Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a part of these does not take the place of the agent if there is *** an object in the expression, and it may occur."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And a part of these does not take the place of the agent if there is *** an object in the expression"
This means that if there is an object in the expression, it is not permissible for any of these three to take the place of the agent. For example: "Zayd was struck before the prince on Saturday," or "Zayd was struck before the prince on Saturday with a severe strike." Now, are these three?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Zayd was struck before the prince on Saturday with a severe strike." What is the type of adverbial phrase for "before"?
The student: Place.
The Shaykh : Place. What about "on Friday"?
The student: An adverbial phrase of time.
The Shaykh : What about "with a severe strike"?
The student: A verbal noun (masdar).
The Shaykh : It is a verbal noun. Therefore, it is not permissible for any of these three to take the place of the agent because of the presence of the object, which is Zayd, because the striking occurred to Zayd. So, if an object is present in the expression, it is not permissible to deviate from it. However, he said: "and it may occur". I think we have not analyzed this verse yet. "May" here is for minimization, because it entered upon the present tense verb. When "may" enters upon a present tense verb, it is for minimization, and when it enters upon a past tense verb, it becomes for realization. However, it may occur for realization with a present tense verb, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted:. Yes, from whom does it occur?
The student: From the Arabs.
The Shaykh : It occurs from the Arabs, and it is known that the Arabs judge the grammarians, not that the grammarians judge the Arabs. And they mentioned a verse for this, which is his saying: "
The word "al-'Aliya" was not intended to refer to anything but a master. " " The word "al-'Aliya" was not intended to refer to anything but a master. " Where is the object of the verb in this verse?
The student: The high status.
The Shaykh : "Master" is the object, and "by the high status" is a preposition and its object. And yet, "master," which is the object, was put in the accusative case. So "by the high status" becomes the substitute for the agent, even though it is a preposition and its object. But this is rare; this is rare, because whenever it is possible to direct the verb to the object, one does not deviate from it. As for the grammatical analysis, his saying "does not take the place" is a negated present tense verb with "la," and "a part" is the agent, and "a part" is a possessive, and "these" is the possessed. "If found" is a conditional clause, the conditional particle is "in," and the conditional verb is "found." So where is the answer to the condition? It was said that the answer to the condition is not needed in such a construction. And it was said that it is omitted, indicated by what came before it. On this view, the implied meaning is: "If found, then it does not take the place." But the first opinion is better, and it is the one chosen by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), that in such a construction, an answer is not needed. This is because the mind does not look for the answer, and if it does not look for it, there is no need for us to estimate it. Then, if you estimate it while there is something indicating it, you combine the indicator and the indicated. And if you estimate it while it is omitted, you miss the purpose for which the speech was composed in this manner. His saying "object" is a substitute for the agent, and "found" is [part of the clause]. His saying "and it may occur" is a verbal clause confirmed by "may," and "occurs" is a present tense verb raised by the visible dammah, and its agent is hidden permissibly, estimated as "it."
This means that if there is an object in the expression, it is not permissible for any of these three to take the place of the agent. For example: "Zayd was struck before the prince on Saturday," or "Zayd was struck before the prince on Saturday with a severe strike." Now, are these three?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Zayd was struck before the prince on Saturday with a severe strike." What is the type of adverbial phrase for "before"?
The student: Place.
The Shaykh : Place. What about "on Friday"?
The student: An adverbial phrase of time.
The Shaykh : What about "with a severe strike"?
The student: A verbal noun (masdar).
The Shaykh : It is a verbal noun. Therefore, it is not permissible for any of these three to take the place of the agent because of the presence of the object, which is Zayd, because the striking occurred to Zayd. So, if an object is present in the expression, it is not permissible to deviate from it. However, he said: "and it may occur". I think we have not analyzed this verse yet. "May" here is for minimization, because it entered upon the present tense verb. When "may" enters upon a present tense verb, it is for minimization, and when it enters upon a past tense verb, it becomes for realization. However, it may occur for realization with a present tense verb, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Perhaps [He] knows the obstructers among you
قد يعلم المعوّقين منكمThe student: From the Arabs.
The Shaykh : It occurs from the Arabs, and it is known that the Arabs judge the grammarians, not that the grammarians judge the Arabs. And they mentioned a verse for this, which is his saying: "
The word "al-'Aliya" was not intended to refer to anything but a master. " " The word "al-'Aliya" was not intended to refer to anything but a master. " Where is the object of the verb in this verse?
The student: The high status.
The Shaykh : "Master" is the object, and "by the high status" is a preposition and its object. And yet, "master," which is the object, was put in the accusative case. So "by the high status" becomes the substitute for the agent, even though it is a preposition and its object. But this is rare; this is rare, because whenever it is possible to direct the verb to the object, one does not deviate from it. As for the grammatical analysis, his saying "does not take the place" is a negated present tense verb with "la," and "a part" is the agent, and "a part" is a possessive, and "these" is the possessed. "If found" is a conditional clause, the conditional particle is "in," and the conditional verb is "found." So where is the answer to the condition? It was said that the answer to the condition is not needed in such a construction. And it was said that it is omitted, indicated by what came before it. On this view, the implied meaning is: "If found, then it does not take the place." But the first opinion is better, and it is the one chosen by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), that in such a construction, an answer is not needed. This is because the mind does not look for the answer, and if it does not look for it, there is no need for us to estimate it. Then, if you estimate it while there is something indicating it, you combine the indicator and the indicated. And if you estimate it while it is omitted, you miss the purpose for which the speech was composed in this manner. His saying "object" is a substitute for the agent, and "found" is [part of the clause]. His saying "and it may occur" is a verbal clause confirmed by "may," and "occurs" is a present tense verb raised by the visible dammah, and its agent is hidden permissibly, estimated as "it."