Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a ḥāl is not valid from the mudāf ilayh *** except if the mudāf requires its operation."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a ḥāl is not valid from the mudāf ilayh"
"And a ḥāl is not valid": "Not" is a particle of prohibition, and the original ruling in prohibition is prohibition, is it not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Here, we do not say "prohibition"; we say the original ruling is prohibition.
"And a ḥāl is not valid from the mudāf ilayh"
"From the mudāf ilayh": the mudāf ilayh is the first one, or the second? We have the mudāf and the mudāf ilayh; which one is the mudāf ilayh?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second one, which is the mudāf ilayh.
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The mudāf ilayh means: the second one, Zayd. For example: "Kitāb" is the mudāf and "Zayd" is the mudāf ilayh. So, "from the mudāf ilayh" is the second name of the two related words. The mudāf ilayh is the second name of the two related words. He says that it is not permissible for the ḥāl to be from the mudāf ilayh. Why? Because the original ruling is that it is from the mudāf, since it is the one being spoken about. Yes. So you say, for example: "Abdullah came riding." "Riding" is from whom? From Abdullah, not from Allah. Even if we assume that the description is permissible for Allah and for the mudāf, it would be for the mudāf. "Abdullah came hearing." "Hearing" is a ḥāl from whom? From Abdullah or from Allah?
The student: From Abdullah.
The Shaykh : Is Allah not hearing?
The student: Yes, He is hearing and seeing.
The Shaykh : And the servant is also hearing[Al-Insan 76:2] So "hearing" is a ḥāl from Abdullah. So, if a ḥāl comes after a mudāf and a mudāf ilayh, it is either suitable for both or for one of them. If it is suitable for one of them and not the other, it is for that one. And if it is suitable for both, it is for which one?
The student: For the first one.
The Shaykh : For the first one. So it is for the first one. So you say, for example: "This slave of Hind came riding." Is that right?
The student: The first one is determined.
The Shaykh : The first one is determined, because "riding" is masculine and Hind is feminine. Okay. "He struck the slave of Hind, riding her camel." "He struck the slave of Hind, riding." "Her camel" is the object of "struck." Here, the ḥāl is from whom?
The student: From Hind.
The Shaykh : "He struck the slave of Hind, riding her camel." Is that right?
The student: From Hind.
The Shaykh : From Hind, or from the slave?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And what prevents it?
The student: The femininity.
The Shaykh : Yes, the femininity. The ḥāl is feminine now, and "slave" is masculine. It is not possible for the ḥāl to be feminine from a masculine noun. So if it is suitable for both, it is for what?
The student: For the first one.
The Shaykh : So it is for the first one. It is for the first one. And it is not possible for it to be for the mudāf ilayh, except as the author says:
"Except if the mudāf requires its operation"
"Except if the mudāf" Which mudāf?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first one. If it requires its operation, meaning: the operation of the ḥāl, that the operation of the ḥāl is that it be a verb or a derived description, is that right?
The student: But the mudāf is upon the ḥāl.
The Shaykh : He says: It is not permissible for the ḥāl to be from the mudāf ilayh except if the mudāf, which is the first part, requires its operation, meaning: the operation of the ḥāl, meaning it becomes valid to be an operator in the ḥāl. The meaning of "requires its operation" is: it is valid to be an operator in the ḥāl by being a verb, or a derived description.
The student: A verb is not valid.
The Shaykh : A verb is not valid, why?
The student: Because it is not added to.
The Shaykh : Because a verb is not added to. A verb is not added to. So, a derived description. Did you understand?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : What is its example?
The student: The active participle.
Like the active participle, like what? You say: "This is Zayd striking, riding," or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for "riding" to be a ḥāl from Zayd, or not? Why? Because the mudāf, which is "striking," is valid to be an operator. And what is valid to be an operator is valid to be an operator in what follows it. So it is an operator in what follows the genitive, and in the ḥāl it is the accusative. Okay. "This is one eating the food raw." Is "eating the food raw" permissible? "Raw" means it is suitable?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : "This is one eating the meat roasted." Is it a ḥāl from "eating"?
