Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And deletion is obligatory with a coming substitute *** from its verb, like *nadlan* which is like *andulan*."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : First: "And deletion is obligatory with a coming substitute *** from its verb". *Al-hadhf* (deletion) is the subject, and *hatm* is the predicate of the subject. What is the meaning of *hatm*?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory and necessary. "With a coming substitute *** from its verb" means: with a verbal noun (masdar) that comes as a substitute for its verb. *Badalan* (as a substitute) is a state (hal) describing the hidden pronoun in *ati* (coming). And his saying "from its verb" means: from its operator (amil), from its operator. Because when the verbal noun takes the place of the verb, the verb is deleted, because the substitute and the thing substituted for do not coexist. The action belongs to one person, the action belongs to one person, either the agent (wakil) or the principal (muwakkil). It is not valid to build upon both the agent and the principal. So when the verbal noun takes the place of its verb, it is obligatory to delete it. But the verbal noun does not take the place of its verb at all times, in every matter, but in the restricted example: "Like *nadlan* which is like *andulan*". Here? *Like nadlan*. First, I have a difficulty, I may have a difficulty with *nadlan*! The *kaf* is a preposition, and *nadlan* is a noun in the genitive case by the *kaf*. And it is now?
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : Accusative, and what...? We say: No, the preposition has not been applied to *nadlan* yet, it has not been applied to it. And as I told you before regarding its parsing, there are two positions: The first position is that the *kaf* enters upon a deleted genitive noun, and the estimation (taqdir) is?
The student: Like your saying.
The Shaykh : Like your saying *nadlan*, and the second is that it enters upon the sentence. So he is referring to a famous verse, and it is?
The student: *Nadla Zuraq*.
The Shaykh :"So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes" Yes "So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes"
And before it: "They pass by al-Dahna, their containers light *** And they return from Darin with the bags full
At a time when the people were distracted by most of their affairs *** So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes"
This is about thieves, thieves who go to steal from al-Hasa from Darin, they pass by al-Dahna, al-Dahna is well known, yes, their containers are light, they have nothing in them, because they do not have dates with them. When they reach Darin and steal from the dates, they return with the bags full. At a time when the people were distracted by most of their affairs, they come at a time of negligence, they find this palm grove and walk, yes? So *nadlan* Zuraq. *Nadl* means snatching something quickly. They advise each other in falsehood, saying *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes. The foxes snatch things, they snatch quickly, it is well known.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So they say, come on, walk quickly. So the point is that his saying: "*Nadlan* Zuraq the wealth" *Nadlan*: this is a verbal noun that took the place of *andala*, and for this reason Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Which is like *andulan*". *Alladh* is a word, we do not know what its meaning is.
The student: *Alladhi* (which/who).
The Shaykh : *Alladhi*, so it means a linguistic variant of *alladhi*, here? Or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It passed us before this in his saying?
The student: ...
The Shaykh :"And he made *alladh* like *i'taqad*", "And he made *alladh* like *i'taqad*" Good, his saying here?
The student: *Mu'aqqad* (complex).
The Shaykh : No, it is not *mu'aqqad* (complex), may Allah make its unraveling easy. He says: "*Nadlan* alladh like *andula*" meaning: *Nadlan* is a verbal noun, which is like *andul*. *Andul* is a verb of command, or not? *Andul* the thing means take it quickly. It is not a verb of command, my brother?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So when *nadlan* comes with the meaning of *andil*, the deletion of its operator is obligatory, the deletion of its operator is obligatory, because it took the place of the verb of command.
The student: Ibn Malik, did Ibn Malik not mention it in the relative pronouns?
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: *Alladh* this one.
The Shaykh : Yes, he did not mention it. Good, now *nadlan* alladh like *andula* means: *Alladhi* (which) took the place of *andul*, the verb of command. Let us look at the verse now, the verse of poetry from the speech of the Arabs: "So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes" *Nadlan*: a verbal noun substitute taking the place of the verb of command, in the accusative case by its deleted verb. And what is the estimation?
The student: *Andil*.
