Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it is unified with what it is used in *** in time and agent."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Likewise, "And it is unified with what it is used in" is a third and fourth condition. "What it is used in" refers to the verb. It is unified in time and agent, meaning: it is a third condition that this masdar (verbal noun) be unified with the verb in time and agent, in time and agent. This means that the verb and the masdar occur in the same time, and the agent of the verb is the one who is associated with this masdar, the one who is associated with this masdar. An example that fits the conditions is "Be generous in gratitude". What is the meaning of "Judd" (Be generous)?
The student: It is a command verb.
The Shaykh : It is a command verb from "Jawd" (generosity), meaning: become a generous person, become a generous person, that is, become a noble person. "Shukran" (in gratitude) is a masdar. What is its verb?
The student: Shukr (gratitude).
The Shaykh : Shukr, one says "yashkuru shukran" (he gives thanks in gratitude). Is it in the accusative case or not?
The student: It is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : It clarifies the cause of the verb. "Judd" is a state of being in gratitude. So, it clarifies the cause of the verb. Now, is the agent who was generous in gratitude one person or not?
The student: Yes, one person.
The Shaykh : One person. And the time?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : Meaning: the gratitude is concurrent with the generosity, and the agent of the gratitude is the agent of the generosity. So, the agent is one and the time is one. "Judd shukran" means: be generous for the sake of gratitude, that is, for the sake of thanking Allah (Mighty and Majestic), not for the sake of being thanked. Because if it were "Judd to be thanked," it would not be valid, since the one who gives thanks is not the one who is generous. The agent would be different, the agent would be different. If Ibn Malik had not said: "in time and agent", we would say it is permissible for the meaning to be "Be generous to be thanked." But Ibn Malik himself says:
"And it is unified with what it is used in *** in time and agent"
So, who is the one who gives thanks?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : The generous one, yes. And his saying: "And lend". What is the meaning of "Dinn" (Lend)? Is it from "dana yadinu" (to lend) or from "al-dayn" (debt)? Meaning: be generous and give a loan. Meaning: be generous, for example, by way of gift and charity, and lend by way of loan. "Dinn" by loan means: lend to people, that is, give them a loan. So, it is as if Ibn Malik commanded us to do good either by way of gift and charity, or by way of loan. There is a possibility, but the first possibility is more apparent. Because "Dinn" is from where?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : From "al-dayn" (debt). It is from "al-dayn" (debt), meaning: be generous in gratitude and lend in gratitude. So, it is as if he commanded you to lend to Allah (Exalted is He) by obeying Him in gratitude to Him, and to be generous with your wealth also in gratitude to Allah for what He gave you. This meaning is better because "Dinn" is from "al-dayn" (debt) and not from "al-dayn" (loan). Now, let us return to the grammatical analysis of the verse since we have understood its meaning. Its analysis: "It is made accusative as a ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which)". What is the grammatical case of the object?
The student: Accusative?
The Shaykh : It is made accusative as an object.
The student: A state (hal).
The Shaykh : A state (hal) from what?
The student: A state from the masdar.
The Shaykh : A state from the masdar which is the substitute for the agent. The masdar is made accusative as a state of being a ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct. The agent is one. "I stood up in honor of you." You, so that I may honor you. So, it is in agreement with its governor in time and agent. Now, "I will stand up tomorrow in honor of you"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : "I will stand up tomorrow in honor of you"?
The student : Time
The Shaykh : What is different?
The student: The time.
The Shaykh : The time is different. It is not valid, is it? It is not valid. "I honor you in gratitude to me"?
The student: The agent is different.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The agent is different.
The Shaykh : "I honor you." The agent is I. "In gratitude to me." Who is the one who gives thanks?
The student: The one who is honored.
The Shaykh : The one who is honored. So, the agent is different now, so it is not permissible. It is not permissible. Did you understand now?
The student: How is the agent the one who is honored?
The Shaykh : Yes, I honor you so that you may thank me, this is the meaning. So, "I honor you in gratitude to me" means: I honor you for the sake of you thanking me, this is the meaning. Now, this last condition, this final condition, "And it is unified with what it is used in", there is disagreement among the grammarians. Sibawayhi and many grammarians, if not most of them, say: it is not a condition. Sibawayhi, the leader of the Basrans, says: it is not a condition. And if we chose this without Sibawayhi, we would say: the correct opinion is with him, because it is the original. Allah the Exalted said:[Ar-Rum 30:24] [Ar-Ra'd 13:12]. What is the grammatical case of "khawfan" (in fear)?
