Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And if a condition is missing."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And his saying: "And if a condition is missing", the "if" is conditional, and "condition"?
The student: The verb of the condition.
The Shaykh : No, the verb of the condition, and it is in the nominative case?!
The student: A subject (mubtada') if we say it is valid.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Or according to the other opinion.
The Shaykh : There are three grammatical analyses: "condition" as the subject of a deleted verb; "condition" as a subject placed before a deleted verb; "condition" as a subject with a deleted predicate... The Basrans say: "condition" here is the subject of a deleted verb, and the implied meaning is: "And if a condition is missing." The Kufans say: it is a subject placed before the existing verb, and the implied meaning is: "And if a condition is missing," with inversion. Others among the grammarians say: "condition" is a subject, and what is the meaning, oh...? "Condition" is a subject, and "missing" is the predicate of the subject.
The questioner : What is the stronger position?
The Shaykh : By Allah, I say the stronger position is the easiest one. "If a condition is missing," where is the response to "if"?
The student: Decline it.
The Shaykh : The phrase "decline it with the particle," and in one version it is "decline it with the lam." "Decline it with the lam," and in the version we have now it is "with the particle," meaning: with the particle of causation. The evidence is that the author intends the particle of causation, based on his saying: "If he indicated causation", decline it with the particle of causation. Among them is the lam, among them is "min," among them is "fi," all of which are used for causation. Likewise, "ala" is used for causation. The important point is that whenever it is mentioned that something is among the particles of causation, if a condition is missing, it is declined with it. For example, if I say: "I honored you out of gratitude to me," a condition is missing according to the author's opinion. What is it?
The student: The unity of the subject.
The Shaykh : The unity of the subject. So on this basis, decline it with the lam. So I say: "I honored you for the sake of gratitude to me." "I honored you for the sake of gratitude to me," I decline it with the lam. Okay, he said "Decline it with the lam", is it obligatory or not? With the particle, is it obligatory? What is appropriate for it: the lam, or "min," or "fi"? He said: "And it is not prohibited *** with the conditions". "And it is not prohibited," what is not prohibited?
The student: Declining it with the particle.
The Shaykh : What is not prohibited is declining it with the particle, with the conditions, meaning: with the completion of the conditions. It is not prohibited to decline it with the particle even if the conditions are completed. So by this we know that the object for the sake of which (maful min ajlihi) is not restricted to the accusative case. It is not restricted to the accusative case, because it is permissible to decline it with the lam. It is permissible to decline it with the lam. Its example is: "Eat for the sake of asceticism, this one is content". "For the sake of asceticism, this one is content." The original construction is: "This one was content with asceticism." "This one was content with asceticism." And therefore, in the grammatical analysis, we analyze it by saying: "This" is a subject, and "was content" is a past tense verb, and the phrase is the predicate of the subject in the position of the nominative case as the predicate of the subject. And "asceticism" is the object for the sake of which, in the accusative case with the visible fathah. But it is permissible to introduce the lam to it and say: "For the sake of asceticism, this one is content." Are the conditions completed or not completed?
The student: Complete.
The Shaykh : They are completed. "This one was content with asceticism." "This one was content with asceticism." So the ascetic is the one who is content, and the time of asceticism is the time of contentment. So the conditions are complete. And yet, it is permissible to introduce the lam to it and decline it. You say: "This one was content from asceticism," or "This one was content with asceticism." It is permissible, clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So the author is clarifying to us that if the condition is disrupted, it is obligatory to decline it with the particle. If one of the conditions is disrupted, it is obligatory to decline it with the particle. If the conditions are completed, it is permissible to decline it with the particle and it is permissible to put it in the accusative case. But he says: Which is more common? The accusative case or the genitive case?
The student: The verb of the condition.
The Shaykh : No, the verb of the condition, and it is in the nominative case?!
The student: A subject (mubtada') if we say it is valid.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Or according to the other opinion.
The Shaykh : There are three grammatical analyses: "condition" as the subject of a deleted verb; "condition" as a subject placed before a deleted verb; "condition" as a subject with a deleted predicate... The Basrans say: "condition" here is the subject of a deleted verb, and the implied meaning is: "And if a condition is missing." The Kufans say: it is a subject placed before the existing verb, and the implied meaning is: "And if a condition is missing," with inversion. Others among the grammarians say: "condition" is a subject, and what is the meaning, oh...? "Condition" is a subject, and "missing" is the predicate of the subject.
The questioner : What is the stronger position?
The Shaykh : By Allah, I say the stronger position is the easiest one. "If a condition is missing," where is the response to "if"?
The student: Decline it.
The Shaykh : The phrase "decline it with the particle," and in one version it is "decline it with the lam." "Decline it with the lam," and in the version we have now it is "with the particle," meaning: with the particle of causation. The evidence is that the author intends the particle of causation, based on his saying: "If he indicated causation", decline it with the particle of causation. Among them is the lam, among them is "min," among them is "fi," all of which are used for causation. Likewise, "ala" is used for causation. The important point is that whenever it is mentioned that something is among the particles of causation, if a condition is missing, it is declined with it. For example, if I say: "I honored you out of gratitude to me," a condition is missing according to the author's opinion. What is it?
The student: The unity of the subject.
The Shaykh : The unity of the subject. So on this basis, decline it with the lam. So I say: "I honored you for the sake of gratitude to me." "I honored you for the sake of gratitude to me," I decline it with the lam. Okay, he said "Decline it with the lam", is it obligatory or not? With the particle, is it obligatory? What is appropriate for it: the lam, or "min," or "fi"? He said: "And it is not prohibited *** with the conditions". "And it is not prohibited," what is not prohibited?
The student: Declining it with the particle.
The Shaykh : What is not prohibited is declining it with the particle, with the conditions, meaning: with the completion of the conditions. It is not prohibited to decline it with the particle even if the conditions are completed. So by this we know that the object for the sake of which (maful min ajlihi) is not restricted to the accusative case. It is not restricted to the accusative case, because it is permissible to decline it with the lam. It is permissible to decline it with the lam. Its example is: "Eat for the sake of asceticism, this one is content". "For the sake of asceticism, this one is content." The original construction is: "This one was content with asceticism." "This one was content with asceticism." And therefore, in the grammatical analysis, we analyze it by saying: "This" is a subject, and "was content" is a past tense verb, and the phrase is the predicate of the subject in the position of the nominative case as the predicate of the subject. And "asceticism" is the object for the sake of which, in the accusative case with the visible fathah. But it is permissible to introduce the lam to it and say: "For the sake of asceticism, this one is content." Are the conditions completed or not completed?
The student: Complete.
The Shaykh : They are completed. "This one was content with asceticism." "This one was content with asceticism." So the ascetic is the one who is content, and the time of asceticism is the time of contentment. So the conditions are complete. And yet, it is permissible to introduce the lam to it and decline it. You say: "This one was content from asceticism," or "This one was content with asceticism." It is permissible, clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So the author is clarifying to us that if the condition is disrupted, it is obligatory to decline it with the particle. If one of the conditions is disrupted, it is obligatory to decline it with the particle. If the conditions are completed, it is permissible to decline it with the particle and it is permissible to put it in the accusative case. But he says: Which is more common? The accusative case or the genitive case?