Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And omitting a surplus is permissible if it does not harm, like omitting what is presented as an answer or restricted."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said:
"And omitting a surplus is permissible if it does not harm, like omitting what is presented as an answer or restricted"
What is the meaning of "surplus"? It is what one can do without; this surplus, meaning: that which is not a pillar of the sentence, so it is not the subject or the predicate or the like; rather, it is a surplus, and by its name, one can do without it. The author says: It is permissible for you to omit it, for the sake of conciseness or restriction?
The student: For the sake of restriction.
The Shaykh : His statement is general, whether for restriction or conciseness. The difference between restriction and conciseness is that restriction is when there is no reality or ruling in the sentence, and no cause for its omission exists. As for conciseness, it is what must exist in the sentence but is omitted because it is known. So, what is omitted for conciseness is what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is what is known to be omitted, otherwise the original state is its presence. Restriction is what is not cared for, so omitting the surplus is permissible whether it is for conciseness or restriction. An example is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Aata" has two objects, and both were omitted, and "wattaqa" has one object that was also omitted. The estimation of the first two objects is: "As for the one who gave the money to its rightful recipient," and the second?
The student: He feared Allah.
The Shaykh : And he feared Allah, Now, the author says:
"And omitting a surplus is permissible if it does not harm, like omitting what is presented as an answer or restricted"
We will parse it; I forgot the parsing, remind me. "Omitting a surplus": "Omitting" is an object placed before its verb "permissible," and it is added to "surplus." "Permissible" is a verb of command built on sukun, and the subject is hidden obligatorily, estimated as "you." "If" is conditional. "And it did not harm": the sentence is in the position of the jussive of the conditional verb. We do not say "that it harms" is jussive as the conditional verb, why? Because of the presence of the direct jussive particle, which is "lam." "Harms" is the present tense of "harm," and it means "harm." "Like omitting what is presented as an answer or restricted" "Like omitting" is related to "harm," so it is an example of harm, and not of what has no harm. And his saying "like omitting what": is the object of the preposition. "Presented" is a past tense verb built for the passive, and the agent is hidden, and the sentence is the relative clause of the relative pronoun "what." "As an answer": its parsing is a state from?
The student: The hidden pronoun.
The Shaykh : From the agent in "presented," or "restricted": "or" is a conjunction, and "restricted" is conjoined to "presented." The meaning of the verse is: It is permissible to omit what is a surplus—and it is what is done without in the sentence—except in these two cases: when it is presented as an answer, and when it is restricted. So, what is presented as an answer, it is not permissible to omit it, because if you omitted it, the questioner would not benefit from anything. For example, if it is said: "Whom did you honor?" and you say: "I honored," and the original is: "I honored Zayd," so here it is not permissible to omit Zayd, why? Because of the lack of benefit, and the questioner wants you to benefit him. Now, if he asked you: "Who is your companion?" and you said: "My companion is what?" We did not benefit; you must clarify, even though if you said: "My companion is Zayd," then Zayd here is not a surplus, because the sentence cannot do without it, as it is the predicate of the subject or the subject. Now, "or restricted," also, if it is restricted, what can be omitted? An example: You say: "I did not hit except Zayd," so here it is not permissible to say: "I did not hit except," and it is not permissible to say also: "I did not hit," because if you said: "I did not hit," you negated hitting from everyone, even though you hit Zayd. And if you said: "I did not hit except," you omitted the exception while there is a necessity to mention it. And is this comparison for restriction or by way of illustration?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : This is by way of illustration, so everything that cannot be done without, it is not permissible to omit it. And the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) exception for that is by way of clarification, otherwise his saying: "Omitting a surplus" suffices for this condition, because what cannot be done without is not called a surplus, but by way of clarification, he made an exception.
"And omitting a surplus is permissible if it does not harm, like omitting what is presented as an answer or restricted"
What is the meaning of "surplus"? It is what one can do without; this surplus, meaning: that which is not a pillar of the sentence, so it is not the subject or the predicate or the like; rather, it is a surplus, and by its name, one can do without it. The author says: It is permissible for you to omit it, for the sake of conciseness or restriction?
The student: For the sake of restriction.
The Shaykh : His statement is general, whether for restriction or conciseness. The difference between restriction and conciseness is that restriction is when there is no reality or ruling in the sentence, and no cause for its omission exists. As for conciseness, it is what must exist in the sentence but is omitted because it is known. So, what is omitted for conciseness is what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is what is known to be omitted, otherwise the original state is its presence. Restriction is what is not cared for, so omitting the surplus is permissible whether it is for conciseness or restriction. An example is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
As for the one who gave and feared
فأما من أعطى واتّقىThe student: He feared Allah.
The Shaykh : And he feared Allah,
So We will make it easy for him to the easy path
فسنيسّره لليسرى"And omitting a surplus is permissible if it does not harm, like omitting what is presented as an answer or restricted"
We will parse it; I forgot the parsing, remind me. "Omitting a surplus": "Omitting" is an object placed before its verb "permissible," and it is added to "surplus." "Permissible" is a verb of command built on sukun, and the subject is hidden obligatorily, estimated as "you." "If" is conditional. "And it did not harm": the sentence is in the position of the jussive of the conditional verb. We do not say "that it harms" is jussive as the conditional verb, why? Because of the presence of the direct jussive particle, which is "lam." "Harms" is the present tense of "harm," and it means "harm." "Like omitting what is presented as an answer or restricted" "Like omitting" is related to "harm," so it is an example of harm, and not of what has no harm. And his saying "like omitting what": is the object of the preposition. "Presented" is a past tense verb built for the passive, and the agent is hidden, and the sentence is the relative clause of the relative pronoun "what." "As an answer": its parsing is a state from?
The student: The hidden pronoun.
The Shaykh : From the agent in "presented," or "restricted": "or" is a conjunction, and "restricted" is conjoined to "presented." The meaning of the verse is: It is permissible to omit what is a surplus—and it is what is done without in the sentence—except in these two cases: when it is presented as an answer, and when it is restricted. So, what is presented as an answer, it is not permissible to omit it, because if you omitted it, the questioner would not benefit from anything. For example, if it is said: "Whom did you honor?" and you say: "I honored," and the original is: "I honored Zayd," so here it is not permissible to omit Zayd, why? Because of the lack of benefit, and the questioner wants you to benefit him. Now, if he asked you: "Who is your companion?" and you said: "My companion is what?" We did not benefit; you must clarify, even though if you said: "My companion is Zayd," then Zayd here is not a surplus, because the sentence cannot do without it, as it is the predicate of the subject or the subject. Now, "or restricted," also, if it is restricted, what can be omitted? An example: You say: "I did not hit except Zayd," so here it is not permissible to say: "I did not hit except," and it is not permissible to say also: "I did not hit," because if you said: "I did not hit," you negated hitting from everyone, even though you hit Zayd. And if you said: "I did not hit except," you omitted the exception while there is a necessity to mention it. And is this comparison for restriction or by way of illustration?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : This is by way of illustration, so everything that cannot be done without, it is not permissible to omit it. And the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) exception for that is by way of clarification, otherwise his saying: "Omitting a surplus" suffices for this condition, because what cannot be done without is not called a surplus, but by way of clarification, he made an exception.