The student: Ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which).
The Shaykh : Meaning: so that you may fear and hope. It is a ma'ful li-ajlihi (object for the sake of which). Who is the one who shows?
The student: Allah.
The Shaykh : Allah. And who is the one who fears and hopes?
The student: The created being.
The Shaykh : The created being. Is the agent one now or two?
The student: Two.
The Shaykh : Two. The one who shows is Allah, and the one who fears and hopes is the created being. The one who fears and hopes is the created being. So, here the masdar is made accusative as a ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which) even though the agent is different. Do you agree with this or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is clear. There is no strain at all, there is no slightest strain. But they say: the argument of the grammarian is like the dung of the gerbil; if its hole is with the door, it comes out from... Yes. Those who say that the agreement of the agent is necessary say that the verse: that "khawfan" means: causing fear, and "tama'an" means: causing hope. "He shows you lightning to make you fear and to make you hope." "He shows you lightning to make you fear and to make you hope." So, in that case, does the agent agree or not?
The student: It agrees.
The Shaykh : It agrees. Or a state from the "kaf" (you) in , a masdar meaning: state, that is: He shows you in a state of you being fearful and hopeful. And in that case, the condition remains. Did you understand now? Did they escape or not? Huh?
The student: They escaped.
The Shaykh : When we recorded against them the chapter of "they escaped" with the dung of the gerbil. But we say: bring evidence for the conditionality of this? There is no evidence for this conditionality. If there were evidence for the conditionality, we would say yes, it is possible to derive the verse from what you mentioned. But since there is no evidence, and we have a clear witness of its non-conditionality, then the preferable is non-conditionality. The preferable is non-conditionality. And this, if Allah wills, is the correct opinion. That it is not a condition for its unity, neither in time nor in agent. The only important basic condition is that it be a masdar clarifying the cause of the verb. That it be a masdar clarifying the cause of the verb, this is the important thing. For this reason, we said the ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which) has the "lam" of causation, or it is a ma'ful min ajlihi (object for the sake of which), or a ma'ful li-ajlihi (object for the sake of which). This is the basic condition. Now, what does Ibn Malik say? He says: "If the condition is missing, make it genitive with a preposition". If the condition, I think "unified in time" is clear, is its grammatical analysis clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Wa-huwa" (And it): subject. "Mutahid" (unified): predicate of the subject. Meaning: it is unified with what it is used in. And his saying: "waqtan" (in time): adverb, meaning: in time. And his saying: "fa'ilan" (agent): accusative by deletion of the preposition, meaning: and in the agent.
The student: It is a command verb.
The Shaykh : It is a command verb from "Jawd" (generosity), meaning: become a generous person, become a generous person, that is, become a noble person. "Shukran" (in gratitude) is a masdar. What is its verb?
The student: Shukr (gratitude).
The Shaykh : Shukr, one says "yashkuru shukran" (he gives thanks in gratitude). Is it in the accusative case or not?
The student: It is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : It clarifies the cause of the verb. "Judd" is a state of being in gratitude. So, it clarifies the cause of the verb. Now, is the agent who was generous in gratitude one person or not?
The student: Yes, one person.
The Shaykh : One person. And the time?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : Meaning: the gratitude is concurrent with the generosity, and the agent of the gratitude is the agent of the generosity. So, the agent is one and the time is one. "Judd shukran" means: be generous for the sake of gratitude, that is, for the sake of thanking Allah (Mighty and Majestic), not for the sake of being thanked. Because if it were "Judd to be thanked," it would not be valid, since the one who gives thanks is not the one who is generous. The agent would be different, the agent would be different. If Ibn Malik had not said: "in time and agent", we would say it is permissible for the meaning to be "Be generous to be thanked." But Ibn Malik himself says:
"And it is unified with what it is used in *** in time and agent"
So, who is the one who gives thanks?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : The generous one, yes. And his saying: "And lend". What is the meaning of "Dinn" (Lend)? Is it from "dana yadinu" (to lend) or from "al-dayn" (debt)? Meaning: be generous and give a loan. Meaning: be generous, for example, by way of gift and charity, and lend by way of loan. "Dinn" by loan means: lend to people, that is, give them a loan. So, it is as if Ibn Malik commanded us to do good either by way of gift and charity, or by way of loan. There is a possibility, but the first possibility is more apparent. Because "Dinn" is from where?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : From "al-dayn" (debt). It is from "al-dayn" (debt), meaning: be generous in gratitude and lend in gratitude. So, it is as if he commanded you to lend to Allah (Exalted is He) by obeying Him in gratitude to Him, and to be generous with your wealth also in gratitude to Allah for what He gave you. This meaning is better because "Dinn" is from "al-dayn" (debt) and not from "al-dayn" (loan). Now, let us return to the grammatical analysis of the verse since we have understood its meaning. Its analysis: "It is made accusative as a ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which)". What is the grammatical case of the object?
