Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And omission with separation by 'illa is preferred *** just as 'Zaka illa fatat Ibn al-'Ala'."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And omission with separation by 'illa is preferred *** just as 'Zaka illa fatat Ibn al-'Ala'."
Yes, omission with separation. When he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned that if a separator is placed between the verb and a true feminine noun, it is permissible to omit the feminine agreement, but feminine agreement is better, he excluded one case: when the separator is 'illa. In this case, it is better to omit the feminine agreement. Pay attention: if the separator is 'illa, it is better to omit the feminine agreement. The example is: "Zaka illa fatat Ibn al-'Ala'". "Fatat" is a true feminine noun acting as the subject, and "illa" is the object?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : The subject. Where is the verb?
The student: Zaka.
The Shaykh : Zaka. The verb is now separated by 'illa. If we followed the first verse, we would say: feminine agreement is better than masculine agreement, or not? Because we say "Separation may be permitted". This is separation, but he excluded it. He excluded it and said: if the separator is 'illa, then feminine agreement is better. For this reason, he said: "And omission with separation by 'illa is preferred"
The student: Omission.
The Shaykh : Omission is better. Omission is better with separation by 'illa, so it is preferred. The apparent meaning of his words (may Allah have mercy on him) is that it is permissible to use feminine agreement, so you would say: "Zakat illa fatat Ibn al-'Ala."
All right, another example: "Qama illa Hindun" or "Qamat illa Hindun." Which one?
The student: The first is more correct.
The Shaykh : The first is more correct and more eloquent. Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) held the view that masculine agreement is obligatory if the separator is 'illa. If the separator is 'illa, he said: masculine agreement is obligatory. So you say: "Qama illa Hindun," and it is not permissible to say "Qamat illa Hind." He said this because the sentence is understood as "No one stood except Hind." If the sentence is understood in this way, then masculine agreement is obligatory. So if a student of knowledge comes to us and says: "Qamat illa Hindun," we say this is an error. He says: "I am following the school of Ibn Malik, and this is permissible, there is no harm in it." We cannot declare him wrong as long as this is the opinion of Ibn Malik, who is a famous one of the grammarians, so we do not declare him wrong.
The student: I'rab (grammatical analysis).
The Shaykh : Yes? The i'rab of the verse?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes, and the one before it.
Yes, omission with separation. When he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned that if a separator is placed between the verb and a true feminine noun, it is permissible to omit the feminine agreement, but feminine agreement is better, he excluded one case: when the separator is 'illa. In this case, it is better to omit the feminine agreement. Pay attention: if the separator is 'illa, it is better to omit the feminine agreement. The example is: "Zaka illa fatat Ibn al-'Ala'". "Fatat" is a true feminine noun acting as the subject, and "illa" is the object?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : The subject. Where is the verb?
The student: Zaka.
The Shaykh : Zaka. The verb is now separated by 'illa. If we followed the first verse, we would say: feminine agreement is better than masculine agreement, or not? Because we say "Separation may be permitted". This is separation, but he excluded it. He excluded it and said: if the separator is 'illa, then feminine agreement is better. For this reason, he said: "And omission with separation by 'illa is preferred"
The student: Omission.
The Shaykh : Omission is better. Omission is better with separation by 'illa, so it is preferred. The apparent meaning of his words (may Allah have mercy on him) is that it is permissible to use feminine agreement, so you would say: "Zakat illa fatat Ibn al-'Ala."
All right, another example: "Qama illa Hindun" or "Qamat illa Hindun." Which one?
The student: The first is more correct.
The Shaykh : The first is more correct and more eloquent. Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) held the view that masculine agreement is obligatory if the separator is 'illa. If the separator is 'illa, he said: masculine agreement is obligatory. So you say: "Qama illa Hindun," and it is not permissible to say "Qamat illa Hind." He said this because the sentence is understood as "No one stood except Hind." If the sentence is understood in this way, then masculine agreement is obligatory. So if a student of knowledge comes to us and says: "Qamat illa Hindun," we say this is an error. He says: "I am following the school of Ibn Malik, and this is permissible, there is no harm in it." We cannot declare him wrong as long as this is the opinion of Ibn Malik, who is a famous one of the grammarians, so we do not declare him wrong.
The student: I'rab (grammatical analysis).
The Shaykh : Yes? The i'rab of the verse?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes, and the one before it.