and raises the predicate as its predicate.
The Shaykh : So it functions with both parts.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, is there another language usage different from this one?
The student: That it makes both the subject and the predicate accusative.
The Shaykh : That it makes both parts accusative. Now, from this is the saying: "Indeed our guards are a barrier," and from this is the layman's testimony: "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Yes, is that correct? It is correct. If you had not said this, I would have said his testimony is invalid.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : He intended it, he intended it, there is no doubt. The layman intended that "Muhammad" is the name and "Messenger" is the predicate. He testifies that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, there is no doubt in it. But the fact that he says this on the language of those who obligate the accusative case, people do not know this thing. Now, is it permissible to place the predicate before the name? Ahmad.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible to place the predicate before the name.
The student: Except if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun.
The Shaykh : Except if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun. Tell us, is this from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: He said "And mind the order, except in the one *** Like *layta* in it or here" *layta* in it.
The Shaykh : *layta* in it.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Be patient, be patient, complete the verse.
The student: " *** *layta* in it or here, other than the indecent"
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Meaning, *layta* in it, other than the indecent, or *layta* here, other than the indecent. Why did he give two examples?
The student: Because ... the adverb and
The Shaykh : Which one is the adverb?
The student: *layta* here.
The Shaykh : Here
The student: And the preposition with its noun is in this.
The Shaykh : Well done, may Allah bless you.
What is the rule for opening the hamza of *Inna* in "Inna 'Abd"?
The student: That the verb fills its place.
The Shaykh : That the verb fills its place. Well done. For example,
The student: His saying: "I knew,"
know that Allah is severe in penalty.
اعلموا أن الله شديد العقابThe Shaykh :
know that Allah is severe in penalty.
اعلموا أن الله شديد العقابIt pleased me that you understood. What pleased me
The student: Your understanding pleased me.
The Shaykh : Your understanding, perfect.
If *Inna* occurs in the answer to an oath, what is the ruling on its hamza?
The student: The ruling on its hamza is to break it.
The Shaykh : To break it.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: No, it is not absolute.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: If it occurs in the answer
The Shaykh : The oath.
The student: to an oath, it is broken.
The Shaykh : It is broken.
The student: Except if the oath is a verb and it is not attached to the *lam* and it is not suspended by the *lam*.
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning, if the verb of the oath is not mentioned, yes.
The student: And it is not suspended, and it is not after it.
The Shaykh : And it is not suspended by the *lam*. Now, an example. An example of the one where it is broken absolutely if it occurs in the answer to an oath.
The student: I swore that Zayd is standing. I swore that Zayd.
The Shaykh : Pay attention to his example.
The student: Do you want an example, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, an example of what must be broken, whether it has the *lam* or not.
The student: It must be broken in it.
The Shaykh : It appears that Abdullah does not ...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : I could not review ... So ... come on.
The student: By the life of Amr, you are opening, O Shaykh. The condition now is that the verb
The Shaykh : ... finished. Give us a correct ruling. We want you to give an example that you apply to what you said, just.
The student: That the oath is by other than
The Shaykh : You understood from your words that if it is accompanied by the *lam*, breaking is obligatory.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the verb of the oath is not mentioned, breaking is obligatory.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the verb of the oath is without the *lam*, two ways are permissible.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is your statement. Three categories.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We want an example that is obligatory in all cases.
The student: By Allah, you are ...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: By Allah, Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : Error.
The student: Suspended by the *lam*.
The Shaykh : Yes, I do not want it suspended by the *lam*.
The student: The example of the obligatory breaking, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, the obligatory breaking in all cases.
The student: I swore that you are ...
The Shaykh : Error.
The student: O Shaykh, by Allah, Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : By Allah, Zayd is standing.
The student: By Allah, Zayd is standing. Correct. It is not permissible for me to say "By Allah, that Zayd." Now, an example of what is accompanied by the *lam*.
The student: By Allah, Zayd is indeed standing. By Allah, Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : Now, is the example correct? But if a person says this, breaking is obligatory ... the *lam*, and we want something where breaking is obligatory because of the *lam*.
The student: Because of the *lam*.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I knew that Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : This is not a category.
The student: I swore that Zayd is indeed standing.
The Shaykh : Correct. I swore that Zayd is indeed standing. Well done. Now, what is ... in the two ways?
The student: If the oath is by a verb and it is not suspended by the *lam*.
The Shaykh : For example
The student: Like "I swore that Zayd is standing."
The Shaykh : and it is permissible.
The student: And it is permissible to say "I swore that Zayd is indeed standing."
The Shaykh : No, my brother, do not answer with the *lam*.
The student: I swore that Zayd is standing, and I swore that Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Correct, everyone? Correct. Well done. Now.
The author says, or I say, if *Inna* occurs after the sudden *idha*, is breaking obligatory or not?
The student: Breaking is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Breaking is not obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Opening is obligatory.
The student: Both ways are obligatory.
The Shaykh : Is it obligatory or permissible?
The student: Both ways are permissible with ...
The Shaykh : Yes, now, an example.
The student: I went out, and then *Inna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Now, the second way.
The student: I went out, and then *anna* Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Correct, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, correct. May Allah bless you. If *Inna* occurs after the *fa* of the answer to a condition, how many ways are permissible for it, Sa'd?
The student: Two ways are permissible.
The Shaykh : Two ways. What are they?
The student: Breaking ...
The Shaykh : Give an example with the broken one.
The student: Broken?
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I went out. Whoever comes to me, *inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: Whoever comes to me, *fa-inna* he is honored.
The Shaykh : Whoever comes to me, whoever comes to me, *inna* he
The student: is honored.
The Shaykh : Is honored. And it is permissible
The student: *Fa-anna* he.
The Shaykh : *fa-anna* he is honored. Correct. Now, may Allah bless you.
What are the tools that accompany the *lam* of inception from *Inna* and its sisters? *Inna* and its sisters are divided, in terms of their association with the *lam*, into two categories: a category where the *lam* is associated with it, and a category where it is not. So, what is it that the *lam* is associated with in its predicate? Ibn Dawud.
The student: O Shaykh, I did not attend and I did not review, I did not know.
The Shaykh : You did not attend and did not review.
The student: I did not know, O Shaykh ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: *In*
The Shaykh : The broken *Inna* and others.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : And what do you say? Correct? Bring a witness or a supporter for your statement from the words of Ibn Malik.
The student: "And after the one with breaking, the predicate is accompanied *** by the *lam* of inception, like *Inna* I am indeed a burden"
The Shaykh :"And after the one with breaking" which is *Inna* "the predicate is accompanied *** by the *lam* of inception, like *Inna* I am indeed a burden"
Now, perfect. Is it permissible to say *Inna* Zayd is indeed standing?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: A verb, if it is
The Shaykh : I am asking you, do not tell me to distinguish. *Inna* Zayd is indeed standing.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : *Inna* Zayd is indeed standing.
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Bring what supports your statement from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*"
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*"
The Shaykh :" *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*" Well done.
*Inna* Zayd is indeed *asa* that he will stand.
The student: ... because it is non-inflectable and static ...
The Shaykh : What do you say?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Bring from the words of Ibn Malik what supports your statement.
The student: The implication of his saying: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*"
The Shaykh : The implication of his saying: " *** And not from the verbs, like *ridha*" Yes, correct. So, the prohibition is by the explicit statement with Muhammad. What is your name?
The student: Al-Tahir.
The Shaykh : pure
The student: Al-Tahir.
The Shaykh : Al-Tahir. And you have it by the implication. When does the verb that follows it, the inflectable verb, when does it follow it? The *lam* that occurs in the predicate of *Inna*, the inflectable verb?
The student: It follows it if *Inna* comes, if after it comes *qad* ... *qad* on the predicate.
The Shaykh : Its example
The student: *Inna* Zayd has indeed stood.
The Shaykh : *Inna* Zayd has indeed stood.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What supports your statement from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: And it may follow it, like *idha*, like *Inna*, if
The Shaykh : And it may follow it, like *Inna*, if. The verse is broken in wording and meaning.
The student: The verse does not come to mind, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It must come to mind.
The student: Correct, it follows it with *qad*, like *Inna*, if
The Shaykh : And it may follow it with *qad*, like *Inna*.
The student: Standing on
The Shaykh : What? Do not look.
The student: It is not here.
The Shaykh : Yes ...
The student: ... The verse does not come to mind.
The Shaykh : You see, the *Alfiyyah* is important.
The student: Correct.
Another student: "And it may follow it with *qad*, like *Inna* this *** Indeed he rose above the enemies, standing"
The Shaykh :"And it may follow it with *qad*, like *Inna* this *** Indeed he rose above the enemies, standing"
Now, Ibn Malik mentioned that this *lam* accompanies three things. Samih.
