A reading from Ibn 'Aqil's commentary on Ibn Malik's verse: "The prohibition in the chapter of *dhan* and *ara* is well known *** And I see no prohibition if the intent is clear," with the Shaykh's annotations.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: Ibn 'Aqil (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "This means: if the verb is transitive to two objects, the second of which is originally a predicate, like *dhan* and its sisters, or if it is transitive to three objects, like *ara* and its sisters, the most famous view among grammarians is that it is obligatory to make the first object the subject, and it is forbidden to make the second object the subject in the chapter of *dhan*, and the second and third in the chapter of *a'lam*. So you say: *Zayd was thought to be standing*, and it is not permissible to say: *Zayd was thought to be standing* (with *Zayd* as an object), and you say: *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled*, and it is not permissible to make the second object the subject, so you do not say: *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled* (with *Zayd* as an object), and it is not permissible to make the third object the subject, so you do not say: *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled* (with *saddled* as the subject)."
The student: So you do not say.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: So you do not say.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: So you do not say.
The reader: "And it is not permissible to make the third object the subject, so you do not say: *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled*."
The Shaykh : That is fine, there is no harm, the meaning is correct.
The reader: "It was reported that Abu al-Rabi' agreed on the prohibition of making the third object the subject, and Ibn al-Musannif also reported the consensus on this. A group of scholars, including the author, held that it is not necessary to make the first object the subject, neither in the chapter of *dhan* nor in the chapter of *a'lam*, but it is required that there be no ambiguity. So you say: *Zayd was thought to be standing*, and *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled*. As for making the third object the subject in the chapter of *a'lam*, Ibn Abi al-Rabi' and Ibn al-Musannif reported the consensus on its prohibition. This is not as they claimed, for others have reported disagreement on this matter. So you say: *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled*. If ambiguity arises, it becomes necessary to make the first object the subject in the chapters of *dhan* and *a'lam*, so you do not say: *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*."
The Shaykh : *Zunna*.
The reader: Yes?
The Shaykh : *Zunna*.
The reader: "*Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, on the condition that 'Amr is the second object, and *I do not know Zayd to be Khaleed departing*."
The Shaykh : Yes, but if you say: *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, here, which one was thought to be the other? *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*.
The student: Does it mean to suspect, O Shaykh?
Another student: 'Amr is the one who was thought.
The Shaykh : 'Amr is the one who was thought to be Zayd, and you want Zayd to be the one who was thought to be?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : 'Amr, so we say if you intend this, say: *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, and it is not permissible to say *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, on the condition that Zayd is the one who was thought to be 'Amr. As for *Zayd was thought to be departing*, it is permissible to say *Zayd was thought to be*?
The student: Departing.
The Shaykh : Departing, this is according to the words of whom? The words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), but the words of the majority are stronger, because if you say: *'Amr was thought to be departing*, it means: the speech is very awkward, because if you converted it and said: *Departing was thought to be 'Amr*, it would be awkward. So it appears that what the majority held is correct: that it is not permissible in the chapters of *dhan* and *ara* for the grammatical role to shift to the second object in the chapter of *dhan*, or to the third and second in the chapter of *ara*. Rather, we say: it is necessary that the first object be the subject, unlike *kasa* and *'ata*, where the matter is under consideration.
The student: The time is up, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Is it finished?
The student: Yes.
The student: So you do not say.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: So you do not say.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: So you do not say.
The reader: "And it is not permissible to make the third object the subject, so you do not say: *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled*."
The Shaykh : That is fine, there is no harm, the meaning is correct.
The reader: "It was reported that Abu al-Rabi' agreed on the prohibition of making the third object the subject, and Ibn al-Musannif also reported the consensus on this. A group of scholars, including the author, held that it is not necessary to make the first object the subject, neither in the chapter of *dhan* nor in the chapter of *a'lam*, but it is required that there be no ambiguity. So you say: *Zayd was thought to be standing*, and *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled*. As for making the third object the subject in the chapter of *a'lam*, Ibn Abi al-Rabi' and Ibn al-Musannif reported the consensus on its prohibition. This is not as they claimed, for others have reported disagreement on this matter. So you say: *Zayd was informed that your horse is saddled*. If ambiguity arises, it becomes necessary to make the first object the subject in the chapters of *dhan* and *a'lam*, so you do not say: *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*."
The Shaykh : *Zunna*.
The reader: Yes?
The Shaykh : *Zunna*.
The reader: "*Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, on the condition that 'Amr is the second object, and *I do not know Zayd to be Khaleed departing*."
The Shaykh : Yes, but if you say: *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, here, which one was thought to be the other? *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*.
The student: Does it mean to suspect, O Shaykh?
Another student: 'Amr is the one who was thought.
The Shaykh : 'Amr is the one who was thought to be Zayd, and you want Zayd to be the one who was thought to be?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : 'Amr, so we say if you intend this, say: *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, and it is not permissible to say *Zayd was thought to be 'Amr*, on the condition that Zayd is the one who was thought to be 'Amr. As for *Zayd was thought to be departing*, it is permissible to say *Zayd was thought to be*?
The student: Departing.
The Shaykh : Departing, this is according to the words of whom? The words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), but the words of the majority are stronger, because if you say: *'Amr was thought to be departing*, it means: the speech is very awkward, because if you converted it and said: *Departing was thought to be 'Amr*, it would be awkward. So it appears that what the majority held is correct: that it is not permissible in the chapters of *dhan* and *ara* for the grammatical role to shift to the second object in the chapter of *dhan*, or to the third and second in the chapter of *ara*. Rather, we say: it is necessary that the first object be the subject, unlike *kasa* and *'ata*, where the matter is under consideration.
The student: The time is up, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Is it finished?
The student: Yes.