Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it is not permissible here without evidence *** to drop two objects or one object."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said:
"And it is not permissible here without evidence *** to drop two objects or one object"
"It is not permissible here" means in the chapter of *Zanna* (to think) and its sisters.
"Without evidence" of dropping. Good. It is not permissible here. We have forgotten the grammar.
"La" is a prohibitive particle, and for this reason the verb following it is in the jussive mood. But what is the sign of the jussive mood? What is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The sign is the sign of the jussive mood.
The student: Sukun.
The Shaykh : Where did the *ya* go? Because the original form of *tajiz* is *tajuza*. The *ya* was deleted due to the meeting of two static letters. The rule, when two static letters meet, is what he indicated in *al-Kafiyyah* where he said: "One."
The student: "If two static letters meet, break what precedes *** And if it is soft, delete it and it is due"
The Shaykh : Yes. "If two static letters meet, break what precedes *** And if it is soft, delete it and it is due"
Is it soft here or not? The *zay* is static and the *ya* is static. Delete the *ya*.
And his statement "dropping": this is the object of *tajiz*. And his statement "two objects" is a possessive, or "one object" is conjoined.
He says (may Allah have mercy on him): It is not permissible to delete the single object or the two objects in the chapter of *Zanna* and its sisters except with evidence. And this ruling is actually a specific instance of the general rule, which is that deleting what is known is permissible.
Good. So if the evidence indicates deletion, it is permissible. So if someone asks you: "Who did you think was standing?" and you said: "I thought it was Zayd." What was deleted?
The student: Standing.
The Shaykh : "Standing" is the second object.
And if someone asks you: "What do you think of Zayd?" and you said: "I think standing," meaning "I think Zayd is standing." Good.
Both objects. If someone asks you: "What do you know about Zayd, is he standing or sitting?" What do you say? "I think standing." This is one object. How about the two objects?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If someone says: "Do you think Zayd is standing?" and you say: "I think," meaning "I think Zayd is standing." And the summary is that it is permissible to delete one of the objects and to delete all the objects, all of this after the existence of evidence. If no evidence exists, then deletion is not permissible, because if it is deleted without evidence, ambiguity arises in the speech and the required benefit is not achieved.
"And it is not permissible here without evidence *** to drop two objects or one object"
"It is not permissible here" means in the chapter of *Zanna* (to think) and its sisters.
"Without evidence" of dropping. Good. It is not permissible here. We have forgotten the grammar.
"La" is a prohibitive particle, and for this reason the verb following it is in the jussive mood. But what is the sign of the jussive mood? What is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The sign is the sign of the jussive mood.
The student: Sukun.
The Shaykh : Where did the *ya* go? Because the original form of *tajiz* is *tajuza*. The *ya* was deleted due to the meeting of two static letters. The rule, when two static letters meet, is what he indicated in *al-Kafiyyah* where he said: "One."
The student: "If two static letters meet, break what precedes *** And if it is soft, delete it and it is due"
The Shaykh : Yes. "If two static letters meet, break what precedes *** And if it is soft, delete it and it is due"
Is it soft here or not? The *zay* is static and the *ya* is static. Delete the *ya*.
And his statement "dropping": this is the object of *tajiz*. And his statement "two objects" is a possessive, or "one object" is conjoined.
He says (may Allah have mercy on him): It is not permissible to delete the single object or the two objects in the chapter of *Zanna* and its sisters except with evidence. And this ruling is actually a specific instance of the general rule, which is that deleting what is known is permissible.
Good. So if the evidence indicates deletion, it is permissible. So if someone asks you: "Who did you think was standing?" and you said: "I thought it was Zayd." What was deleted?
The student: Standing.
The Shaykh : "Standing" is the second object.
And if someone asks you: "What do you think of Zayd?" and you said: "I think standing," meaning "I think Zayd is standing." Good.
Both objects. If someone asks you: "What do you know about Zayd, is he standing or sitting?" What do you say? "I think standing." This is one object. How about the two objects?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If someone says: "Do you think Zayd is standing?" and you say: "I think," meaning "I think Zayd is standing." And the summary is that it is permissible to delete one of the objects and to delete all the objects, all of this after the existence of evidence. If no evidence exists, then deletion is not permissible, because if it is deleted without evidence, ambiguity arises in the speech and the required benefit is not achieved.