Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): In the chapter of *dhan* and *ara*, prohibition is well known *** And I do not see a prohibition if the intention is clear.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, "In the chapter of *dhan* and *ara*, prohibition is well known" In the chapter of *dhan*, which makes two objects accusative, the original of which is the subject and the predicate, unlike *kasa*, which makes two objects accusative, what is the original of them?
The student: It is not the subject and the predicate.
The Shaykh : It is not the subject and the predicate, and his saying: "and *ara*" is not here a present tense verb, but rather a past tense verb, and what is meant by it is: *ara* which makes three objects accusative, *ara* Zayd 'Umar standing, *ara* Zayd 'Umar standing, this is what Ibn Malik intended, in the chapter of *dhan* and *ara*, prohibition is well known, he said: "And I do not see a prohibition if the intention is clear" "And I do not see" he attributed the statement to himself that if the intention is clear, there is no obstacle to the second object taking the place of the subject while the first is in the accusative case, all right, regarding *ara*? Regarding *ara*, it is not the first that takes the place of the second, but the third takes the place of the second, because the second and the third are the ones whose original is?
The student: The subject and the predicate.
The Shaykh : The subject and the predicate, all right, you say *u'lima* Zayd 'Umar standing, *u'lima* Zayd 'Umar standing, now, what is the substitute for the subject?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd, and the grammarians prohibited the substitute for the subject being the second or the third, and Ibn Malik says: "And I do not see a prohibition if the intention is clear" such as saying: *u'lima* Zayd your horse saddled, *u'lima* Zayd your horse saddled, this is how it is in my explanation.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : *U'lima* Zayd your horse saddled.
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : But it appears that the correct view is with those who prohibited it, because the meaning changes, and the author's saying: "if the intention is clear" may be difficult to visualize, we read the explanation of this sentence.
The student: Yes.
The student: It is not the subject and the predicate.
The Shaykh : It is not the subject and the predicate, and his saying: "and *ara*" is not here a present tense verb, but rather a past tense verb, and what is meant by it is: *ara* which makes three objects accusative, *ara* Zayd 'Umar standing, *ara* Zayd 'Umar standing, this is what Ibn Malik intended, in the chapter of *dhan* and *ara*, prohibition is well known, he said: "And I do not see a prohibition if the intention is clear" "And I do not see" he attributed the statement to himself that if the intention is clear, there is no obstacle to the second object taking the place of the subject while the first is in the accusative case, all right, regarding *ara*? Regarding *ara*, it is not the first that takes the place of the second, but the third takes the place of the second, because the second and the third are the ones whose original is?
The student: The subject and the predicate.
The Shaykh : The subject and the predicate, all right, you say *u'lima* Zayd 'Umar standing, *u'lima* Zayd 'Umar standing, now, what is the substitute for the subject?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd, and the grammarians prohibited the substitute for the subject being the second or the third, and Ibn Malik says: "And I do not see a prohibition if the intention is clear" such as saying: *u'lima* Zayd your horse saddled, *u'lima* Zayd your horse saddled, this is how it is in my explanation.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : *U'lima* Zayd your horse saddled.
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : But it appears that the correct view is with those who prohibited it, because the meaning changes, and the author's saying: "if the intention is clear" may be difficult to visualize, we read the explanation of this sentence.
The student: Yes.