Discussion of what was previously taken from the chapter on addition, along with continuing the explanation of the previous verse.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: For example, they say: "He cut off some of his fingers." It is correct for us to say: "He cut off his fingers" by omission.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So the verb is made feminine by the addition to.
The Shaykh : To a feminine noun. His fingers, good. And it can be the opposite; the added word acquires masculinity from the word it is added to.
The student: Like the saying of Ibn al-Rumma: We walked.
The Shaykh : As they swayed.
The student: We walked as they swayed.
The Shaykh : Spears that were broken.
The student: Spears that were broken. "Tasfahat" is like the passing of the winds.
The Shaykh : Their tops.
The student: Their tops, the passing of the gentle winds. His saying: "Tasfahat", the verb here is feminine, and "mar al-riyahi" (the passing of the winds), "mar" is masculine.
The Shaykh : It is masculine, but it acquired femininity from the winds.
The student: It acquired it from "tasfahat."
The Shaykh : No, no, it acquired femininity from the winds; the winds are feminine.
The student: The winds.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The student: No, from the verb.
The Shaykh : No, no, the verb is the one that was made feminine because of them. My question is whether the first word acquires masculinity from the second.
The student: His saying, the Exalted:[Al-A'raf 7:56].
The Shaykh :[Al-A'raf 7:56].
The student: Mercy acquired masculinity from its addition to the Divine Name, so it was described with "qarib" (near).
The Shaykh : Yes, good. Is it permissible to add a name to something that agrees with it in meaning?
The student: The original rule is what is added.
The Shaykh : What is added, and what is an example of it?
The student: Like what was mentioned, like: Sa'id Karaz.
The Shaykh : This is the interpreted case. Give an example of the prohibited case.
The student: For example: I entered the room of the room.
The Shaykh : I mean, "I entered the room of the room" is not valid, because "room" is the room. That is why we say: the added word and the word it is added to. Likewise, if I said: "bar of wheat," I have "bar of wheat," it is not valid, why? Because wheat is the bar. The original rule is that the added word is one thing and the word it is added to is another thing. Good. It was reported from the Arabs that they say: "Sa'id Karaz." What do you say?
The student: We say it is interpreted because Sa'id is named Karaz.
The Shaykh : Named with this name, because he is named with this name. So Sa'id here is a name, but in the sense of "named," and Karaz is a name in the sense of "name." It can be interpreted as a name of a named person, not the named person himself, but the name of this named person, as if I said: "I wrote Sa'id Karaz," meaning: I wrote the name of this named person, the name of this named person. Good. And the Kufis held that it is permissible to add a name to something with which it shares a meaning, provided the wording differs. According to their opinion, "Sa'id Karaz" does not need interpretation, and "bar of wheat" is permissible and does not need interpretation, because they say: the difference in wording is sufficient. The reason they say it is sufficient is that every word indicates a meaning that the second word does not indicate, so a difference is achieved, even if only in some aspects. However, there is no doubt from the rhetorical perspective that it is not pleasing. It is not pleasing to say: "Muhammad Muhammad," it has no meaning. They say that some people in countries other than Saudi Arabia add the name Muhammad to the original name, like: Muhammad Fuad Abd al-Baqi, Muhammad Rashid Rida, Muhammad Abdu, and the like. Their original names are Rashid, Abdu, and Fuad. Here, this name is added to something with which it shares a meaning, but they did not share the same wording.
The student: Is this the stronger position, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, by Allah. As for our rule, it is the stronger position. Our rule is the stronger position.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So the verb is made feminine by the addition to.
The Shaykh : To a feminine noun. His fingers, good. And it can be the opposite; the added word acquires masculinity from the word it is added to.
The student: Like the saying of Ibn al-Rumma: We walked.
The Shaykh : As they swayed.
The student: We walked as they swayed.
The Shaykh : Spears that were broken.
The student: Spears that were broken. "Tasfahat" is like the passing of the winds.
The Shaykh : Their tops.
The student: Their tops, the passing of the gentle winds. His saying: "Tasfahat", the verb here is feminine, and "mar al-riyahi" (the passing of the winds), "mar" is masculine.
The Shaykh : It is masculine, but it acquired femininity from the winds.
The student: It acquired it from "tasfahat."
The Shaykh : No, no, it acquired femininity from the winds; the winds are feminine.
The student: The winds.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The student: No, from the verb.
The Shaykh : No, no, the verb is the one that was made feminine because of them. My question is whether the first word acquires masculinity from the second.
The student: His saying, the Exalted:
Indeed, the mercy of Allah is near to the doers of good.
إن رحمت الله قريب من المحسنينThe Shaykh :
Indeed, the mercy of Allah is near to the doers of good.
إن رحمت الله قريب من المحسنينThe student: Mercy acquired masculinity from its addition to the Divine Name, so it was described with "qarib" (near).
The Shaykh : Yes, good. Is it permissible to add a name to something that agrees with it in meaning?
The student: The original rule is what is added.
The Shaykh : What is added, and what is an example of it?
The student: Like what was mentioned, like: Sa'id Karaz.
The Shaykh : This is the interpreted case. Give an example of the prohibited case.
The student: For example: I entered the room of the room.
The Shaykh : I mean, "I entered the room of the room" is not valid, because "room" is the room. That is why we say: the added word and the word it is added to. Likewise, if I said: "bar of wheat," I have "bar of wheat," it is not valid, why? Because wheat is the bar. The original rule is that the added word is one thing and the word it is added to is another thing. Good. It was reported from the Arabs that they say: "Sa'id Karaz." What do you say?
The student: We say it is interpreted because Sa'id is named Karaz.
The Shaykh : Named with this name, because he is named with this name. So Sa'id here is a name, but in the sense of "named," and Karaz is a name in the sense of "name." It can be interpreted as a name of a named person, not the named person himself, but the name of this named person, as if I said: "I wrote Sa'id Karaz," meaning: I wrote the name of this named person, the name of this named person. Good. And the Kufis held that it is permissible to add a name to something with which it shares a meaning, provided the wording differs. According to their opinion, "Sa'id Karaz" does not need interpretation, and "bar of wheat" is permissible and does not need interpretation, because they say: the difference in wording is sufficient. The reason they say it is sufficient is that every word indicates a meaning that the second word does not indicate, so a difference is achieved, even if only in some aspects. However, there is no doubt from the rhetorical perspective that it is not pleasing. It is not pleasing to say: "Muhammad Muhammad," it has no meaning. They say that some people in countries other than Saudi Arabia add the name Muhammad to the original name, like: Muhammad Fuad Abd al-Baqi, Muhammad Rashid Rida, Muhammad Abdu, and the like. Their original names are Rashid, Abdu, and Fuad. Here, this name is added to something with which it shares a meaning, but they did not share the same wording.
The student: Is this the stronger position, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, by Allah. As for our rule, it is the stronger position. Our rule is the stronger position.