Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And like Zayd, alone, is more beneficial than *** 'Amr, accompanied, which is permissible and will not be disparaged."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And like Zayd, alone, is more beneficial than *** 'Amr, accompanied"
Like this statement
"permissible, it will not be disparaged"
We are now going to take a rule from the example. Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) sometimes provides an example from which the rule is derived. First: we have "alone" as a *hal* (circumstantial phrase). What is the *'amil* (governing word) for it? The *'amil* is the word "more beneficial." So, is it placed before the *'amil* or not?
The student: It is placed before.
The Shaykh : It is placed before the *'amil*. Is the *'amil* here a *mudtarif* verb? "More beneficial"?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : A *mudtarif* verb? A *mudtarif* verb? I am asking: is it a *mudtarif* verb or not?
The student: It is a *mudtarif* active participle.
The Shaykh : It is not a verb, there is no doubt, it is not a verb. "More beneficial" is a superlative adjective, not a verb. Okay, is it an attribute that resembles a *mudtarif* verb? No, because the attribute that resembles a *mudtarif* verb is the active participle, the passive participle, and the *sifah mushabbahah* (descriptive adjective), according to scholarly disagreement. So "more beneficial" is not a *mudtarif* verb and it is not an attribute that resembles it, is it not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And yet the *hal* was placed before it. And Ibn Malik at the beginning says:
"The *hal*, if it is made accusative by a *mudtarif* verb *** or an attribute that resembles a *mudtarif*, then it is permissible to place it before"
So he made it a condition for the permissibility of placing it before its *'amil* that the *'amil* be a *mudtarif* verb or an attribute that resembles it. The important point is that this verse is an exception to his statement:
"And the *hal*, if it is made accusative"
and so on. Meaning: the *hal* may precede its *'amil* even if it is not a verb or an attribute that resembles it. Are you with me? Okay, "more beneficial than 'Amr, accompanied." "Than 'Amr, accompanied" has no issue, meaning: it is a witness, because the *'amil* for "accompanied" is "more beneficial," and it is delayed relative to it, or there is nothing wrong with it. The witness is his saying: "alone, more beneficial than 'Amr, accompanied"
And if we examine this example, we find that it contains a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on two *hal* (circumstances). The preferred one is Zayd, and the preferred-over one is 'Amr. Where are the two *hal*? Zayd is in the state of being alone, and 'Amr is in the state of being accompanied. So Zayd, while not accompanied, is better than 'Amr, while accompanied. This is the meaning. So if we find a superlative adjective containing a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on their *hal*, it is permissible for the *hal* of the first to precede the superlative adjective. The *hal* of the first to precede the superlative adjective. And it does not matter if the comparison is between two people or between one person in two states. So if I say: "Zayd, as a layman, is better than him as a jurist," or "Zayd, as a jurist, is better than him as a layman," is it the same or not?
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : It is exactly the same. So "Zayd, as a layman," "layman" is a *hal*, and the *'amil* for it is "better," even though there is no Zayd and 'Amr, but there are two *hal* from the states of Zayd. So if we find a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on two *hal*, it is permissible for the *hal* to precede the *'amil* of the first, of the first, which is the preferred one. It seems, by Allah, are we speaking Arabic or not? The examples, as we said, Ibn Malik gave an example of a preferred one and a preferred-over one between two people: "Zayd, alone, is more beneficial than 'Amr, accompanied." And I also say: it is permissible for that preference to be based on the *hal* of the person, even if it is one person. And its example is: "Zayd, as a layman, is better than him as a jurist," or "Zayd, as a jurist, is better than him as a layman." Here the *hal* preceded its *'amil*, even though its *'amil* is not a *mudtarif* verb nor an attribute that resembles a *mudtarif* verb.
"And like Zayd, alone, is more beneficial than 'Amr *** accompanied, which is permissible"
The meaning of "permissible" is: the scholars have permitted it. And "will not be disparaged" means: it is not weak, but it is eloquent and correct speech. And some grammarians said: this is prohibited and not permissible, and that "alone" in "Zayd, alone" is the predicate for the omitted *kana* (copula). And the estimated meaning of the speech for this person is: "Zayd, if he is alone, is more beneficial than 'Amr, if he is," right?
The student: Accompanied.
The Shaykh : Accompanied. And this is a view that has no merit due to the many estimations involved in it. Because now, according to this opinion, six things are being omitted: "Zayd" if you omit it, "kana" and its subject are three, omit their counterparts from the second hemistich, from "than 'Amr, if he is accompanied," you omit six words. But what we have has nothing, there is no omission at all. The most that is in it, if we say it is prohibited, is that we have permitted placing the *hal* before its *'amil*, while it is not a verb or similar to it. And on this basis, what Ibn Malik held is the correct one, because it is free from estimations. And the more speech is free from estimation, the more preferable it is. And that is because the original state is the absence of estimation. Okay.
The student: The rule?
The Shaykh : The rule: It is permissible for the *hal* to precede its *'amil* if it is a superlative adjective between a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on two *hal*, between the preferred one and the preferred-over one based on two *hal*, meaning: this *hal* is preferred over this *hal*, regardless of the person. The person may be one or the person may be two. Yes, this is the rule.
The student: Is all of this the rule?
The Shaykh : Taking the rule is a detail, but the rule ends with "based on two *hal*."
The student: Is it permissible for more than?
