Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "With the explicit noun, you specify since, when, and until *** and the kaff, the waw, and rubb, and the taa."

The Shaykh : He said:
"With the explicit noun, you specify"
"With the explicit noun": a preposition and its object, connected to "specify." It is said "akhass" and it is said "khass." The first is a resolution of the idgham, and the second is an idgham. "Khass" is an idgham, "akhass" is a resolution of the idgham. Good, so do you resolve the idgham or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : "Radd," "arradd," good. "Specify with the explicit noun, when."
"With the explicit noun, you specify since, when, and until *** and the kaff, the waw, and rubb, and the taa"
How much?
The student: Seven.

The Shaykh : Seven? Seven. These are specified by the explicit noun. Seven of the twenty particles are restricted to the explicit noun. And what does "with the explicit noun" mean, and what is its opposite?
The student: The pronoun.

The Shaykh : The pronoun, meaning: these do not govern pronouns; they do not govern anything except explicit nouns only. For example, you say: "I attended when two days," and it is not permissible to say: "I attended when they." It is not correct; rather, you say: "when two days." And you say: "since two days," and you do not say: "since they." Complete. And you say: "until Zayd's arrival." Allah the Exalted said: Is it permissible, for example, to say: "I traveled until you"?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not suitable.

The Shaykh : It is not valid?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible, but it is permissible to say "I traveled to you." Is that permissible or not? Yes, it is permissible, because "ila" is not restricted to the explicit noun. But "hatta," if the destination is one, now "ila" is for the destination: "I traveled to you" is for the destination. And "hatta" is for the destination, it is meaning: until the dawn. All of them are for the destination, but you cannot say "hattak" as you say "ilayk," as you say "ilayk." Clear. Good. Also, the kaff. The kaff is restricted to the explicit noun. You say, for example: "So-and-so is like a lion." Correct. Good. "So-and-so is like Zayd," you are addressing Zayd. Is it permissible for me to put the pronoun in place of Zayd, whom I am addressing, and say: "So-and-so is like him," or is it not permissible?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it does not enter except on the explicit noun. However, it will come in the author's words that it may come for the hidden noun, but rarely, such as: "ka-ha," "katha," "ka-ha," as will come later. Likewise, the waw. The waw is restricted to the explicit noun. The waw is restricted to the explicit noun, and it also does not come with the pronoun. And as we learned previously, it is from the letters of?
The student: The oath.

The Shaykh : From the letters of the oath. You say: "By Allah," and "Rabb al-'alamin," and "the Creator of the earth and the heavens," and the like. But do you say: "wa-kiya Rabb," is it permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is restricted to the explicit noun, so it is not permissible for it to enter on the pronoun, not even the pronoun of absence. Yes, if you said, for example: "Allah is Great, and He is the one I swear by," is it permissible? It is not permissible. But "by Him I swear" is permissible, because it is suitable for the pronoun, and the kaff and the waw.
The student: What is the difference between them and the waw of accompaniment?

The Shaykh : Which waw of accompaniment? These are prepositions.
The student: Meaning, they are not confused?

The Shaykh : It is not only in the oath; it is in the oath, and the context indicates it. Likewise, rubb does not enter except on the explicit noun. And narrower than this, it also does not enter except on the indefinite noun. It does not enter except on the explicit noun and the indefinite noun. Do you understand now?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Rubb is restricted to the explicit noun, and also to the indefinite noun. You say, for example: "Rubb a man I met." But you cannot say: "Rubb the man I met." It is not correct. "Rubb the man I met" is not correct. The reason? Hmm?
The student: Because it is specific to the indefinite noun.

The Shaykh : Because it is specific to the indefinite noun, and "al-rajul" (the man) is a definite noun. Likewise, "Rubb Zayd I met," meaning you want a specific Zayd, is not permissible. But "Rubb Zayd I met," meaning you want one named Zayd, this is permissible, because the intended one is not a proper name but one named by this name. Good. Is it permissible to say: "Rubbahu al-rajul qayyim" (Perhaps the man is standing)?
The student: No, it is not permissible.

The Shaykh : No, it is permissible, but it is rare. "And what they have narrated regarding 'rubbahu' is a little, such as this" Yes. So his statement here: its restriction to the explicit noun, this is based on the common and frequent usage. And it may come rarely connected to the pronoun. Good. He said: "And the taa" The taa is also among what is restricted to the explicit noun, and it is from the letters of the oath. It is from the letters of the oath. So now we have two of the letters of the oath, which are: the waw and the taa. But the taa also does not govern except the one sworn by, and it is also not except with Allah or Rabb, as the author said:
"And the taa is for Allah and Rabb"
It does not govern every name. If you say: "Ta-al-Rahman," it is not permissible. "Ta-al-'Aziz," it is not permissible. "Ta-al-Salam," hmm?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Is that correct, Hussein?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Hmm? What did you say? The taa is from the letters of the oath, and it does not enter except on the explicit noun. And it does not enter, from the explicit nouns, except on two names only, which are: Allah and Rabb. So it was specified by several specifications, hmm?
The student: By the explicit noun.

The Shaykh : It is restricted to the explicit noun, and to the oath, and to Allah and Rabb. Did you understand? Good. If I said, for example: "My Lord is Allah," "Ta-hi" I swear, like "by Him I swear," is it permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is specific to Allah and Rabb.
The student: Did the Arabs say the taa with Rabb?

The Shaykh : Yes, the Arabic language. The Arabic language is our evidence. This was reported from the Arabs.
The student: It was reported with Rabb.

The Shaykh : "Tarab al-Ka'bah," "Tarab al-Ka'bah," I will not do such and such. Yes, that is correct.
The student: "Ta-al-Rahman" is not correct?

The Shaykh : No, it is not correct. It is not correct.
The student: "Ta-al-Rahman" is easier than "Ta-al-Rabb."

The Shaykh : It is not "Ta-al-Rabb," it is "Tarab," Rabb and attached. Yes, that is correct.