Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the original rule is that the doer in meaning precedes, like: 'Let him dress the one who visited you in Yemeni fabric.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, then he said:
"And the original rule is that the doer in meaning precedes, like: 'Let him dress the one who visited you in Yemeni fabric'"
"The original rule" is the subject, and "precedes" is the predicate of the subject, and it is attached to the word "doer." As for his saying "in meaning," it is possible that it is a state (hal) or a description of the doer, and it is possible that it is in the accusative case with the preposition omitted, meaning: the doer in meaning. "Like the one who dressed" — "like the one" is a preposition and its object. His saying "who dressed" is connected to the omitted word, which is the object of "like the one." And his saying: "Did he say 'albasun' or 'albasan'?"
The student: Albasan.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Albasan.
The Shaykh : All right, let us see. The mim is present in "who visited you," so the address is to a group. If they are a group, it must be said: "albasun." If the address is to one person, but the mim is for emphasis, you say: "albasan." And that is because "albasan" is a command verb confirmed by what?
The student: By the nun of confirmation.
The Shaykh : By the light nun of confirmation. And if the verb is for one person and the nun of confirmation is attached to it, it must be built on the fathah. And if it is for a group, it is not built on the fathah, because the verb does not directly precede the nun of confirmation. Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So, if someone asks: What is the stronger position, that it is "albasun" or "albasan"? We say: "Albasun" is stronger, because the original rule is that the mim of the group is for plurality and not for emphasis. All right, "Let him dress the one who visited you in Yemeni fabric". This "min" is a preposition, and "albasan" to the end of the verse is in the genitive case with "min," because the intended meaning is an example, as if he said: "From this example." As for its details, they will become clear. That is to say, he (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If two objects meet for one verb, which one do we precede? The original rule is that the doer in meaning is preceded, because the original rule is that the doer is preceded over the object with which the action is done. Then he will mention the departure from the original rule. An example of that is: "Albasun." "Albasun" is a command verb from "al-basa yalbis," meaning: from the quadriliteral verb, so it makes what accusative?
The student: Two objects.
The Shaykh : Two objects. It makes two objects accusative. So here we have the one being dressed, the one who is dressed, and the one who dresses. The one who dresses is the doer in reality, and the one who is dressed is the doer in meaning, and "Yemeni fabric" is the object with which the action is done.
The student: It is the object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Yes, the object with which the action is done. So we say now: "Let him dress the one who visited you in Yemeni fabric." Who is the one being dressed?
The student: The one being dressed is "man" (the one).
The Shaykh : The one being dressed is "man" (the one), and "Yemeni fabric"?
The student: The thing being dressed.
The Shaykh : The thing being dressed. So the doer in meaning is "man" (the one), and the object with which the action is done in meaning is "Yemeni fabric." As for the one who dresses, he has no part in the subject, because he is the doer of the verb. The one who dresses is the doer of the verb. All right, "Feed the one who visited you" — what do we say?
The student: A loaf of bread.
The Shaykh : A loaf of bread. All right, "Feed the one who visited you a loaf of bread." "Feed the one who visited you a loaf of bread." This is the original rule. And it is permissible to say: "Feed a loaf of bread to the one who visited you." There is no harm in this, because the meaning is understood. All right, "Give Zayd 'Umar" — who is the one given?
The student: We do not know.
The Shaykh : We do not know?
The student: The original rule is that 'Umar is the one given.
The Shaykh : So it is necessary that we say: The original rule is that Zayd is the taker, and 'Umar is the thing taken, because this is the original rule. All right, if I say: "Give Zayd his slave 'Umar"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We also say this: Zayd is the doer. And if I said: "Give 'Umar his slave Zayd."
The student: It becomes ambiguous.
The Shaykh : It is not ambiguous, because it is clear that the taker is the master and not the slave. He (may Allah have mercy on him) says.
"And the original rule is that the doer in meaning precedes, like: 'Let him dress the one who visited you in Yemeni fabric'"
"The original rule" is the subject, and "precedes" is the predicate of the subject, and it is attached to the word "doer." As for his saying "in meaning," it is possible that it is a state (hal) or a description of the doer, and it is possible that it is in the accusative case with the preposition omitted, meaning: the doer in meaning. "Like the one who dressed" — "like the one" is a preposition and its object. His saying "who dressed" is connected to the omitted word, which is the object of "like the one." And his saying: "Did he say 'albasun' or 'albasan'?"
The student: Albasan.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Albasan.
The Shaykh : All right, let us see. The mim is present in "who visited you," so the address is to a group. If they are a group, it must be said: "albasun." If the address is to one person, but the mim is for emphasis, you say: "albasan." And that is because "albasan" is a command verb confirmed by what?
The student: By the nun of confirmation.
The Shaykh : By the light nun of confirmation. And if the verb is for one person and the nun of confirmation is attached to it, it must be built on the fathah. And if it is for a group, it is not built on the fathah, because the verb does not directly precede the nun of confirmation. Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So, if someone asks: What is the stronger position, that it is "albasun" or "albasan"? We say: "Albasun" is stronger, because the original rule is that the mim of the group is for plurality and not for emphasis. All right, "Let him dress the one who visited you in Yemeni fabric". This "min" is a preposition, and "albasan" to the end of the verse is in the genitive case with "min," because the intended meaning is an example, as if he said: "From this example." As for its details, they will become clear. That is to say, he (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If two objects meet for one verb, which one do we precede? The original rule is that the doer in meaning is preceded, because the original rule is that the doer is preceded over the object with which the action is done. Then he will mention the departure from the original rule. An example of that is: "Albasun." "Albasun" is a command verb from "al-basa yalbis," meaning: from the quadriliteral verb, so it makes what accusative?
The student: Two objects.
The Shaykh : Two objects. It makes two objects accusative. So here we have the one being dressed, the one who is dressed, and the one who dresses. The one who dresses is the doer in reality, and the one who is dressed is the doer in meaning, and "Yemeni fabric" is the object with which the action is done.
The student: It is the object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Yes, the object with which the action is done. So we say now: "Let him dress the one who visited you in Yemeni fabric." Who is the one being dressed?
The student: The one being dressed is "man" (the one).
The Shaykh : The one being dressed is "man" (the one), and "Yemeni fabric"?
The student: The thing being dressed.
The Shaykh : The thing being dressed. So the doer in meaning is "man" (the one), and the object with which the action is done in meaning is "Yemeni fabric." As for the one who dresses, he has no part in the subject, because he is the doer of the verb. The one who dresses is the doer of the verb. All right, "Feed the one who visited you" — what do we say?
The student: A loaf of bread.
The Shaykh : A loaf of bread. All right, "Feed the one who visited you a loaf of bread." "Feed the one who visited you a loaf of bread." This is the original rule. And it is permissible to say: "Feed a loaf of bread to the one who visited you." There is no harm in this, because the meaning is understood. All right, "Give Zayd 'Umar" — who is the one given?
The student: We do not know.
The Shaykh : We do not know?
The student: The original rule is that 'Umar is the one given.
The Shaykh : So it is necessary that we say: The original rule is that Zayd is the taker, and 'Umar is the thing taken, because this is the original rule. All right, if I say: "Give Zayd his slave 'Umar"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We also say this: Zayd is the doer. And if I said: "Give 'Umar his slave Zayd."
The student: It becomes ambiguous.
The Shaykh : It is not ambiguous, because it is clear that the taker is the master and not the slave. He (may Allah have mercy on him) says.