Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And by consensus, the second may take the place of the subject *** in the verb form of kasa, if confusion is averted."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then it said:
"And by consensus, the second may take the place of the subject *** in the verb form of kasa" By consensus among whom?
The student: The grammarians.
The Shaykh : On the surface, it is among the grammarians, and that the grammarians agree on the permissibility of the second object taking the place of the subject in the verb form of kasa if confusion is averted. If confusion is not averted, it is not permissible. An example of this is: "Zayd was clothed with a robe." Where is the second object?
The student: The robe.
The Shaykh : The robe. And what indicates that it is the second object is that the first object is the one wearing the robe, so he is the doer in meaning. Therefore, he is placed in the position of the subject, making Zayd the substitute for the subject, and "the robe" is the second object. Now, you may say "Zayd was clothed with a robe." Is that correct?
The student: Yes, it is correct.
The Shaykh : By disagreement or by consensus?
The student: By consensus.
The Shaykh : By consensus. This is what Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"And by consensus, the second may take the place of the subject *** in the verb form of kasa, if confusion is averted"
And his saying: "if confusion is averted" indicates that if confusion exists, it is not permissible. So if you say: "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," here it is not permissible to say: "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," because it becomes ambiguous. Now, in the first phrase, "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," which one is the slave?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : 'Umar. So if you say "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," it suggests that the slave is?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : It is Zayd. Therefore, it is prohibited here for the second object to take the place of the subject because it becomes ambiguous. Let us take the grammatical analysis: "By consensus, the second may take the place" "By consensus" is connected to "may take the place." "May take the place" is a present tense verb. Is it emphasized with "qad" or is it for diminution?
The student: For diminution.
The Shaykh : On the surface, it is for diminution. Yes. And his saying "the second": "the second" is the subject of "may take the place," raised with a dammah that is implied on its end, and its appearance is prevented by lightening.
The student: Heaviness.
The Shaykh : No, lightening. On its end. The nun has a dammah on it. "The second" is the subject of "may take the place," raised with a dammah that is implied on its end, and its appearance is prevented by lightening.
The student: Correct, correct.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: The position being occupied by the movement of agreement.
The Shaykh : Its appearance is prevented by the position being occupied by the movement of agreement. Khalid?
The student: Its appearance is prevented by the heaviness on the deleted yaa for the sake of maintaining the meter.
The Shaykh : What? Is that correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is the correct view. Its original form is "the second," but the yaa was deleted either for lightening or to maintain the verse. "May take the place the second." "The second" is raised with a dammah that is implied on the deleted yaa for lightening, or if you wish, say on the deleted yaa for the sake of maintaining the meter. "In the verb form of kasa." "In the verb form of kasa" is connected to a deleted state (hal) from "the second," meaning: the second, in the state of being from the verb form of kasa. "Verb form" is a possessive noun and "kasa" is the possessed noun, from the perspective of the word. "If confusion is averted." "If" is a preposition and "confusion" is in the genitive case, connected to "may take the place." "That" is a relative pronoun, built on sukun in the position of the genitive. "Its confusion": "confusion" is the subject and "is averted" is its predicate. The sentence is the relative clause, and it has no grammatical position.
"And by consensus, the second may take the place of the subject *** in the verb form of kasa" By consensus among whom?
The student: The grammarians.
The Shaykh : On the surface, it is among the grammarians, and that the grammarians agree on the permissibility of the second object taking the place of the subject in the verb form of kasa if confusion is averted. If confusion is not averted, it is not permissible. An example of this is: "Zayd was clothed with a robe." Where is the second object?
The student: The robe.
The Shaykh : The robe. And what indicates that it is the second object is that the first object is the one wearing the robe, so he is the doer in meaning. Therefore, he is placed in the position of the subject, making Zayd the substitute for the subject, and "the robe" is the second object. Now, you may say "Zayd was clothed with a robe." Is that correct?
The student: Yes, it is correct.
The Shaykh : By disagreement or by consensus?
The student: By consensus.
The Shaykh : By consensus. This is what Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"And by consensus, the second may take the place of the subject *** in the verb form of kasa, if confusion is averted"
And his saying: "if confusion is averted" indicates that if confusion exists, it is not permissible. So if you say: "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," here it is not permissible to say: "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," because it becomes ambiguous. Now, in the first phrase, "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," which one is the slave?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : 'Umar. So if you say "Zayd was given ownership of 'Umar," it suggests that the slave is?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : It is Zayd. Therefore, it is prohibited here for the second object to take the place of the subject because it becomes ambiguous. Let us take the grammatical analysis: "By consensus, the second may take the place" "By consensus" is connected to "may take the place." "May take the place" is a present tense verb. Is it emphasized with "qad" or is it for diminution?
The student: For diminution.
The Shaykh : On the surface, it is for diminution. Yes. And his saying "the second": "the second" is the subject of "may take the place," raised with a dammah that is implied on its end, and its appearance is prevented by lightening.
The student: Heaviness.
The Shaykh : No, lightening. On its end. The nun has a dammah on it. "The second" is the subject of "may take the place," raised with a dammah that is implied on its end, and its appearance is prevented by lightening.
The student: Correct, correct.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: The position being occupied by the movement of agreement.
The Shaykh : Its appearance is prevented by the position being occupied by the movement of agreement. Khalid?
The student: Its appearance is prevented by the heaviness on the deleted yaa for the sake of maintaining the meter.
The Shaykh : What? Is that correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is the correct view. Its original form is "the second," but the yaa was deleted either for lightening or to maintain the verse. "May take the place the second." "The second" is raised with a dammah that is implied on the deleted yaa for lightening, or if you wish, say on the deleted yaa for the sake of maintaining the meter. "In the verb form of kasa." "In the verb form of kasa" is connected to a deleted state (hal) from "the second," meaning: the second, in the state of being from the verb form of kasa. "Verb form" is a possessive noun and "kasa" is the possessed noun, from the perspective of the word. "If confusion is averted." "If" is a preposition and "confusion" is in the genitive case, connected to "may take the place." "That" is a relative pronoun, built on sukun in the position of the genitive. "Its confusion": "confusion" is the subject and "is averted" is its predicate. The sentence is the relative clause, and it has no grammatical position.