Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the state precedes what is preceded by a preposition, they refused, and I do not forbid it, for it has occurred."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And the state precedes what is preceded by a preposition, they refused"
"Precedes": the object of "refused," placed before the verb. And his saying: "what by a preposition" "what": a relative pronoun, and "by a preposition": a preposition and its object, connected to "preceded." Yes, and the clause "they refused": the predicate of "what," due to his saying: and what "what by a preposition" "what by a preposition"
Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, this is a complex verbal structure. Okay, the second time, its grammatical analysis: "Precedes": the object placed before "refused," and "precedes" is a possessive noun and "state" is the possessed noun. "What": a relative pronoun, the subject. "By a preposition": a preposition and its object, connected to "preceded." And "preceded": a past tense verb, which is the relative clause of "what." And "they refused": the clause?
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : The predicate of "what," and the meaning of the verse in order is: "And the one who is preceded by a preposition, they refused that the state precedes it." And the state of what is preceded by a preposition, who refused? The grammarians said: it is not possible for the state to precede a preposition. Yes, or no? And they refused that the state precedes; it is not possible for the state to precede what is preceded by a preposition. It is not possible for the state to precede its possessor who is preceded by a preposition. It is not possible, because he said: "what has not preceded, what has not lagged behind." Look, if it has not lagged behind, does this imply that it is permissible for the possessor of the state to lag behind it, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Except if it is preceded by a preposition, then according to the grammarians, it does not precede. But Ibn Malik differed from them and said:
"and I do not forbid it"
Because I have evidence
"for it has occurred" It occurred from whom? From the Arabs, and the Arabs are the authority in the chapter of grammar. Is the speech clear or not clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Good. The state is permissible to precede its possessor if it is the subject, for example: "Zayd came to me riding." And it is permissible to precede its possessor if it is the object, for example: "I struck Zayd standing," meaning: I struck Zayd while he was standing. This is clear. And it is not permissible to precede its possessor if it is preceded by a preposition, according to whom? According to the grammarians. And according to Ibn Malik, it is permissible. Did you understand? Okay, the grammarians say: because a preposition does not affect what comes after it in what comes before it. And Ibn Malik says: as long as it has occurred from the Arabs, we cannot forbid it—pray two rak'ahs, a prayer of two rak'ahs.
Ibn Malik says: as long as it has occurred from the Arabs, it must be permissible. His example: "He looked..." Yes, yes, you say for example: "Zayd passed by me riding." Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : "Zayd passed by me sleeping." I am sleeping. Is it permissible or not permissible? According to Ibn Malik, it is permissible. And according to the grammarians, it is not permissible. Let us see what has occurred. Ibn Malik says: "it has occurred" Yes.
"If the coolness of water is a thirsty hunter *** to me a beloved, indeed it is a beloved"
The verse, the verse later, even the poet is complex. Yes.
"If the coolness of water is a wandering hunter *** to me a beloved, indeed it is a beloved"
The point of this is:
"If the coolness of" there is nothing in it... and "beloved" which comes as the predicate of "was" exists. "If it was," "was": a past tense verb, and "coolness": its subject. And "coolness" is a possessive noun and "water" is the possessed noun. "Thirsty hunter": this is a state from the yaa in his saying: "to me"?
The student: If it led.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: If it led.
The Shaykh : No, "if it was." The copy I have says "if it was." Ah.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : With the noon, meaning put down your pens. "Hunter," what is it? "Thirsty hunter." "To me," this yaa is the possessor of the state. Where is the state? "Thirsty" means: I am thirsty. "Thirsty" means extremely thirsty, as Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Waqi'ah 56:55] Yes. Okay, "hunter" is a second state also from the yaa. "To me a beloved," "beloved," what is its grammatical analysis?
The student: The predicate of "was."
The Shaykh : The predicate of "was." "If it was," "indeed it" means: her beloved, meaning: her beloved is his beloved. And it is known to everyone that the coolness of water is a beloved to the thirsty hunter, or not? No one denies it. The most beloved thing for a person who is extremely thirsty is to find cold water. Who finds it turns away from it as a beloved to me? The speech is about whether it has occurred in the language of the Arabs that the state comes from its possessor preceded by a preposition, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the speech of the Arabs is the evidence in the speech of grammar. We do not say in grammar that we need evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. We say we need evidence from the speech of the Arabs. And if it is from the Qur'an, it is the most eloquent speech of the Arabs, the most eloquent speech in existence. And if it is from the speech of the Messenger as well, it is the most eloquent speech of the Arabs. Did you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: Did you separate, O Shaykh, the predicate of "was"?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: From its subject.
The Shaykh : What contradicts it has a verbal complexity, it has a verbal complexity. The speech is that it is permissible, it is permissible for the state from its possessor to precede it, and Allah knows best.
