Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And that which is added to, its name is verbal *** And that is pure and semantic."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And that which is added to"
"And that which is added to, its name is verbal *** And that is pure and semantic"
"And that which is added to"—I have a difficulty with "that which is added to," because it is known that *dhu* is raised with a waw, accused with an alif, and genitive with a ya. One says: "came *dhu* mal" (one with wealth), "I saw *dhu* mal," and "I passed by *dhu* mal." Here he said: "and that which is added to".
The student: It is a demonstrative noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. This is a demonstrative noun, not *dhu* meaning "possessor." And for this reason he said "added to" and not "added to" (with genitive case). "And that which is added to". Is *dhi* used to point to the near or the far?
The student: To the near.
The Shaykh : To the near. So, the "added to" here refers to the noun that is added to something that resembles *fa'ala* (to do), meaning the noun that resembles *fa'ala*. "That which is added to" means when the added noun is a noun that resembles *fa'ala*, meaning an active participle, a passive participle, or an adjective of similarity. This addition is called verbal because it did not benefit with meaning; it only benefited with lightening. I hope you pay attention, everyone. The noble verse[Al-Ma'idah 5:95] Did the addition benefit with anything? Hmm?
The student: As for the semantic, no, it did not benefit.
The Shaykh : It did not benefit with meaning, because it did not become definite by the addition, did it? And it did not become specific by it. If someone says: "But it became specific because he said: 'Take out what is other than it, that does not reach another,'" yes, we say: This specification is for the sake of the action, just as if I said: "I honored Zayd." Then the honoring here became specific to Zayd by means of the fact that it acted upon him. So, *hadyan* (a sacrificial animal), originally, if I said: "A sacrificial animal reaching the Ka'bah," or if I said: "A sacrificial animal reaching the Ka'bah," from the perspective of meaning, it is the same. The addition did not benefit with specification. So, the specification here is by the action, not by means of the addition. Okay, "I am the honor of the diligent student." Is this addition verbal or semantic?
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : I am the honor of the diligent student.
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : Verbal. This addition is verbal because *mukram* (one who honors) is an active participle meaning the present or future state. But if I said: "I honored the diligent student yesterday," then this is semantic. But "I will honor the diligent student tomorrow," or "I am the honor of the student who recites Ibn Malik's *Alfiyyah* from memory." Okay, here "I am the honor of the student" is verbal, because it did not benefit with specification or definiteness. So, *mukram* here is indefinite, even though it is added to a definite noun. It did not benefit with definiteness. Did it benefit with specification or not?
The student: Nor specification.
The Shaykh : Nor specification. And it did not even benefit with specification; it did not benefit with it. If one of you says: "Do you know specification? I am the honor of the diligent student, but I do not honor anyone other than the diligent student. Whoever is not a student has no honor with me, and whoever is a student who is wasteful has no honor with me." So, this specification: I have now specified with "student" and specified with "diligent." We say: This specification is not by means of the addition, as evidenced by the fact that if you said: "I am the honor of the diligent student" (with accusative case), did it become specific or not?
The student: It became specific.
The Shaykh : Even though there is no addition in it, is there? "I am the honor of the diligent student" becomes specific without addition. So, the addition in reality, in "I am the honor of the diligent student," we did not benefit from it except a verbal benefit only, which is lightening. It is lightening instead of us saying "we nasalize" (add a tanwin), we say: "Mukramun al-talib" (The honor of the student), we shorten and say: "Mukramu al-talibi al-mujtahid" (The honor of the diligent student). I think it is clear, everyone? This is the meaning of his saying:
"And that which is added to, its name is verbal *** And that is pure and semantic"
"That" refers to the addition where the added noun does not resemble *fa'ala*, meaning the one that preceded in the first three verses. He says: "That" meaning: The addition that preceded in the first three verses is pure and semantic. Pure means exclusive, a pure addition. And semantic means... and semantic. Okay, we will leave the second half of the verse, if Allah wills.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : By Allah, you are being deceptive. Who will we leave as the agent for announcing the time?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : But... Ah, you are the agent, if Allah wills.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh :"He connected al with dhu, the added, and it is forgiven"
... the first one that benefits with definiteness and specification.