The student: Accusative?
The Shaykh : It is made accusative as an object.
The student: A state (hal).
The Shaykh : A state (hal) from what?
The student: A state from the masdar.
The Shaykh : A state from the masdar which is the substitute for the agent. The masdar is made accusative as a state of being a ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct. The agent is one. "I stood up in honor of you." You, so that I may honor you. So, it is in agreement with its governor in time and agent. Now, "I will stand up tomorrow in honor of you"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : "I will stand up tomorrow in honor of you"?
The student : Time
The Shaykh : What is different?
The student: The time.
The Shaykh : The time is different. It is not valid, is it? It is not valid. "I honor you in gratitude to me"?
The student: The agent is different.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The agent is different.
The Shaykh : "I honor you." The agent is I. "In gratitude to me." Who is the one who gives thanks?
The student: The one who is honored.
The Shaykh : The one who is honored. So, the agent is different now, so it is not permissible. It is not permissible. Did you understand now?
The student: How is the agent the one who is honored?
The Shaykh : Yes, I honor you so that you may thank me, this is the meaning. So, "I honor you in gratitude to me" means: I honor you for the sake of you thanking me, this is the meaning. Now, this last condition, this final condition, "And it is unified with what it is used in", there is disagreement among the grammarians. Sibawayhi and many grammarians, if not most of them, say: it is not a condition. Sibawayhi, the leader of the Basrans, says: it is not a condition. And if we chose this without Sibawayhi, we would say: the correct opinion is with him, because it is the original. Allah the Exalted said:
And of His signs is [that] He shows you the lightning [causing] fear and aspiration
ومن ءاياته يريكم البرق خوفًا وطمعًاshows you lightening, [causing] fear and aspiration
يريكم البرق خوفًا وطمعًاThe student: Ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which).
The Shaykh : Meaning: so that you may fear and hope. It is a ma'ful li-ajlihi (object for the sake of which). Who is the one who shows?
The student: Allah.
The Shaykh : Allah. And who is the one who fears and hopes?
The student: The created being.
The Shaykh : The created being. Is the agent one now or two?
The student: Two.
The Shaykh : Two. The one who shows is Allah, and the one who fears and hopes is the created being. The one who fears and hopes is the created being. So, here the masdar is made accusative as a ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which) even though the agent is different. Do you agree with this or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is clear. There is no strain at all, there is no slightest strain. But they say: the argument of the grammarian is like the dung of the gerbil; if its hole is with the door, it comes out from... Yes. Those who say that the agreement of the agent is necessary say that the verse:
in fear and hope
خوفًا وطمعًاThe student: It agrees.
The Shaykh : It agrees. Or
in fear and hope
خوفًا وطمعًاHe shows you
يريكمThe student: They escaped.
The Shaykh : When we recorded against them the chapter of "they escaped" with the dung of the gerbil. But we say: bring evidence for the conditionality of this? There is no evidence for this conditionality. If there were evidence for the conditionality, we would say yes, it is possible to derive the verse from what you mentioned. But since there is no evidence, and we have a clear witness of its non-conditionality, then the preferable is non-conditionality. The preferable is non-conditionality. And this, if Allah wills, is the correct opinion. That it is not a condition for its unity, neither in time nor in agent. The only important basic condition is that it be a masdar clarifying the cause of the verb. That it be a masdar clarifying the cause of the verb, this is the important thing. For this reason, we said the ma'ful lahu (object for the sake of which) has the "lam" of causation, or it is a ma'ful min ajlihi (object for the sake of which), or a ma'ful li-ajlihi (object for the sake of which). This is the basic condition. Now, what does Ibn Malik say? He says: "If the condition is missing, make it genitive with a preposition". If the condition, I think "unified in time" is clear, is its grammatical analysis clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Wa-huwa" (And it): subject. "Mutahid" (unified): predicate of the subject. Meaning: it is unified with what it is used in. And his saying: "waqtan" (in time): adverb, meaning: in time. And his saying: "fa'ilan" (agent): accusative by deletion of the preposition, meaning: and in the agent.