Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And make equal in this chapter the one who is described with this action *** with the verb, if no obstacle has occurred."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says:
"And make equal in this chapter the one who is described with this action *** with the verb, if no obstacle has occurred"
"Make equal" is an imperative verb. "In this chapter" means in this chapter, and it is attached to it. "Described" is the object of "make equal." "This action" is a description of "described." "With the verb" is attached to "make equal." "If no obstacle has occurred": "If" is conditional, and "lam" is a jussive particle. "Yaku" is in the jussive case because of "lam," or is it because of "illa"?
The student: Because of "lam."
The Shaykh : Because of "lam," since it is direct. "Mani'" is the subject of "yaku," and it is permissible for it to be the doer. If it is the subject of "yaku," then the clause "has occurred" is the predicate of "yaku." And if "yaku" is complete and "mani'" is the doer, then "has occurred" is a description of "mani'." The meaning of the verse is: the description that performs the action of the verb, just as the verb does completely; the description that performs the action of the verb, just as the verb does. What is my statement? Is it known?
The student: Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, except if there is an obstacle that prevents its action, then it is not treated like the verb. For example, the active participle performs the action of the verb if it is for the present or the future. If it is for the past, then it does not perform the action of the verb. So if you say: "Zayd is the one I struck yesterday," "Zayd is the one I struck yesterday"?
The student: He would not act on it.
The Shaykh : Here it does not perform the action, so the nominative case is required for Zayd. This is because the description does not have authority over it if it directly affects it, so how if it does not directly affect it? And if you say: "Zayd is the one I will strike tomorrow," what is permissible? Both options are permissible: the nominative and the accusative. And if you say: "Zayd is the one who strikes," then it is not correct to put it in the accusative case, because "al" is found in it, and "al" and "al" prevent the action of what comes after it on what comes before it. The conclusion is that what performs the action of the verb is treated like the verb; it is treated like the verb as long as no obstacle is found.
"And make equal in this chapter the one who is described with this action *** with the verb, if no obstacle has occurred"
"Make equal" is an imperative verb. "In this chapter" means in this chapter, and it is attached to it. "Described" is the object of "make equal." "This action" is a description of "described." "With the verb" is attached to "make equal." "If no obstacle has occurred": "If" is conditional, and "lam" is a jussive particle. "Yaku" is in the jussive case because of "lam," or is it because of "illa"?
The student: Because of "lam."
The Shaykh : Because of "lam," since it is direct. "Mani'" is the subject of "yaku," and it is permissible for it to be the doer. If it is the subject of "yaku," then the clause "has occurred" is the predicate of "yaku." And if "yaku" is complete and "mani'" is the doer, then "has occurred" is a description of "mani'." The meaning of the verse is: the description that performs the action of the verb, just as the verb does completely; the description that performs the action of the verb, just as the verb does. What is my statement? Is it known?
The student: Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, except if there is an obstacle that prevents its action, then it is not treated like the verb. For example, the active participle performs the action of the verb if it is for the present or the future. If it is for the past, then it does not perform the action of the verb. So if you say: "Zayd is the one I struck yesterday," "Zayd is the one I struck yesterday"?
The student: He would not act on it.
The Shaykh : Here it does not perform the action, so the nominative case is required for Zayd. This is because the description does not have authority over it if it directly affects it, so how if it does not directly affect it? And if you say: "Zayd is the one I will strike tomorrow," what is permissible? Both options are permissible: the nominative and the accusative. And if you say: "Zayd is the one who strikes," then it is not correct to put it in the accusative case, because "al" is found in it, and "al" and "al" prevent the action of what comes after it on what comes before it. The conclusion is that what performs the action of the verb is treated like the verb; it is treated like the verb as long as no obstacle is found.