Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And *ma* is added after *ruba* and the *kaf*, so it negates *** and it may follow them with a genitive that does not negate."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And *ma* is added after *ruba* and the *kaf*, so it negates *** and it may follow them with a genitive that does not negate"
The pronoun in "added" refers to what? It refers to what is in "And *ma* is added after *ruba* and the *kaf*", so it negates their operation. And it may follow them with a genitive that does not negate, meaning: that what is added after *ruba* negates its operation. And when it negates its operation, it strips it of its exclusivity to the noun. I hope you pay attention. What is added after *ruba*, and when it is added, it strips it of its exclusivity to the noun, so it enters upon the verb. Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Hijr 15:2] So here, *ruba* entered upon what? Upon the verb, because of the addition of *ma*. Whereas if there were no *ma* in it, it would not enter upon a verb. You would not say "ruba yaud." Now, an example of it entering upon a noun: "rubama rajulun laqaytuhu" (Perhaps a man I met). Whereas if you deleted *ma*, you would say: "ruba rajulun laqaytuhu" (Perhaps a man I met). But when *ma* came, its operation was invalidated, so it became obligatory to say: "rubama rajulun laqaytuhu." How do we parse it? *Ruba* is a preposition that is ignored, *ma* is superfluous, and *rajulun* is the subject. *Laqaytuhu* is the verb, the doer, and the object. The verbal sentence consisting of the verb and the doer is the predicate of *rajulun*. Do you understand, everyone? Likewise, the *kaf*. Yes?
The student : Shaykh, is it parsed as superfluous? Is it not parsed as negating?
The Shaykh : No, it is superfluous and it is negating. It is superfluous and it is negating. It has no meaning; the intended meaning of "superfluous" is that it has no meaning. Likewise, it follows the *kaf*. The superfluous *ma* follows the *kaf* and negates its operation. Its entry upon *ma* is common in the speech of the common people. They always say: So-and-so—for example—like the sea, like such-and-such. But in the Arabic language, it is not common. Rather, it enters upon it and negates its operation, and what comes after it becomes the subject, and it requires a predicate. You say, for example: "kama al-nasu mu'minun wa kafirun" (Like the people, a believer and a disbeliever). So the *kaf* here is a preposition, and *ma* is superfluous. But we say: a preposition that is ignored, and *ma* is superfluous, and *al-nasu* is the subject, and *mu'minun* is the predicate of the subject, and *kafirun* is conjoined to *mu'minun*. So it negates its operation. But he says: "And it may follow them". And what follows them? It follows them.
The student : It follows them.
The Shaykh : Do you have it with a *ta*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine. I have "it follows them" as the requirement of the previous pronouns, because he said: "added *ma*" and did not say "added *ma* (feminine)," and he said: "and added after *ruba*," and did not say: "and added (feminine) after *ruba*." And on this basis, "and it may follow them" means that the superfluous *ma* may follow them. "And a genitive that does not negate". And what is the meaning of "a genitive that does not negate"? It means with the preservation of their operation. It may follow them with the preservation of their operation. So you say, for example: "Zaydun kama al-bahri" (Zayd is like the sea), meaning: like the sea. So the *kaf* is a preposition, *ma* is superfluous, and *al-bahr* is in the genitive case by the *kaf*, and the sign of its genitive is a visible kasrah at its end. Likewise, for *ruba*, you say: "rubama rajulun laqaytuhu," correct? "Rubama rajulun laqaytuhu." No, because I pronounce it with a dammah, regardless of whether the operation remains here or not. "Rubama rajulun laqaytuhu."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. This is also the original rule. And "rubama rajin laqaytuhu."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. This is the meaning of his saying: "And it may follow them with a genitive that does not negate". The summary of the two verses now: *ma* is added after three letters from the prepositions, which are: *min*, *'an*, and *ba*. And the *kaf* and *ruba*.
The student: Five.
