Continuation of the explanation of Ibn Malik’s (may Allah have mercy on him) saying: “And it is common in this chapter to omit the predicate *** if the intended meaning is clear with its omission.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
“And it is common in this chapter to omit the predicate *** if the intended meaning is”
clear with its omission
The student: its omission
The Shaykh : Yes, “with its omission, it is clear”
His saying “it is common in this chapter” means it became frequent and widespread
“in this chapter” means the chapter of *la* that negates the genus
“omitting the predicate” this is the subject of “it is common,” meaning that omitting the predicate became frequent in the chapter of *la* that negates the genus, but on the condition that the intended meaning is clear with its omission, meaning if the intended meaning is clear with its omission. An example of this is to say: “Is there a man in the house?” and you say: “No man,” meaning in the house. And as one who visits a sick person says: “No harm,” meaning
The student: ...
The Shaykh : visiting the sick person, no harm, meaning there is no harm on him. And as the mufti says to the one who asked him: “No harm,” meaning on you, like the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when he was asked about advancing and delaying in the rituals of Hajj on the day of Eid, he said: “No harm,” meaning there is no harm on you. And it is known from his saying: “if the intended meaning is clear with its omission”, meaning if the meaning is not clear, then omission is not permissible. For example, if you say: “No good man,” “No man, what?” meaning no man is present, no man is in the house, no man is sick, no man is healthy. It is not known. So if we do not know what is omitted, omission is prohibited. This rule and this issue are taken from a rule that preceded us in the chapter of the subject and the predicate in the saying of Ibn Malik: “And omitting what is known is permissible”. That is a general rule for everything: whatever is known, its omission is permissible, and whatever is not known, its omission is prohibited. Why? Because the intended purpose of speech is to clarify the meaning. So if it is not known, omission is prohibited. Omission is prohibited. Now, with this, the discussion on *la* that negates the genus is concluded. And, if Allah wills, we will have a writing on *la* that negates the genus, with its repetition by conjunction or without conjunction. Perhaps, if Allah wills, we will bring it in the next lesson. And praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Yes.
The questioner : The differences between *la* that negates the genus and *la* which is one of the sisters of *lays*
The Shaykh : Yes
“And it is common in this chapter to omit the predicate *** if the intended meaning is”
clear with its omission
The student: its omission
The Shaykh : Yes, “with its omission, it is clear”
His saying “it is common in this chapter” means it became frequent and widespread
“in this chapter” means the chapter of *la* that negates the genus
“omitting the predicate” this is the subject of “it is common,” meaning that omitting the predicate became frequent in the chapter of *la* that negates the genus, but on the condition that the intended meaning is clear with its omission, meaning if the intended meaning is clear with its omission. An example of this is to say: “Is there a man in the house?” and you say: “No man,” meaning in the house. And as one who visits a sick person says: “No harm,” meaning
The student: ...
The Shaykh : visiting the sick person, no harm, meaning there is no harm on him. And as the mufti says to the one who asked him: “No harm,” meaning on you, like the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when he was asked about advancing and delaying in the rituals of Hajj on the day of Eid, he said: “No harm,” meaning there is no harm on you. And it is known from his saying: “if the intended meaning is clear with its omission”, meaning if the meaning is not clear, then omission is not permissible. For example, if you say: “No good man,” “No man, what?” meaning no man is present, no man is in the house, no man is sick, no man is healthy. It is not known. So if we do not know what is omitted, omission is prohibited. This rule and this issue are taken from a rule that preceded us in the chapter of the subject and the predicate in the saying of Ibn Malik: “And omitting what is known is permissible”. That is a general rule for everything: whatever is known, its omission is permissible, and whatever is not known, its omission is prohibited. Why? Because the intended purpose of speech is to clarify the meaning. So if it is not known, omission is prohibited. Omission is prohibited. Now, with this, the discussion on *la* that negates the genus is concluded. And, if Allah wills, we will have a writing on *la* that negates the genus, with its repetition by conjunction or without conjunction. Perhaps, if Allah wills, we will bring it in the next lesson. And praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Yes.
The questioner : The differences between *la* that negates the genus and *la* which is one of the sisters of *lays*
The Shaykh : Yes