Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And connecting al- to this that is added is forgiven *** if you connect it to the second, like the curly hair."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And connecting al- to this that is added is forgiven *** if you connect it to the second, like the curly hair"
As we have mentioned before, you know that al- does not coexist with the genitive construction (iḍāfah), for it is not possible to say "al-kitāb al-rajul" meaning "the book of the man." This is prohibited; it is linguistically prohibited to say "al-kitāb al-rajul." Do you understand? So, al- does not coexist with the genitive construction, just as tanwīn (vowel endings) also does not coexist with the genitive construction. Now, if I said "al-dār Muḥammad," meaning "the house of Muḥammad," what would you say?
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. However, in lexical iḍāfah—and this is one of the differences between it and semantic iḍāfah—it is permissible to connect al- in the first term (the mudāf), provided that you connect it in the second term (the mudāf ilayh). For this reason, he said:
"If it is connected to the second, like the curly hair" "like the curly hair"
"And to that to which the second is added *** like Zayd, the striker, the head of the criminal"
The criminal pulled it out; he is striking his head. Yes, now look.
"If it is connected to the second, the curly hair" "The man came to me" is a verb and a subject. "Al-jad al-sha'r" (the curly hair): "al-jad" is a description of the man. "Al-jad" is the first term (mudāf) and "al-sha'r" is the second term (mudāf ilayh). Here, we added what has al- to what has al-. Where is the al-?
The student: In "al-jad al-sha'r."
The Shaykh : In "al-jad al-sha'r." Now, what about "al-ḥasan al-wajh" (the handsome face)? Is it correct or not?
The student: It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is correct, because it is a descriptive adjective (ṣifah mushabbihah). So, you add what has al- to what has al-. If I said "al-jad sha'r" (the curly hair), is it permissible?
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because the author says: "If it is connected to the second." From this, it is known that if it is not connected to the second, then it is not permissible to connect it to the first. If I said "jad al-sha'r" (curly hair), is it permissible?
The student: Yes, this is the original rule.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because it does not have al- in the first place. And if the first term (mudāf) does not have al-, it is permissible to add it to what has al- and to what does not have al-. So, we now have three cases, my brothers: that al- is in both the first term and the second term, and this is permissible in lexical iḍāfah; that al- is in the first term but not in the second term, and this is not permissible in either lexical or semantic iḍāfah; and that al- is in the second term but not in the first term, and this is permissible in both semantic and lexical iḍāfah. So, we have two cases: two cases in which lexical and semantic iḍāfah agree. What are they, Ya 'Abd Allah?
The student: That al- is...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: In the second, in the first term and the second term.
The Shaykh : No, tell me what they agreed on.
The student: In the second term, not the first term.
The Shaykh : Now, is this permissible or prohibited?
The student: This is permissible in both lexical and semantic.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: The one that is not permissible is for al- to be in the second and in the first. For al- to be not in the second. For al- to be in the first term and not in the second term. This is prohibited in both lexical and semantic.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And that al- is in the second, in the first term and the second term, and this is permissible in lexical only.
The Shaykh : Permissible in lexical only. Is that clear now?
The student: If Allah wills.
"And connecting al- to this that is added is forgiven *** if you connect it to the second, like the curly hair"
As we have mentioned before, you know that al- does not coexist with the genitive construction (iḍāfah), for it is not possible to say "al-kitāb al-rajul" meaning "the book of the man." This is prohibited; it is linguistically prohibited to say "al-kitāb al-rajul." Do you understand? So, al- does not coexist with the genitive construction, just as tanwīn (vowel endings) also does not coexist with the genitive construction. Now, if I said "al-dār Muḥammad," meaning "the house of Muḥammad," what would you say?
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. However, in lexical iḍāfah—and this is one of the differences between it and semantic iḍāfah—it is permissible to connect al- in the first term (the mudāf), provided that you connect it in the second term (the mudāf ilayh). For this reason, he said:
"If it is connected to the second, like the curly hair" "like the curly hair"
"And to that to which the second is added *** like Zayd, the striker, the head of the criminal"
The criminal pulled it out; he is striking his head. Yes, now look.
"If it is connected to the second, the curly hair" "The man came to me" is a verb and a subject. "Al-jad al-sha'r" (the curly hair): "al-jad" is a description of the man. "Al-jad" is the first term (mudāf) and "al-sha'r" is the second term (mudāf ilayh). Here, we added what has al- to what has al-. Where is the al-?
The student: In "al-jad al-sha'r."
The Shaykh : In "al-jad al-sha'r." Now, what about "al-ḥasan al-wajh" (the handsome face)? Is it correct or not?
The student: It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is correct, because it is a descriptive adjective (ṣifah mushabbihah). So, you add what has al- to what has al-. If I said "al-jad sha'r" (the curly hair), is it permissible?
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because the author says: "If it is connected to the second." From this, it is known that if it is not connected to the second, then it is not permissible to connect it to the first. If I said "jad al-sha'r" (curly hair), is it permissible?
The student: Yes, this is the original rule.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because it does not have al- in the first place. And if the first term (mudāf) does not have al-, it is permissible to add it to what has al- and to what does not have al-. So, we now have three cases, my brothers: that al- is in both the first term and the second term, and this is permissible in lexical iḍāfah; that al- is in the first term but not in the second term, and this is not permissible in either lexical or semantic iḍāfah; and that al- is in the second term but not in the first term, and this is permissible in both semantic and lexical iḍāfah. So, we have two cases: two cases in which lexical and semantic iḍāfah agree. What are they, Ya 'Abd Allah?
The student: That al- is...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: In the second, in the first term and the second term.
The Shaykh : No, tell me what they agreed on.
The student: In the second term, not the first term.
The Shaykh : Now, is this permissible or prohibited?
The student: This is permissible in both lexical and semantic.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: The one that is not permissible is for al- to be in the second and in the first. For al- to be not in the second. For al- to be in the first term and not in the second term. This is prohibited in both lexical and semantic.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And that al- is in the second, in the first term and the second term, and this is permissible in lexical only.
The Shaykh : Permissible in lexical only. Is that clear now?
The student: If Allah wills.