The student: We stopped.
The Shaykh : No, no, we continued. We explained. Okay, it is simple. It can be explained in less than a verse. We explained it and we did not explain it. The previous addition that benefits with specification or definiteness is called semantic addition, or pure semantic addition.
"And that which is added to, its name is verbal *** And that is pure and semantic"
"And that which is added to"—I have a difficulty with "that which is added to," because it is known that *dhu* is raised with a waw, accused with an alif, and genitive with a ya. One says: "came *dhu* mal" (one with wealth), "I saw *dhu* mal," and "I passed by *dhu* mal." Here he said: "and that which is added to".
The student: It is a demonstrative noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. This is a demonstrative noun, not *dhu* meaning "possessor." And for this reason he said "added to" and not "added to" (with genitive case). "And that which is added to". Is *dhi* used to point to the near or the far?
The student: To the near.
The Shaykh : To the near. So, the "added to" here refers to the noun that is added to something that resembles *fa'ala* (to do), meaning the noun that resembles *fa'ala*. "That which is added to" means when the added noun is a noun that resembles *fa'ala*, meaning an active participle, a passive participle, or an adjective of similarity. This addition is called verbal because it did not benefit with meaning; it only benefited with lightening. I hope you pay attention, everyone. The noble verse
as an offering [to Allah] delivered to the Ka'bah
هديًا بالغ الكعبةThe student: As for the semantic, no, it did not benefit.
The Shaykh : It did not benefit with meaning, because it did not become definite by the addition, did it? And it did not become specific by it. If someone says: "But it became specific because he said:
Reaching the Ka'bah
بالغ الكعبةThe student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : I am the honor of the diligent student.
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : Verbal. This addition is verbal because *mukram* (one who honors) is an active participle meaning the present or future state. But if I said: "I honored the diligent student yesterday," then this is semantic. But "I will honor the diligent student tomorrow," or "I am the honor of the student who recites Ibn Malik's *Alfiyyah* from memory." Okay, here "I am the honor of the student" is verbal, because it did not benefit with specification or definiteness. So, *mukram* here is indefinite, even though it is added to a definite noun. It did not benefit with definiteness. Did it benefit with specification or not?
The student: Nor specification.
The Shaykh : Nor specification. And it did not even benefit with specification; it did not benefit with it. If one of you says: "Do you know specification? I am the honor of the diligent student, but I do not honor anyone other than the diligent student. Whoever is not a student has no honor with me, and whoever is a student who is wasteful has no honor with me." So, this specification: I have now specified with "student" and specified with "diligent." We say: This specification is not by means of the addition, as evidenced by the fact that if you said: "I am the honor of the diligent student" (with accusative case), did it become specific or not?
The student: It became specific.
The Shaykh : Even though there is no addition in it, is there? "I am the honor of the diligent student" becomes specific without addition. So, the addition in reality, in "I am the honor of the diligent student," we did not benefit from it except a verbal benefit only, which is lightening. It is lightening instead of us saying "we nasalize" (add a tanwin), we say: "Mukramun al-talib" (The honor of the student), we shorten and say: "Mukramu al-talibi al-mujtahid" (The honor of the diligent student). I think it is clear, everyone? This is the meaning of his saying:
"And that which is added to, its name is verbal *** And that is pure and semantic"
"That" refers to the addition where the added noun does not resemble *fa'ala*, meaning the one that preceded in the first three verses. He says: "That" meaning: The addition that preceded in the first three verses is pure and semantic. Pure means exclusive, a pure addition. And semantic means... and semantic. Okay, we will leave the second half of the verse, if Allah wills.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : By Allah, you are being deceptive. Who will we leave as the agent for announcing the time?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : But... Ah, you are the agent, if Allah wills.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh :"He connected al with dhu, the added, and it is forgiven"
... the first one that benefits with definiteness and specification.
The student: We stopped.
The Shaykh : No, no, we continued. We explained. Okay, it is simple. It can be explained in less than a verse. We explained it and we did not explain it. The previous addition that benefits with specification or definiteness is called semantic addition, or pure semantic addition.