Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the second, decline it, and intend 'min' or 'fi' from it, if *** nothing else is valid except that..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said:
"And the second, decline it"
We have already discussed this. The second of the two related nouns? Decline the second; it is a fronted object for "decline."
"And intend 'min' or 'fi' from it, if *** nothing else is valid except that"
"Intend": an imperative verb. "Min": a noun, the object of the verb. "Min" is a noun because the meaning is "intend this word," so "min" is a noun in the accusative case, correct? It is built on sukun in the position of the accusative, a noun built on sukun in the position of the accusative. Or "fi" means "intend 'fi'," which is conjoined to his saying: "min" "if nothing else is valid except that". This means: if "fi" is not valid in the genitive construction, then estimate "min" or "fi," so intend "min" or "fi."
"And the lām, take it". The lām is a fronted object for "take," and "take" is an imperative verb, but it is emphasized with the light nūn of emphasis, which is converted to an alif. The original form of "take" is "khudhn," but the light nūn of emphasis is converted to an alif. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
Decline the second of the two related nouns, meaning: its ruling is always the genitive case. Do you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is the book of Muhammad, and I bought the book of Muhammad, and I looked at the book of Muhammad; all of it is in the genitive case permanently. Now, what do we intend with the genitive construction? He says: intend "min" or "fi." If "min" or "fi" is not valid, then intend the lām. So the genitive construction is estimated with "min," "fi," and the lām. Do you understand, everyone? Now, when is it estimated with "min"? It is estimated with "min" in numbers, areas, and species. It is estimated with "min" in three things: in numbers, areas, and what else?
The student: And species.
The Shaykh : And species. An example of numbers: you say, "I have ten dirhams." Is the lām valid? "Ten for dirhams," right? It is not valid. Is "fi" valid?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : "Ten in dirhams" is not valid. So what do we estimate?
The student: "Min."
The Shaykh : "Min." "Ten of dirhams." Now, "I have three hundred men," the same thing. "Three of a hundred of men." All of it is estimated with "min." Now, what is the second?
The student: Area.
The Shaykh : Area. "I have a span of land." A span of land.
The student: The lām is not valid, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Is the lām valid? "A span for land"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And "a span in land" is not valid. So, "a span of land." What is the third? Species. "I have a silver ring." "I have a silver ring." Is the second a species of the first or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the estimation? "A ring of silver." Is the lām valid? "A ring for silver"? No. Is "fi" valid? "A ring in silver"? No. So it became "min." When? In numbers and areas, it is estimated with "min." If the second is a circumstantial noun for the first, it is estimated with "fi." If the second is a circumstantial noun for the first, it is estimated with "fi," like His saying, the Exalted:[Saba 34:33] [Saba 34:33] Yes, and what is the meaning of "the stratagem of the night"?
The student: Stratagem in the night.
The Shaykh : Stratagem in the night. Yes, and you also say: "Sleep in the night is better than sleep in the day," right?
The student: Sleep in the night.
The Shaykh : Sleep in the night is better than sleep in the day. But the one that is estimated with "fi" can it be valid with "min" or not?
The student: It can.
The Shaykh : See, it is not permanent. It can, but it is not permanent. For example, "Sleep of the night is better than sleep of the day" is possible, but is "the stratagem of the night" valid? "Stratagem of the night" is not valid. In any case, if the second is a circumstantial noun for the first, it is estimated with "fi." Do you know why "sleep of the night" is valid with the estimation of "fi"? Or "min"? Because it is a species. Because it is a species. "Sleep of night," like "a ring of iron." So it is valid for me to say: "In sleep of night," I intended the night to be a circumstantial noun for the sleep. And it is valid for me to say I intended the night to be a species for the sleep. Therefore, it is valid to say "min" or "fi."
The student: Shaykh, is sleep a species?
The Shaykh : Yes, "sleep of the night" is a species and "sleep of the day" is a species.
The student: A verb, meaning... it is connected to the verb.
The Shaykh : It is connected to the time. "Sleep of the night" means "sleep of the night." "Sleep of sleep of the night is better than sleep of sleep of the day."
The student: Meaning...
The Shaykh : It is valid. That is, it is valid. Yes, because sleep is two species. Now, right?
The student:[Saba 34:33]?
The Shaykh : No, it is not valid. It is not valid. "In the night" is better. Now, if neither this nor that is valid, we say more. For this reason, he said:
"And the second, decline it"
We have already discussed this. The second of the two related nouns? Decline the second; it is a fronted object for "decline."
