Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): . . . *** And "in" is the pronoun of the matter, or the lam of beginning. In what implies the cancellation of what preceded *** . . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :" ***And 'in' is the pronoun of the matter, or the lam of beginning. In what implies the cancellation of what preceded *** "
"In" is the pronoun of the matter, in which case it is the first object, being omitted, and the sentence is in the position of the second object; or it is the lam of beginning, in which case the entire sentence is in the position of the object, occupying the place of the two objects of the verb.
Now, let us present examples: "I thought Zayd to be standing" — is this correct or not?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Now, "Zayd is standing, I thought."
The student: "Zayd is standing, I thought."
The Shaykh : Yes, but is it permissible or not? "Zayd is standing, I thought."
The student: Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Be patient. Is it permissible or not?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, "I thought Zayd to be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "I thought Zayd to be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, "Zayd, I thought, to be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "I thought."
The Shaykh : "To be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is not correct. What do you say? If we make the first object omitted, meaning "I thought him" (Zayd), and it will come to us that it is permissible to omit both objects or one of them with evidence, then this would be correct, and the first object is omitted, its estimation being "I thought." Now, "I thought Zayd to be standing."
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : Except according to the opinion.
The student: Except according to the opinion of the Kufis, who are those of facilitation.
The Shaykh : The Kufis, who are those of facilitation and ease. Now.
"In" is the pronoun of the matter, in which case it is the first object, being omitted, and the sentence is in the position of the second object; or it is the lam of beginning, in which case the entire sentence is in the position of the object, occupying the place of the two objects of the verb.
Now, let us present examples: "I thought Zayd to be standing" — is this correct or not?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Now, "Zayd is standing, I thought."
The student: "Zayd is standing, I thought."
The Shaykh : Yes, but is it permissible or not? "Zayd is standing, I thought."
The student: Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Be patient. Is it permissible or not?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, "I thought Zayd to be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "I thought Zayd to be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, "Zayd, I thought, to be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "I thought."
The Shaykh : "To be standing."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is not correct. What do you say? If we make the first object omitted, meaning "I thought him" (Zayd), and it will come to us that it is permissible to omit both objects or one of them with evidence, then this would be correct, and the first object is omitted, its estimation being "I thought." Now, "I thought Zayd to be standing."
The student: It is not permissible
The Shaykh : Except according to the opinion.
The student: Except according to the opinion of the Kufis, who are those of facilitation.
The Shaykh : The Kufis, who are those of facilitation and ease. Now.