Discussion of the previous extraction from the verses of the present state.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The first and the second for the second, or vice versa, is what is practiced, for example: I hit Hinda sitting while standing, okay?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is that clear? Well, the woman breastfed her child while awake and sleeping, is that clear?
The student: Yes, indeed.
Another student: It doesn't seem clear.
The Shaykh : Awake is certain regarding the mother, and sleeping might be the case, but the word "breastfed" indicates intention. I did not say "the child nursed from her mother while awake and sleeping." I say: "She breastfed," and the word "breastfed" indicates intention, and a sleeping person has no intention. Is it clear now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, if there is no evidence for whether the second is for the first or for the second, to whom do the two present states belong? For example: Zayd hit 'Umar sitting while standing? Which one is sitting and which one is standing?
The student: 'Umar is the one sitting.
The Shaykh : I mean, is the present state for the first or for the second?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The majority of grammarians say: the first present state is for the second, and the second present state is for the first, inverted. They justify this by saying that it should be that the first present state is for the second in order to be immediate to him, and we leave the second for the first. And some grammarians say: No, the opposite, just as we do in rhetoric where we make the issue from the chapter of ordered arrangement and distribution, or disordered?
The student: Ordered.
The Shaykh : Ordered, so we make the first for the first and the second for the second. But the grammarians consider that if you make the first for the first and the second for the second, you have now separated the present state from its possessor in both places. And if you make the first for the second and the second for the first, you have separated the present state from its possessor in one place. And there is no doubt that separating the present state from its possessor in one place is better than separating the two present states from their two possessors. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is that clear? Well, the woman breastfed her child while awake and sleeping, is that clear?
The student: Yes, indeed.
Another student: It doesn't seem clear.
The Shaykh : Awake is certain regarding the mother, and sleeping might be the case, but the word "breastfed" indicates intention. I did not say "the child nursed from her mother while awake and sleeping." I say: "She breastfed," and the word "breastfed" indicates intention, and a sleeping person has no intention. Is it clear now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, if there is no evidence for whether the second is for the first or for the second, to whom do the two present states belong? For example: Zayd hit 'Umar sitting while standing? Which one is sitting and which one is standing?
The student: 'Umar is the one sitting.
The Shaykh : I mean, is the present state for the first or for the second?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The majority of grammarians say: the first present state is for the second, and the second present state is for the first, inverted. They justify this by saying that it should be that the first present state is for the second in order to be immediate to him, and we leave the second for the first. And some grammarians say: No, the opposite, just as we do in rhetoric where we make the issue from the chapter of ordered arrangement and distribution, or disordered?
The student: Ordered.
The Shaykh : Ordered, so we make the first for the first and the second for the second. But the grammarians consider that if you make the first for the first and the second for the second, you have now separated the present state from its possessor in both places. And if you make the first for the second and the second for the first, you have separated the present state from its possessor in one place. And there is no doubt that separating the present state from its possessor in one place is better than separating the two present states from their two possessors. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.