The student: No, it is a ḥāl from "meat."
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: From the meat.
The Shaykh : It is not suitable from "eating"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Because the meat is added to the roasting. Okay, this is one point.
"And a ḥāl is not valid": "Not" is a particle of prohibition, and the original ruling in prohibition is prohibition, is it not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Here, we do not say "prohibition"; we say the original ruling is prohibition.
"And a ḥāl is not valid from the mudāf ilayh"
"From the mudāf ilayh": the mudāf ilayh is the first one, or the second? We have the mudāf and the mudāf ilayh; which one is the mudāf ilayh?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second one, which is the mudāf ilayh.
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The mudāf ilayh means: the second one, Zayd. For example: "Kitāb" is the mudāf and "Zayd" is the mudāf ilayh. So, "from the mudāf ilayh" is the second name of the two related words. The mudāf ilayh is the second name of the two related words. He says that it is not permissible for the ḥāl to be from the mudāf ilayh. Why? Because the original ruling is that it is from the mudāf, since it is the one being spoken about. Yes. So you say, for example: "Abdullah came riding." "Riding" is from whom? From Abdullah, not from Allah. Even if we assume that the description is permissible for Allah and for the mudāf, it would be for the mudāf. "Abdullah came hearing." "Hearing" is a ḥāl from whom? From Abdullah or from Allah?
The student: From Abdullah.
The Shaykh : Is Allah not hearing?
The student: Yes, He is hearing and seeing.
The Shaykh : And the servant is also hearing
and We made him hearing and seeing.
فجعلناه سميعًا بصيرًاThe student: For the first one.
The Shaykh : For the first one. So it is for the first one. So you say, for example: "This slave of Hind came riding." Is that right?
The student: The first one is determined.
The Shaykh : The first one is determined, because "riding" is masculine and Hind is feminine. Okay. "He struck the slave of Hind, riding her camel." "He struck the slave of Hind, riding." "Her camel" is the object of "struck." Here, the ḥāl is from whom?
The student: From Hind.
The Shaykh : "He struck the slave of Hind, riding her camel." Is that right?
The student: From Hind.
The Shaykh : From Hind, or from the slave?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And what prevents it?
The student: The femininity.
The Shaykh : Yes, the femininity. The ḥāl is feminine now, and "slave" is masculine. It is not possible for the ḥāl to be feminine from a masculine noun. So if it is suitable for both, it is for what?
The student: For the first one.
The Shaykh : So it is for the first one. It is for the first one. And it is not possible for it to be for the mudāf ilayh, except as the author says:
"Except if the mudāf requires its operation"
"Except if the mudāf" Which mudāf?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first one. If it requires its operation, meaning: the operation of the ḥāl, that the operation of the ḥāl is that it be a verb or a derived description, is that right?
The student: But the mudāf is upon the ḥāl.
The Shaykh : He says: It is not permissible for the ḥāl to be from the mudāf ilayh except if the mudāf, which is the first part, requires its operation, meaning: the operation of the ḥāl, meaning it becomes valid to be an operator in the ḥāl. The meaning of "requires its operation" is: it is valid to be an operator in the ḥāl by being a verb, or a derived description.
The student: A verb is not valid.
The Shaykh : A verb is not valid, why?
The student: Because it is not added to.
The Shaykh : Because a verb is not added to. A verb is not added to. So, a derived description. Did you understand?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : What is its example?
The student: The active participle.
Like the active participle, like what? You say: "This is Zayd striking, riding," or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for "riding" to be a ḥāl from Zayd, or not? Why? Because the mudāf, which is "striking," is valid to be an operator. And what is valid to be an operator is valid to be an operator in what follows it. So it is an operator in what follows the genitive, and in the ḥāl it is the accusative. Okay. "This is one eating the food raw." Is "eating the food raw" permissible? "Raw" means it is suitable?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : "This is one eating the meat roasted." Is it a ḥāl from "eating"?
The student: No, it is a ḥāl from "meat."
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: From the meat.
The Shaykh : It is not suitable from "eating"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Because the meat is added to the roasting. Okay, this is one point.