"And intend 'min' or 'fi' from it, if *** nothing else is valid except that"
"Intend": an imperative verb. "Min": a noun, the object of the verb. "Min" is a noun because the meaning is "intend this word," so "min" is a noun in the accusative case, correct? It is built on sukun in the position of the accusative, a noun built on sukun in the position of the accusative. Or "fi" means "intend 'fi'," which is conjoined to his saying: "min" "if nothing else is valid except that". This means: if "fi" is not valid in the genitive construction, then estimate "min" or "fi," so intend "min" or "fi."
"And the lām, take it". The lām is a fronted object for "take," and "take" is an imperative verb, but it is emphasized with the light nūn of emphasis, which is converted to an alif. The original form of "take" is "khudhn," but the light nūn of emphasis is converted to an alif. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
Decline the second of the two related nouns, meaning: its ruling is always the genitive case. Do you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is the book of Muhammad, and I bought the book of Muhammad, and I looked at the book of Muhammad; all of it is in the genitive case permanently. Now, what do we intend with the genitive construction? He says: intend "min" or "fi." If "min" or "fi" is not valid, then intend the lām. So the genitive construction is estimated with "min," "fi," and the lām. Do you understand, everyone? Now, when is it estimated with "min"? It is estimated with "min" in numbers, areas, and species. It is estimated with "min" in three things: in numbers, areas, and what else?
The student: And species.
The Shaykh : And species. An example of numbers: you say, "I have ten dirhams." Is the lām valid? "Ten for dirhams," right? It is not valid. Is "fi" valid?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : "Ten in dirhams" is not valid. So what do we estimate?
The student: "Min."
The Shaykh : "Min." "Ten of dirhams." Now, "I have three hundred men," the same thing. "Three of a hundred of men." All of it is estimated with "min." Now, what is the second?
The student: Area.
The Shaykh : Area. "I have a span of land." A span of land.
The student: The lām is not valid, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Is the lām valid? "A span for land"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And "a span in land" is not valid. So, "a span of land." What is the third? Species. "I have a silver ring." "I have a silver ring." Is the second a species of the first or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the estimation? "A ring of silver." Is the lām valid? "A ring for silver"? No. Is "fi" valid? "A ring in silver"? No. So it became "min." When? In numbers and areas, it is estimated with "min." If the second is a circumstantial noun for the first, it is estimated with "fi." If the second is a circumstantial noun for the first, it is estimated with "fi," like His saying, the Exalted:
Rather, [it was your] conspiracy of night and day when you were ordering us
بل مكر الليل والنهار إذ تأمرونناRather, [it was your] conspiracy of night and day when you were ordering us to disbelieve in Allah
بل مكر الليل والنهار إذ تأمروننا أن نكفر باللهThe student: Stratagem in the night.
The Shaykh : Stratagem in the night. Yes, and you also say: "Sleep in the night is better than sleep in the day," right?
The student: Sleep in the night.
The Shaykh : Sleep in the night is better than sleep in the day. But the one that is estimated with "fi" can it be valid with "min" or not?
The student: It can.
The Shaykh : See, it is not permanent. It can, but it is not permanent. For example, "Sleep of the night is better than sleep of the day" is possible, but is "the stratagem of the night" valid? "Stratagem of the night" is not valid. In any case, if the second is a circumstantial noun for the first, it is estimated with "fi." Do you know why "sleep of the night" is valid with the estimation of "fi"? Or "min"? Because it is a species. Because it is a species. "Sleep of night," like "a ring of iron." So it is valid for me to say: "In sleep of night," I intended the night to be a circumstantial noun for the sleep. And it is valid for me to say I intended the night to be a species for the sleep. Therefore, it is valid to say "min" or "fi."
The student: Shaykh, is sleep a species?
The Shaykh : Yes, "sleep of the night" is a species and "sleep of the day" is a species.
The student: A verb, meaning... it is connected to the verb.
The Shaykh : It is connected to the time. "Sleep of the night" means "sleep of the night." "Sleep of sleep of the night is better than sleep of sleep of the day."
The student: Meaning...
The Shaykh : It is valid. That is, it is valid. Yes, because sleep is two species. Now, right?
The student:
Rather, [it was your] conspiracy of night and day
بل مكر الليل والنهارThe Shaykh : No, it is not valid. It is not valid. "In the night" is better. Now, if neither this nor that is valid, we say more. For this reason, he said: