Is it correct to define the *hal* (circumstance) by saying, "It is what serves as an answer to *kayfa* (how)?"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: Does it serve as an answer to *kayfa* (how)?
The Shaykh : The author, instead of saying "it serves as an answer to *kayfa* (how)," said: "It is what is understood in a *hal* (circumstance)." Some of them said: "It is what serves as an answer to *kayfa* (how)," as in "How did Zayd come?" But this definition is not precise, because if you say, "Zayd came and the sun was shining," "the sun was shining" is undoubtedly a *hal* (circumstance). Does "How did Zayd come?" fit here? The manner is impossible in this case. That is why the author said: "in a *hal* (circumstance) such as so-and-so," because it is more precise and encompasses everything that may occur.
The Shaykh : The author, instead of saying "it serves as an answer to *kayfa* (how)," said: "It is what is understood in a *hal* (circumstance)." Some of them said: "It is what serves as an answer to *kayfa* (how)," as in "How did Zayd come?" But this definition is not precise, because if you say, "Zayd came and the sun was shining," "the sun was shining" is undoubtedly a *hal* (circumstance). Does "How did Zayd come?" fit here? The manner is impossible in this case. That is why the author said: "in a *hal* (circumstance) such as so-and-so," because it is more precise and encompasses everything that may occur.