Discussion of what was previously taken from the last chapter on the transitivity of the verb and its necessity.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes, in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment.
If I say: "I clothed Zayd with a garment," is that correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is the expression correct? "I clothed Zayd with a garment."
The student: "I clothed Zayd with a garment"?
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The point is, is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but it is contrary to the original rule. What is the original rule?
The student: "I clothed Zayd with a garment."
The Shaykh : "I clothed Zayd with a garment." What evidence do you have for this original rule from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: "And the original rule is that the one with the meaning of the actor precedes".
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: "And the original rule is that the one with the meaning of the actor precedes, like *** from 'I clothed you' to 'who visited you, the weaving of Yemen'"
The Shaykh :"from 'I clothed you'".
The student: "from 'I clothed you' to 'who visited you, the weaving of Yemen'".
The Shaykh : Good, well done. If I say: "I gave Zayd to 'Umar"? Muhammad?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "I gave Zayd to 'Umar," and I intended that 'Amr is the one to whom the gift is given?
The student: "I gave Zayd to 'Umar"?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So that it is?
The Shaykh : That 'Amr is the one to whom the gift is given.
The student: Meaning, so that 'Umar is the one to whom the gift is given?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Meaning, is it permissible?
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Hani?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: For fear of ambiguity arising.
The Shaykh : Because if you say: "I gave Zayd to 'Umar" and you intend that 'Umar is the one to whom the gift is given, the matter becomes ambiguous, and the listener assumes that Zayd is the one to whom the gift is given and that 'Amr is the gift, whereas the matter is the opposite. Good.
The student: We have not explained this verse.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: We have not explained this verse.
The Shaykh : ...
The student: But here ...
The Shaykh : And the original rule is necessary?
The student: We did not explain it.
Another student: You read for us an explanation of ...
The Shaykh : Well, good, this is the apparent meaning, as Khalid said, so there is no obstacle to explaining it.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment.
If I say: "I clothed Zayd with a garment," is that correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is the expression correct? "I clothed Zayd with a garment."
The student: "I clothed Zayd with a garment"?
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The point is, is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but it is contrary to the original rule. What is the original rule?
The student: "I clothed Zayd with a garment."
The Shaykh : "I clothed Zayd with a garment." What evidence do you have for this original rule from the words of Ibn Malik?
The student: "And the original rule is that the one with the meaning of the actor precedes".
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: "And the original rule is that the one with the meaning of the actor precedes, like *** from 'I clothed you' to 'who visited you, the weaving of Yemen'"
The Shaykh :"from 'I clothed you'".
The student: "from 'I clothed you' to 'who visited you, the weaving of Yemen'".
The Shaykh : Good, well done. If I say: "I gave Zayd to 'Umar"? Muhammad?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "I gave Zayd to 'Umar," and I intended that 'Amr is the one to whom the gift is given?
The student: "I gave Zayd to 'Umar"?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So that it is?
The Shaykh : That 'Amr is the one to whom the gift is given.
The student: Meaning, so that 'Umar is the one to whom the gift is given?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Meaning, is it permissible?
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Hani?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: For fear of ambiguity arising.
The Shaykh : Because if you say: "I gave Zayd to 'Umar" and you intend that 'Umar is the one to whom the gift is given, the matter becomes ambiguous, and the listener assumes that Zayd is the one to whom the gift is given and that 'Amr is the gift, whereas the matter is the opposite. Good.
The student: We have not explained this verse.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: We have not explained this verse.
The Shaykh : ...
The student: But here ...
The Shaykh : And the original rule is necessary?
The student: We did not explain it.
Another student: You read for us an explanation of ...
The Shaykh : Well, good, this is the apparent meaning, as Khalid said, so there is no obstacle to explaining it.