The Shaykh : *Andil nadlan*, and *Zuraq*: a vocative from which the *ya* of calling was deleted, meaning *Ya Zuraq*, and *Zuraq* is the name of a man, *Ya Zuraq*. *Al-mala* (the wealth): the object of *nadlan*, because we said *nadlan* took the place of?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : *Andil*. *Al-mal* (the wealth) is the object of *nadlan*. *Nadl al-tha'alib* (the snatching of the foxes) is a verbal noun specifying the type, and what is its operator?
The student: The verbal noun itself.
The Shaykh : The verbal noun before it, the verbal noun before it, because it is a substitute for the verb of command, meaning: *Andilhu nadl al-tha'alib* (Snatch it, the snatching of the foxes), snatch it quickly as the fox snatches its target. So if someone said: I want to say: *Fa-andil nadlan Zuraq al-mal nadl al-tha'alib*? Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Good, I said: *Dharban al-muhmil* (a strike of the negligent), *dharban al-muhmil*, and I want to command you to strike him. Is it permissible for me to say *Idrib dharb al-muhmil* (Strike, a strike of the negligent)?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible because it is a substitute for?
The student: The verb, and the substitute does not coexist.
The Shaykh : The verb of command, and the substitute and the thing substituted for do not coexist. But if it is not a verb of command, like: *Darabtu dharban al-muhmil* (I struck a strike of the negligent), is it permissible to mention the verb, which is the operator, or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because when is the verb or operator deleted? If it is a verb of command, then if the verbal noun is found as a substitute for it, it is not permissible to be joined with it. So the rule is: It is obligatory to delete the operator of the verbal noun when it takes the place of the verb of command. The rule is simple: It is obligatory to delete the operator of the verbal noun, when it takes the place of?
The student: The verb of command.
The Shaykh : The verb of command. Where do we take from that it is a condition that it be a verb of command?
The student: *Ka-andula* (like *andula*).
The Shaykh : From the example, from the example, due to his saying: "Like *nadlan* which is like *andula*", from the example. And this is one of the places where the deletion of the operator of the verbal noun is obligatory. Its operator is deleted where...
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory and necessary. "With a coming substitute *** from its verb" means: with a verbal noun (masdar) that comes as a substitute for its verb. *Badalan* (as a substitute) is a state (hal) describing the hidden pronoun in *ati* (coming). And his saying "from its verb" means: from its operator (amil), from its operator. Because when the verbal noun takes the place of the verb, the verb is deleted, because the substitute and the thing substituted for do not coexist. The action belongs to one person, the action belongs to one person, either the agent (wakil) or the principal (muwakkil). It is not valid to build upon both the agent and the principal. So when the verbal noun takes the place of its verb, it is obligatory to delete it. But the verbal noun does not take the place of its verb at all times, in every matter, but in the restricted example: "Like *nadlan* which is like *andulan*". Here? *Like nadlan*. First, I have a difficulty, I may have a difficulty with *nadlan*! The *kaf* is a preposition, and *nadlan* is a noun in the genitive case by the *kaf*. And it is now?
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : Accusative, and what...? We say: No, the preposition has not been applied to *nadlan* yet, it has not been applied to it. And as I told you before regarding its parsing, there are two positions: The first position is that the *kaf* enters upon a deleted genitive noun, and the estimation (taqdir) is?
The student: Like your saying.
The Shaykh : Like your saying *nadlan*, and the second is that it enters upon the sentence. So he is referring to a famous verse, and it is?
The student: *Nadla Zuraq*.
