Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And he permitted cancellation, but not at the beginning *** and 'that' is the pronoun of the matter, or the lam of beginning."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And he permitted cancellation and obligated suspension" After he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the particles in which cancellation and suspension are permissible, he distinguished between the ruling on cancellation and the ruling on suspension, and where cancellation applies and where suspension applies.
The command is "permitted," and "cancellation" is the object.
"Not at the beginning" "Not" is a negation. "At the beginning" is a preposition and its object, connected to a deleted phrase, the meaning of which is "he does not permit it at the beginning." It is also permissible for it to be connected to "permitted."
"And 'that' is the pronoun of the matter" and so on. He permitted cancellation, which is the nullification of the grammatical effect in both form and position. However, he (may Allah have mercy on him) excluded the beginning; that is, cancellation is not permissible at the beginning. If someone asks: "Is there anything other than the beginning?" We say: Yes, the particles. A particle is either at the beginning of the sentence, in the middle, or at the end. If I say: "Zayd is standing, I thought," the particle is at the end, and the object is at the beginning. Ibn Malik says: Cancellation is not permissible at the beginning, meaning when the two objects precede the particle. If the two objects precede the particle, cancellation is not permissible. So if I say: "Zayd is standing, I thought," this is prohibited. Why? Because the objects preceded the particle. Correct? You are following without guidance.
The student: Incorrect...
The Shaykh : Incorrect. That is, cancellation is permitted, but if the particle occurs at the beginning, it is not permitted. You are doing well, may Allah will it. So, if I say: "If the particle occurs at the beginning, cancellation is not permissible," and if it occurs elsewhere, it is permissible, did you understand? Where does the particle occur? Sometimes at the beginning, sometimes in the middle, sometimes at the end. If it occurs at the beginning, cancellation is prohibited, like saying: "I thought Zayd is standing." This is prohibited because the particle occurred at the beginning. If it occurs in the middle, both options are permissible: cancellation and application. You say: "Zayd (accusative) I thought standing (accusative)," and you say: "Zayd (nominative) I thought standing (nominative)." Is this permissible or not? If the particle occurs at the end, cancellation is also permissible. You say: "Zayd is standing, I thought." So there are three cases:
The first case: The particle precedes, and cancellation is prohibited.
The second case: The particle is in the middle, and both options are equally permissible. The third case: The particle is delayed, and both options are permissible, but cancellation is more preferred. Cancellation is more preferred because of its weakness due to the delay.
Now, the Kufis said: Cancellation is permissible even if the particle precedes. Cancellation is permissible even if the particle precedes. So if I say: "I thought Zayd is standing," it is permissible according to the Kufis. They say there is no obstacle, and this has occurred in the speech of the Arabs. Do you know? Which is more preferred? Yes, the one that eases the rule; as long as it is easier, it is more preferred. Based on this, if one of you reads to me now from a book and says: "And if he thought the rain would be heavy, let him praise Allah," and then says: "And if he thought the rain is heavy, let him praise Allah," what do we say? We say: So, are you a Kufi or not? As for the Basris, this is not permissible. They say: If the particle is the first, you cannot cancel it. Cancellation is not permitted at the beginning.
Now, if something from the speech of the Arabs indicates cancellation with the particle preceding, yes, the Basris said: We interpret it, and there is no harm in distorting the text in this place. Yes, in order to correct the rule, he said:
"*** And 'that' is the pronoun of the matter, or the lam of beginning, in a place where cancellation of what preceded is implied"
"Anu" means "considered." The pronoun of the matter, or the lam of beginning, in a place where cancellation of what preceded is implied. If something is found in the speech of the Arabs that necessitates its cancellation despite the preceding, "anu" is the pronoun of the matter. An example is:
"Thus I was taught until it became of my nature *** That I found the master of character to be manners"
"Thus I was taught until it became of my nature *** That I found the master of character to be manners"
In Arabic speech, even if it were not Arabic, we would say it is an error. You must say: "That I found the master of character to be manners (accusative)." But the Arab said: "That I found the master of character to be manners (nominative)." They said: So we cannot tell the Arab he made a mistake, because the speech of the Arabs in grammar is in the position of evidence in legal rulings. If the evidence contradicts our minds, it must be distorted. It must be distorted. If the speech of the Arabs contradicts our minds and what we have established, we must interpret it. We say: "That I found the master of character to be manners," considering it the pronoun of the matter.