The Shaykh : Five? Five letters. We said three letters. Three on the basis that they invalidate the operation. The operation remains for three of these five, as if there is no *ma* in them, and they are: *'an*, *min*, and *ba*. As for two of them, the original rule is that their operation is ignored. The original rule is that their operation is ignored and they do not operate. Did you understand? But they may operate. And this is *ruba*, and the second is the *kaf*. *Ruba* and the *kaf*. So you say: "rubama rajin laqaytuhu," and you say for the *kaf*: "So-and-so kama al-bahr," meaning: like the sea. Now, if someone asks us: Are we at liberty in these matters? We say: As for what has been transmitted from the Arabs in operating or ignoring, we have no choice in it, because it was heard this way. But as for what we create from speech, we have a choice in it. We have a choice in it. And on this basis, if one of you reads in a book: "rubama rajulun laqaytuhu," and another says: "rubama rajin laqaytuhu," what do you say?
The student : Both are correct.
The Shaykh : Both are correct? Then no one made a mistake. No one made a mistake. If one made a mistake, I said "rubama rajin laqaytuhu," and he said, "Mistake, this *ma* is negating." I say: "What contradicts what you can accuse me of?" I say: "I want the second language, the second aspect." Just as if I said: "Akram al-Zaydani," and he said: "This is a mistake. The correct is Akram al-Zaydayn." I get rid of it. I say: "I have two ways to get rid of you. First: I say *al-Zaydani* is the name of a man who is attributed to *Zaydan*. Ah, is that possible?"
The student: It is possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible. And if I did not say that, and I wanted the dual, I get rid of it by saying: "I want the second language that obligates the *alif* in the dual absolutely." There is a language that leaves it as a dual always with the *alif*. You say: "Qala al-rijalun" (The two men said) and "Ra'aytu al-rijalun" (I saw the two men) and "Akramtu al-rijalun" (I honored the two men). Ah, we are not Arabs. All our language is not Arabic. Yes, but as long as a person makes a mistake, he says this. Yes. We only say this as an example. I say it by way of argumentation. But in reality, we must follow the Arabic language, the language of Quraysh, which is the language of the Qur'an. Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student : Does *al* enter upon it...
The Shaykh : It is permissible. It is permissible. The *ba* is a preposition.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No... The *ba* is a preposition.
"And *ma* is added after *ruba* and the *kaf*, so it negates *** and it may follow them with a genitive that does not negate"
The pronoun in "added" refers to what? It refers to what is in "And *ma* is added after *ruba* and the *kaf*", so it negates their operation. And it may follow them with a genitive that does not negate, meaning: that what is added after *ruba* negates its operation. And when it negates its operation, it strips it of its exclusivity to the noun. I hope you pay attention. What is added after *ruba*, and when it is added, it strips it of its exclusivity to the noun, so it enters upon the verb. Allah the Exalted said:
Perhaps those who disbelieve will wish that they had been Muslims.
رُبَمَا يَوَدُّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَوْ كَانُوا مُسْلِمِينَPerhaps those who disbelieved would wish
رُبَمَا يَوَدُّThe student : Shaykh, is it parsed as superfluous? Is it not parsed as negating?
The Shaykh : No, it is superfluous and it is negating. It is superfluous and it is negating. It has no meaning; the intended meaning of "superfluous" is that it has no meaning. Likewise, it follows the *kaf*. The superfluous *ma* follows the *kaf* and negates its operation. Its entry upon *ma* is common in the speech of the common people. They always say: So-and-so—for example—like the sea, like such-and-such. But in the Arabic language, it is not common. Rather, it enters upon it and negates its operation, and what comes after it becomes the subject, and it requires a predicate. You say, for example: "kama al-nasu mu'minun wa kafirun" (Like the people, a believer and a disbeliever). So the *kaf* here is a preposition, and *ma* is superfluous. But we say: a preposition that is ignored, and *ma* is superfluous, and *al-nasu* is the subject, and *mu'minun* is the predicate of the subject, and *kafirun* is conjoined to *mu'minun*. So it negates its operation. But he says: "And it may follow them". And what follows them? It follows them.
