Continuation of the explanation of the verse of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the possessor of the ḥāl is not usually negated if *** he does not lag behind, or is specified, or is built."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : A man came riding; is this the usual case, or is it otherwise?
The student: Than the one other than Him.
The Shaykh : Other than the usual case? The usual case in such matters is that you say: "A man came riding," making it a description of the man. A description following an indefinite noun is a ṣifah (attribute) that follows it in inflection, and it does not become a ḥāl from it. This is the usual case. Do we understand now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And it was narrated from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih al-Bukhari 1113 He did not say: "A people standing" (with nominative case), but this example, although the commentator used it, is not appropriate, because "people" was described by his saying "behind him," and it is valid for a ḥāl to come from it. But if you said: "A people came standing," this is the correct, controlled example. So, my brothers, the rule in this verse is: the usual case is that the possessor of the ḥāl is a definite noun, and it is not an indefinite noun except in these matters. First: if it does not lag behind. If it lags behind, the indefinite noun comes from it. You say: "A man came riding" — put your hands down. For this reason, they said: "Sentences after indefinite nouns are ḥāls, and after them are descriptions, attributes, descriptions." Okay, here: "A man came riding," is this correct?
The student: "A man came riding," correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, because it did not lag behind. The possessor of the ḥāl is delayed. For this reason, he said: "If it does not lag behind." Okay, what else? An example?
The student: I lightened from...
The Shaykh : Advancing, like: "Zayd came walking," is that right?
The student: Zayd is a definite noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is valid. It lagged behind, but it was described. "A boy came walking," yes. "A woman came riding."
The student: A horse ran swiftly.
The Shaykh : A horse ran swiftly?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and by this, you can infer the rest. This is one. Or it is specified. If the possessor of the ḥāl is specified and it is an indefinite noun, it is permissible for a ḥāl to come from it. "A poor man came to me riding."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
Another student: It lagged behind.
The Shaykh : Yes, it lagged behind, but the possessor of the ḥāl, which is "man," was described. Described by what?
The student: By "poor."
The Shaykh : By "poor." "A poor man came riding," this is valid. For this reason, he said: "or is specified". And specification is either by a description, as we exemplified, or by an iḍāfah (genitive construction), or by an iḍāfah. "I bought a third student's book."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is specified.
The Shaykh : Because the book was specified as being for the student. So, these are two places: the possessor of the ḥāl is not an indefinite noun, except usually, except in the following places: First: if it lags behind. Second: if it is specified by a description or an iḍāfah. An example of one specified by a description? Here?
The student: A poor man came.
The student: Walking.
The Shaykh : Riding, no, because it is not surprising. "Walking" is not surprising. "A poor man came riding." Okay, an example of one specified by an iḍāfah: "I bought a third student's book." "Third" is attributed to the book, what is it for? It is for the student. Okay, this is specified by an iḍāfah.
The student: Than the one other than Him.
The Shaykh : Other than the usual case? The usual case in such matters is that you say: "A man came riding," making it a description of the man. A description following an indefinite noun is a ṣifah (attribute) that follows it in inflection, and it does not become a ḥāl from it. This is the usual case. Do we understand now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And it was narrated from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):
and the people prayed behind him standing
وصلى وراءه قوم قيامًاa people standing
قوم قيامًاThe student: "A man came riding," correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, because it did not lag behind. The possessor of the ḥāl is delayed. For this reason, he said: "If it does not lag behind." Okay, what else? An example?
The student: I lightened from...
The Shaykh : Advancing, like: "Zayd came walking," is that right?
The student: Zayd is a definite noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is valid. It lagged behind, but it was described. "A boy came walking," yes. "A woman came riding."
The student: A horse ran swiftly.
The Shaykh : A horse ran swiftly?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and by this, you can infer the rest. This is one. Or it is specified. If the possessor of the ḥāl is specified and it is an indefinite noun, it is permissible for a ḥāl to come from it. "A poor man came to me riding."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
Another student: It lagged behind.
The Shaykh : Yes, it lagged behind, but the possessor of the ḥāl, which is "man," was described. Described by what?
The student: By "poor."
The Shaykh : By "poor." "A poor man came riding," this is valid. For this reason, he said: "or is specified". And specification is either by a description, as we exemplified, or by an iḍāfah (genitive construction), or by an iḍāfah. "I bought a third student's book."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is specified.
The Shaykh : Because the book was specified as being for the student. So, these are two places: the possessor of the ḥāl is not an indefinite noun, except usually, except in the following places: First: if it lags behind. Second: if it is specified by a description or an iḍāfah. An example of one specified by a description? Here?
The student: A poor man came.
The student: Walking.
The Shaykh : Riding, no, because it is not surprising. "Walking" is not surprising. "A poor man came riding." Okay, an example of one specified by an iḍāfah: "I bought a third student's book." "Third" is attributed to the book, what is it for? It is for the student. Okay, this is specified by an iḍāfah.