The reader: He (may Allah have mercy on him) says in the chapter of "Zanna" (I thought) and its sisters.
The command is "permitted," and "cancellation" is the object.
"Not at the beginning" "Not" is a negation. "At the beginning" is a preposition and its object, connected to a deleted phrase, the meaning of which is "he does not permit it at the beginning." It is also permissible for it to be connected to "permitted."
"And 'that' is the pronoun of the matter" and so on. He permitted cancellation, which is the nullification of the grammatical effect in both form and position. However, he (may Allah have mercy on him) excluded the beginning; that is, cancellation is not permissible at the beginning. If someone asks: "Is there anything other than the beginning?" We say: Yes, the particles. A particle is either at the beginning of the sentence, in the middle, or at the end. If I say: "Zayd is standing, I thought," the particle is at the end, and the object is at the beginning. Ibn Malik says: Cancellation is not permissible at the beginning, meaning when the two objects precede the particle. If the two objects precede the particle, cancellation is not permissible. So if I say: "Zayd is standing, I thought," this is prohibited. Why? Because the objects preceded the particle. Correct? You are following without guidance.
The student: Incorrect...
The Shaykh : Incorrect. That is, cancellation is permitted, but if the particle occurs at the beginning, it is not permitted. You are doing well, may Allah will it. So, if I say: "If the particle occurs at the beginning, cancellation is not permissible," and if it occurs elsewhere, it is permissible, did you understand? Where does the particle occur? Sometimes at the beginning, sometimes in the middle, sometimes at the end. If it occurs at the beginning, cancellation is prohibited, like saying: "I thought Zayd is standing." This is prohibited because the particle occurred at the beginning. If it occurs in the middle, both options are permissible: cancellation and application. You say: "Zayd (accusative) I thought standing (accusative)," and you say: "Zayd (nominative) I thought standing (nominative)." Is this permissible or not? If the particle occurs at the end, cancellation is also permissible. You say: "Zayd is standing, I thought." So there are three cases:
The first case: The particle precedes, and cancellation is prohibited.
The second case: The particle is in the middle, and both options are equally permissible. The third case: The particle is delayed, and both options are permissible, but cancellation is more preferred. Cancellation is more preferred because of its weakness due to the delay.
Now, the Kufis said: Cancellation is permissible even if the particle precedes. Cancellation is permissible even if the particle precedes. So if I say: "I thought Zayd is standing," it is permissible according to the Kufis. They say there is no obstacle, and this has occurred in the speech of the Arabs. Do you know? Which is more preferred? Yes, the one that eases the rule; as long as it is easier, it is more preferred. Based on this, if one of you reads to me now from a book and says: "And if he thought the rain would be heavy, let him praise Allah," and then says: "And if he thought the rain is heavy, let him praise Allah," what do we say? We say: So, are you a Kufi or not? As for the Basris, this is not permissible. They say: If the particle is the first, you cannot cancel it. Cancellation is not permitted at the beginning.
Now, if something from the speech of the Arabs indicates cancellation with the particle preceding, yes, the Basris said: We interpret it, and there is no harm in distorting the text in this place. Yes, in order to correct the rule, he said:
"*** And 'that' is the pronoun of the matter, or the lam of beginning, in a place where cancellation of what preceded is implied"
"Anu" means "considered." The pronoun of the matter, or the lam of beginning, in a place where cancellation of what preceded is implied. If something is found in the speech of the Arabs that necessitates its cancellation despite the preceding, "anu" is the pronoun of the matter. An example is:
"Thus I was taught until it became of my nature *** That I found the master of character to be manners"
"Thus I was taught until it became of my nature *** That I found the master of character to be manners"
In Arabic speech, even if it were not Arabic, we would say it is an error. You must say: "That I found the master of character to be manners (accusative)." But the Arab said: "That I found the master of character to be manners (nominative)." They said: So we cannot tell the Arab he made a mistake, because the speech of the Arabs in grammar is in the position of evidence in legal rulings. If the evidence contradicts our minds, it must be distorted. It must be distorted. If the speech of the Arabs contradicts our minds and what we have established, we must interpret it. We say: "That I found the master of character to be manners," considering it the pronoun of the matter.
The reader: He (may Allah have mercy on him) says in the chapter of "Zanna" (I thought) and its sisters.