The student : It follows them.
The Shaykh : Do you have it with a *ta*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine. I have "it follows them" as the requirement of the previous pronouns, because he said: "added *ma*" and did not say "added *ma* (feminine)," and he said: "and added after *ruba*," and did not say: "and added (feminine) after *ruba*." And on this basis, "and it may follow them" means that the superfluous *ma* may follow them. "And a genitive that does not negate". And what is the meaning of "a genitive that does not negate"? It means with the preservation of their operation. It may follow them with the preservation of their operation. So you say, for example: "Zaydun kama al-bahri" (Zayd is like the sea), meaning: like the sea. So the *kaf* is a preposition, *ma* is superfluous, and *al-bahr* is in the genitive case by the *kaf*, and the sign of its genitive is a visible kasrah at its end. Likewise, for *ruba*, you say: "rubama rajulun laqaytuhu," correct? "Rubama rajulun laqaytuhu." No, because I pronounce it with a dammah, regardless of whether the operation remains here or not. "Rubama rajulun laqaytuhu."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. This is also the original rule. And "rubama rajin laqaytuhu."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. This is the meaning of his saying: "And it may follow them with a genitive that does not negate". The summary of the two verses now: *ma* is added after three letters from the prepositions, which are: *min*, *'an*, and *ba*. And the *kaf* and *ruba*.
The student: Five.
The Shaykh : Five? Five letters. We said three letters. Three on the basis that they invalidate the operation. The operation remains for three of these five, as if there is no *ma* in them, and they are: *'an*, *min*, and *ba*. As for two of them, the original rule is that their operation is ignored. The original rule is that their operation is ignored and they do not operate. Did you understand? But they may operate. And this is *ruba*, and the second is the *kaf*. *Ruba* and the *kaf*. So you say: "rubama rajin laqaytuhu," and you say for the *kaf*: "So-and-so kama al-bahr," meaning: like the sea. Now, if someone asks us: Are we at liberty in these matters? We say: As for what has been transmitted from the Arabs in operating or ignoring, we have no choice in it, because it was heard this way. But as for what we create from speech, we have a choice in it. We have a choice in it. And on this basis, if one of you reads in a book: "rubama rajulun laqaytuhu," and another says: "rubama rajin laqaytuhu," what do you say?
The student : Both are correct.
The Shaykh : Both are correct? Then no one made a mistake. No one made a mistake. If one made a mistake, I said "rubama rajin laqaytuhu," and he said, "Mistake, this *ma* is negating." I say: "What contradicts what you can accuse me of?" I say: "I want the second language, the second aspect." Just as if I said: "Akram al-Zaydani," and he said: "This is a mistake. The correct is Akram al-Zaydayn." I get rid of it. I say: "I have two ways to get rid of you. First: I say *al-Zaydani* is the name of a man who is attributed to *Zaydan*. Ah, is that possible?"
The student: It is possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible. And if I did not say that, and I wanted the dual, I get rid of it by saying: "I want the second language that obligates the *alif* in the dual absolutely." There is a language that leaves it as a dual always with the *alif*. You say: "Qala al-rijalun" (The two men said) and "Ra'aytu al-rijalun" (I saw the two men) and "Akramtu al-rijalun" (I honored the two men). Ah, we are not Arabs. All our language is not Arabic. Yes, but as long as a person makes a mistake, he says this. Yes. We only say this as an example. I say it by way of argumentation. But in reality, we must follow the Arabic language, the language of Quraysh, which is the language of the Qur'an. Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student : Does *al* enter upon it...
The Shaykh : It is permissible. It is permissible. The *ba* is a preposition.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No... The *ba* is a preposition.