The Shaykh : I don't know if its construction is correct or not, the important thing is the preferred one and the preferred-over one.
The student: A type.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A type.
Like this statement
"permissible, it will not be disparaged"
We are now going to take a rule from the example. Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) sometimes provides an example from which the rule is derived. First: we have "alone" as a *hal* (circumstantial phrase). What is the *'amil* (governing word) for it? The *'amil* is the word "more beneficial." So, is it placed before the *'amil* or not?
The student: It is placed before.
The Shaykh : It is placed before the *'amil*. Is the *'amil* here a *mudtarif* verb? "More beneficial"?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : A *mudtarif* verb? A *mudtarif* verb? I am asking: is it a *mudtarif* verb or not?
The student: It is a *mudtarif* active participle.
The Shaykh : It is not a verb, there is no doubt, it is not a verb. "More beneficial" is a superlative adjective, not a verb. Okay, is it an attribute that resembles a *mudtarif* verb? No, because the attribute that resembles a *mudtarif* verb is the active participle, the passive participle, and the *sifah mushabbahah* (descriptive adjective), according to scholarly disagreement. So "more beneficial" is not a *mudtarif* verb and it is not an attribute that resembles it, is it not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And yet the *hal* was placed before it. And Ibn Malik at the beginning says:
"The *hal*, if it is made accusative by a *mudtarif* verb *** or an attribute that resembles a *mudtarif*, then it is permissible to place it before"
So he made it a condition for the permissibility of placing it before its *'amil* that the *'amil* be a *mudtarif* verb or an attribute that resembles it. The important point is that this verse is an exception to his statement:
"And the *hal*, if it is made accusative"
and so on. Meaning: the *hal* may precede its *'amil* even if it is not a verb or an attribute that resembles it. Are you with me? Okay, "more beneficial than 'Amr, accompanied." "Than 'Amr, accompanied" has no issue, meaning: it is a witness, because the *'amil* for "accompanied" is "more beneficial," and it is delayed relative to it, or there is nothing wrong with it. The witness is his saying: "alone, more beneficial than 'Amr, accompanied"
And if we examine this example, we find that it contains a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on two *hal* (circumstances). The preferred one is Zayd, and the preferred-over one is 'Amr. Where are the two *hal*? Zayd is in the state of being alone, and 'Amr is in the state of being accompanied. So Zayd, while not accompanied, is better than 'Amr, while accompanied. This is the meaning. So if we find a superlative adjective containing a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on their *hal*, it is permissible for the *hal* of the first to precede the superlative adjective. The *hal* of the first to precede the superlative adjective. And it does not matter if the comparison is between two people or between one person in two states. So if I say: "Zayd, as a layman, is better than him as a jurist," or "Zayd, as a jurist, is better than him as a layman," is it the same or not?
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : It is exactly the same. So "Zayd, as a layman," "layman" is a *hal*, and the *'amil* for it is "better," even though there is no Zayd and 'Amr, but there are two *hal* from the states of Zayd. So if we find a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on two *hal*, it is permissible for the *hal* to precede the *'amil* of the first, of the first, which is the preferred one. It seems, by Allah, are we speaking Arabic or not? The examples, as we said, Ibn Malik gave an example of a preferred one and a preferred-over one between two people: "Zayd, alone, is more beneficial than 'Amr, accompanied." And I also say: it is permissible for that preference to be based on the *hal* of the person, even if it is one person. And its example is: "Zayd, as a layman, is better than him as a jurist," or "Zayd, as a jurist, is better than him as a layman." Here the *hal* preceded its *'amil*, even though its *'amil* is not a *mudtarif* verb nor an attribute that resembles a *mudtarif* verb.
"And like Zayd, alone, is more beneficial than 'Amr *** accompanied, which is permissible"
The meaning of "permissible" is: the scholars have permitted it. And "will not be disparaged" means: it is not weak, but it is eloquent and correct speech. And some grammarians said: this is prohibited and not permissible, and that "alone" in "Zayd, alone" is the predicate for the omitted *kana* (copula). And the estimated meaning of the speech for this person is: "Zayd, if he is alone, is more beneficial than 'Amr, if he is," right?
The student: Accompanied.
The Shaykh : Accompanied. And this is a view that has no merit due to the many estimations involved in it. Because now, according to this opinion, six things are being omitted: "Zayd" if you omit it, "kana" and its subject are three, omit their counterparts from the second hemistich, from "than 'Amr, if he is accompanied," you omit six words. But what we have has nothing, there is no omission at all. The most that is in it, if we say it is prohibited, is that we have permitted placing the *hal* before its *'amil*, while it is not a verb or similar to it. And on this basis, what Ibn Malik held is the correct one, because it is free from estimations. And the more speech is free from estimation, the more preferable it is. And that is because the original state is the absence of estimation. Okay.
The student: The rule?
The Shaykh : The rule: It is permissible for the *hal* to precede its *'amil* if it is a superlative adjective between a preferred one and a preferred-over one based on two *hal*, between the preferred one and the preferred-over one based on two *hal*, meaning: this *hal* is preferred over this *hal*, regardless of the person. The person may be one or the person may be two. Yes, this is the rule.
The student: Is all of this the rule?
The Shaykh : Taking the rule is a detail, but the rule ends with "based on two *hal*."
The student: Is it permissible for more than?
The Shaykh : I don't know if its construction is correct or not, the important thing is the preferred one and the preferred-over one.
The student: A type.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A type.