The student: The first: It accompanies the object of the predicate, on the condition that it is in the middle between the name and the predicate.
And the second: It accompanies the separating pronoun.
The third: It accompanies the name if the predicate is delayed.
The Shaykh : Yes, an example, O Sharafi. An example of the name delayed from the predicate accompanied by the *lam*, from the words of Allah the Mighty.
The student:
although they had been before in manifest error.
إن كانوا من قبل لفي ضلال مبينThe Shaykh : Error.
The student:
Indeed, in that is a lesson
إن في ذلك لعبرةThe Shaykh :
Indeed in that is a lesson for those who have understanding
إن في ذلك لعبرة صحيحThe student: *Inna* Allah, He is
The Shaykh : Mansur.
The student: The saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic:
Indeed, this is the true narrative
إن هذا لهو القصص الحقThe Shaykh : His saying, Exalted is He:
Indeed, this is the true narrative
إن هذا لهو القصص الحقThe student: Correct
The Shaykh : Now, an example of its entry on the object of the predicate.
The student: Its entry on the object of the predicate.
The Shaykh : The middle one.
The student: *Inna* Zayd is standing and Amr. *Inna* Zayd is standing and Amr. *Inna* Zayd is standing and Amr.
The Shaykh : No, no, my brother. Our discussion is about the lam that enters the object of the predicate, which is placed between it and the subject. If you wish, use an example from outside the Qur'an, from your own mind. Yes.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is one who will eat your food.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is one who will eat your food. What is "food" the object of?
The student: Eating.
The Shaykh : Of "eating," which is the predicate. So you brought it forward, placing it between it and the noun, and the lam entered it. Correct? Yes.
What are the particles in which two options are permissible for the conjoined element among the sisters of inna?
The student: Inna, lakin, and anna.
The Shaykh : Inna, lakin, and anna. And "kanna Muhammad." Do you agree with this?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What did he say?
The student: He said inna, lakin, and anna.
The Shaykh : Inna, lakin, and anna.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, for example.
The student: For which one?
The Shaykh : For inna.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr, or and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The student: Standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Good, come on, Jamal.
Parse: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The student: Inna... it is emphatic, it makes the subject accusative and the predicate nominative.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Zayd is its name, made accusative by it, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah on its end.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Standing is the predicate of inna, made nominative by it, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end. And 'Amr, and 'Amr?
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The waw is for conjunction, and 'Amr is conjoined to Zayd.
The Shaykh : Regarding what?
The student: To Zayd.
The Shaykh : To Zayd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Continue. It is accusative, and the sign of its accusative is.
The student: The visible fathah on its end.
The Shaykh : Good, for the second option.
The student: The second option: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Inna, what?
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : We said that.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : We did not say that, but it is a mistake.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Why did you not say that it is according to the language of those who make both parts accusative, "Indeed, Zayd is standing"?
The student: I brought it...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: I brought it...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: I brought it by mistake.
The Shaykh : By mistake. Yes, good. Honesty is salvation. Come on, Abdullah.
The student: The requirement.
The Shaykh : Look, what is the requirement?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We have finished one of the two options. We need the second one.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing, and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Indeed, Zayd is standing.
The student: and 'Amr
The Shaykh : Standing is nominative, and 'Amr. Good, parse it.
The student: Inna: a particle of substitution that makes the name accusative and the predicate nominative. Zayd: the name of inna, made accusative by it, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah on its end. Standing: the predicate of inna.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: and 'Amr
The Shaykh : The predicate of inna, complete.
The student: Made nominative by it, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end. And 'Amr: a subject, made nominative, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : What is the waw?
The student: The waw is a conjunction.
The Shaykh : A particle of conjunction.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: And 'Amr: a subject, made nominative, and the sign of its nominative is the visible dammah on its end, and the predicate is its confirmation.
The Shaykh : Where is the predicate?
The student: The predicate is implied.
The Shaykh : Implied or omitted? The estimation.
The student: Present.
The Shaykh : This is not acceptable. It exists, so it is not acceptable, because if it existed, it would not be permissible to omit it.
The student: And 'Amr is standing.
The Shaykh : And 'Amr, yes, standing. Good, the conjunction here is from the category of conjoining what?
The student: The sentence.
The Shaykh : Is there another option?