The Shaykh :"So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes" Yes "So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes"
And before it: "They pass by al-Dahna, their containers light *** And they return from Darin with the bags full
At a time when the people were distracted by most of their affairs *** So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes"
This is about thieves, thieves who go to steal from al-Hasa from Darin, they pass by al-Dahna, al-Dahna is well known, yes, their containers are light, they have nothing in them, because they do not have dates with them. When they reach Darin and steal from the dates, they return with the bags full. At a time when the people were distracted by most of their affairs, they come at a time of negligence, they find this palm grove and walk, yes? So *nadlan* Zuraq. *Nadl* means snatching something quickly. They advise each other in falsehood, saying *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes. The foxes snatch things, they snatch quickly, it is well known.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So they say, come on, walk quickly. So the point is that his saying: "*Nadlan* Zuraq the wealth" *Nadlan*: this is a verbal noun that took the place of *andala*, and for this reason Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Which is like *andulan*". *Alladh* is a word, we do not know what its meaning is.
The student: *Alladhi* (which/who).
The Shaykh : *Alladhi*, so it means a linguistic variant of *alladhi*, here? Or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It passed us before this in his saying?
The student: ...
The Shaykh :"And he made *alladh* like *i'taqad*", "And he made *alladh* like *i'taqad*" Good, his saying here?
The student: *Mu'aqqad* (complex).
The Shaykh : No, it is not *mu'aqqad* (complex), may Allah make its unraveling easy. He says: "*Nadlan* alladh like *andula*" meaning: *Nadlan* is a verbal noun, which is like *andul*. *Andul* is a verb of command, or not? *Andul* the thing means take it quickly. It is not a verb of command, my brother?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So when *nadlan* comes with the meaning of *andil*, the deletion of its operator is obligatory, the deletion of its operator is obligatory, because it took the place of the verb of command.
The student: Ibn Malik, did Ibn Malik not mention it in the relative pronouns?
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: *Alladh* this one.
The Shaykh : Yes, he did not mention it. Good, now *nadlan* alladh like *andula* means: *Alladhi* (which) took the place of *andul*, the verb of command. Let us look at the verse now, the verse of poetry from the speech of the Arabs: "So *nadlan* Zuraq the wealth, the snatching of the foxes" *Nadlan*: a verbal noun substitute taking the place of the verb of command, in the accusative case by its deleted verb. And what is the estimation?
The student: *Andil*.
The Shaykh : *Andil nadlan*, and *Zuraq*: a vocative from which the *ya* of calling was deleted, meaning *Ya Zuraq*, and *Zuraq* is the name of a man, *Ya Zuraq*. *Al-mala* (the wealth): the object of *nadlan*, because we said *nadlan* took the place of?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : *Andil*. *Al-mal* (the wealth) is the object of *nadlan*. *Nadl al-tha'alib* (the snatching of the foxes) is a verbal noun specifying the type, and what is its operator?
The student: The verbal noun itself.
The Shaykh : The verbal noun before it, the verbal noun before it, because it is a substitute for the verb of command, meaning: *Andilhu nadl al-tha'alib* (Snatch it, the snatching of the foxes), snatch it quickly as the fox snatches its target. So if someone said: I want to say: *Fa-andil nadlan Zuraq al-mal nadl al-tha'alib*? Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Good, I said: *Dharban al-muhmil* (a strike of the negligent), *dharban al-muhmil*, and I want to command you to strike him. Is it permissible for me to say *Idrib dharb al-muhmil* (Strike, a strike of the negligent)?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible because it is a substitute for?
The student: The verb, and the substitute does not coexist.
The Shaykh : The verb of command, and the substitute and the thing substituted for do not coexist. But if it is not a verb of command, like: *Darabtu dharban al-muhmil* (I struck a strike of the negligent), is it permissible to mention the verb, which is the operator, or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because when is the verb or operator deleted? If it is a verb of command, then if the verbal noun is found as a substitute for it, it is not permissible to be joined with it. So the rule is: It is obligatory to delete the operator of the verbal noun when it takes the place of the verb of command. The rule is simple: It is obligatory to delete the operator of the verbal noun, when it takes the place of?
The student: The verb of command.
The Shaykh : The verb of command. Where do we take from that it is a condition that it be a verb of command?
The student: *Ka-andula* (like *andula*).
The Shaykh : From the example, from the example, due to his saying: "Like *nadlan* which is like *andula*", from the example. And this is one of the places where the deletion of the operator of the verbal noun is obligatory. Its operator is deleted where...