The student: An example in prose.
The Shaykh : Huh?
"Precedes": the object of "refused," placed before the verb. And his saying: "what by a preposition" "what": a relative pronoun, and "by a preposition": a preposition and its object, connected to "preceded." Yes, and the clause "they refused": the predicate of "what," due to his saying: and what "what by a preposition" "what by a preposition"
Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, this is a complex verbal structure. Okay, the second time, its grammatical analysis: "Precedes": the object placed before "refused," and "precedes" is a possessive noun and "state" is the possessed noun. "What": a relative pronoun, the subject. "By a preposition": a preposition and its object, connected to "preceded." And "preceded": a past tense verb, which is the relative clause of "what." And "they refused": the clause?
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : The predicate of "what," and the meaning of the verse in order is: "And the one who is preceded by a preposition, they refused that the state precedes it." And the state of what is preceded by a preposition, who refused? The grammarians said: it is not possible for the state to precede a preposition. Yes, or no? And they refused that the state precedes; it is not possible for the state to precede what is preceded by a preposition. It is not possible for the state to precede its possessor who is preceded by a preposition. It is not possible, because he said: "what has not preceded, what has not lagged behind." Look, if it has not lagged behind, does this imply that it is permissible for the possessor of the state to lag behind it, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Except if it is preceded by a preposition, then according to the grammarians, it does not precede. But Ibn Malik differed from them and said:
"and I do not forbid it"
Because I have evidence
"for it has occurred" It occurred from whom? From the Arabs, and the Arabs are the authority in the chapter of grammar. Is the speech clear or not clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Good. The state is permissible to precede its possessor if it is the subject, for example: "Zayd came to me riding." And it is permissible to precede its possessor if it is the object, for example: "I struck Zayd standing," meaning: I struck Zayd while he was standing. This is clear. And it is not permissible to precede its possessor if it is preceded by a preposition, according to whom? According to the grammarians. And according to Ibn Malik, it is permissible. Did you understand? Okay, the grammarians say: because a preposition does not affect what comes after it in what comes before it. And Ibn Malik says: as long as it has occurred from the Arabs, we cannot forbid it—pray two rak'ahs, a prayer of two rak'ahs.
Ibn Malik says: as long as it has occurred from the Arabs, it must be permissible. His example: "He looked..." Yes, yes, you say for example: "Zayd passed by me riding." Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : "Zayd passed by me sleeping." I am sleeping. Is it permissible or not permissible? According to Ibn Malik, it is permissible. And according to the grammarians, it is not permissible. Let us see what has occurred. Ibn Malik says: "it has occurred" Yes.
"If the coolness of water is a thirsty hunter *** to me a beloved, indeed it is a beloved"
The verse, the verse later, even the poet is complex. Yes.
"If the coolness of water is a wandering hunter *** to me a beloved, indeed it is a beloved"
The point of this is:
"If the coolness of" there is nothing in it... and "beloved" which comes as the predicate of "was" exists. "If it was," "was": a past tense verb, and "coolness": its subject. And "coolness" is a possessive noun and "water" is the possessed noun. "Thirsty hunter": this is a state from the yaa in his saying: "to me"?
The student: If it led.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: If it led.
The Shaykh : No, "if it was." The copy I have says "if it was." Ah.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : With the noon, meaning put down your pens. "Hunter," what is it? "Thirsty hunter." "To me," this yaa is the possessor of the state. Where is the state? "Thirsty" means: I am thirsty. "Thirsty" means extremely thirsty, as Allah the Exalted said:
And will drink as the drinking of thirsty camels.
فَشَارِبُونَ شُرْبَ الْهِيمِThe student: The predicate of "was."
The Shaykh : The predicate of "was." "If it was," "indeed it" means: her beloved, meaning: her beloved is his beloved. And it is known to everyone that the coolness of water is a beloved to the thirsty hunter, or not? No one denies it. The most beloved thing for a person who is extremely thirsty is to find cold water. Who finds it turns away from it as a beloved to me? The speech is about whether it has occurred in the language of the Arabs that the state comes from its possessor preceded by a preposition, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the speech of the Arabs is the evidence in the speech of grammar. We do not say in grammar that we need evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. We say we need evidence from the speech of the Arabs. And if it is from the Qur'an, it is the most eloquent speech of the Arabs, the most eloquent speech in existence. And if it is from the speech of the Messenger as well, it is the most eloquent speech of the Arabs. Did you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: Did you separate, O Shaykh, the predicate of "was"?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: From its subject.
The Shaykh : What contradicts it has a verbal complexity, it has a verbal complexity. The speech is that it is permissible, it is permissible for the state from its possessor to precede it, and Allah knows best.
The student: An example in prose.
The Shaykh : Huh?