The student: For what?
The Shaykh : Regarding 'Amr, from one side. You said it is a subject.
The student: ... predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Conjoined to the position of the name of inna.
The Shaykh : To the position of inna and its name. Good, and on this basis, it does not need the predicate to be estimated. Good, come on, Yusuf. We have three left from the sisters of inna. What is the ruling of these three when conjoined to them after the predicate is completed?
The student: If conjoined to them after the predicate is completed, then one option is obligatory for them.
The Shaykh : And He
The student: And that is the accusative.
The Shaykh : The accusative. For example.
The student: Indeed, Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : What do you say? We have finished with inna. Inna permits both options.
The student: Layt.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Layt Zayd is standing.
The Shaykh : Layt Zayd is standing.
The student: *Layta* Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : And 'Amr. Is it permissible for me to say: Layt Zayd is standing, and 'Amr?
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because only one option is valid in it.
The Shaykh : Why is only one option valid in it?
The student: ... from the Arabs...
The Shaykh : Good, and why was the nominative not heard from the Arabs?
The student: Why was it not heard?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed
The student: Because it was not heard.
The Shaykh : Justifying with the ruling is not acceptable. Why did Zayd stand? Because he is standing. This is not acceptable. This is not acceptable. Yes.
The student: It was not reported from the Arabs because the meaning changes.
The Shaykh : Correct, because if we made it nominative, the meaning would change.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Zayn, I understood. If I say: Layt Zayd is standing, and 'Amr. What about 'Amr? 'Amr is standing, so it does not enter the scope of wishing. This is because if you make it nominative, it does not enter the scope of wishing that layt conveys.
La'alla is like it, but like it. What is the one that is lightened?
The student: Kanna.
The Shaykh : Kanna. Yes. And kanna is like it. What is the one that is lightened from these particles such that its function changes?
The student: ... the particles.
The Shaykh : And they are
The student: Whose function changes... inna and anna...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Anna, if it is lightened, the stronger view is... it remains as it is.
The Shaykh : What remains as it is?
The student: Inna, if it is lightened, its function is disrupted, and so is kanna.
The Shaykh : Kanna. Do you agree with this opinion?
The student: No, only inna.
The Shaykh : Only inna. The scholars differed in two opinions. So what is the stronger view?
The student: The stronger view is that the ones that are lightened are three categories.
The Shaykh : No, I mean the ones that are lightened with the function remaining or not.
The student: Yes, both options are permissible for most...
The Shaykh : For all three.
The student: No, only inna.
Another student: Regarding kanna, "As if their breasts were two firm breasts".
The Shaykh : What comes after? We have reached this.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... Inna and anna, what comes after? And kanna and lakin. But it is lightened as he said. And inna is lightened and functions, but its function is rare. And anna functions and is not lightened. And kanna functions, and its non-functioning is rare. Is that right or not? Its function is rare, and its non-functioning, I mean, mentioning its name is rare and omitting it is common. Omitting it is common and mentioning its name is rare. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes. Good. First, anna, if it is lightened, it functions and its name is omitted. Inna has two options: functioning and being lightened, and lightening is more common, but it is lightened. Yes, if it is lightened, it is omitted and becomes a particle of conjunction. What is left for us? Kanna. Kanna functions, but its name is omitted, and mentioning its name is rare.
The student: La'alla.
The Shaykh : La'alla was not lightened. Its lightening was not reported from the Arabs. So how many of the heavy ones are there?
The student: Five.
The Shaykh : Five: inna, anna, lakin, kanna, and la'alla. Is that right?
They are divided in terms of lightening into two categories: a category that is not lightened, which is.
The student: La'alla.
The Shaykh : La'alla. And a category that is lightened. Then this lightened category is divided in terms of function into categories: First: Anna, if it is lightened, its function remains.
Second: Inna, if it is lightened, its function decreases, and the most common is that it is omitted.
Third: Lakin, if it is lightened, it is omitted.
Fourth: What?
The student: Kanna.
The Shaykh : Kanna, if it is lightened, it functions, and the most common is omitting its name, and mentioning it is permissible. From this is the saying: "As if their breasts were two firm breasts."
"And a chest bright in color *** As if its two breasts were full"
All of this is taken from the author's words, but the author (may Allah have mercy on him) did not make this division. However, when a person understands the author's words, he knows that this division we mentioned results from it.
The time is up. He says, good.