Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "But on the condition that what is omitted *** is similar to what it is conjoined with."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author says:
"But on the condition that what is omitted *** is similar to what it is conjoined with"
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) informed us that it is permissible for the possessed noun (mudaf ilayh) to remain in the genitive case, but on the condition that it is conjoined with something similar to what caused the first noun to be in the genitive case. That is, on the condition that what is omitted is similar to what it is conjoined with. An example of this is:
"Every man you consider a man *** and a fire that burns at night a fire"
"Every man you consider a man": "Every" is the first object of "you consider," and "man" is its second object. "Fire" is conjoined to "man," meaning: and you consider every fire a fire. Here, what is omitted is similar to what it is conjoined with. What is the omitted word? "Every." It is similar to the "every" to which it was conjoined. Yes, therefore it is permissible for the possessed noun to remain in the genitive case, just as if the possessor (mudaf) had not been omitted, because there is evidence for it. But on the condition that what is omitted is similar to what it is conjoined with. Is that clear now? The rule from the two verses is: the possessor is omitted and the possessed noun takes its place. Do you understand, Ghannam? The possessor is omitted and the possessed noun takes its place. This is the first rule. Second: the possessed noun may remain in the genitive case on the condition that it is conjoined, or that the omitted word is similar to the word it is conjoined with. That is, the omitted word, which is the possessor, must be similar to the word it is conjoined with. An example is the poet's saying:
"Every man you consider a man *** and a fire that burns at night a fire"
The evidence is: "And every fire that burns at night a fire," which is the reverse of this issue.
"But on the condition that what is omitted *** is similar to what it is conjoined with"
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) informed us that it is permissible for the possessed noun (mudaf ilayh) to remain in the genitive case, but on the condition that it is conjoined with something similar to what caused the first noun to be in the genitive case. That is, on the condition that what is omitted is similar to what it is conjoined with. An example of this is:
"Every man you consider a man *** and a fire that burns at night a fire"
"Every man you consider a man": "Every" is the first object of "you consider," and "man" is its second object. "Fire" is conjoined to "man," meaning: and you consider every fire a fire. Here, what is omitted is similar to what it is conjoined with. What is the omitted word? "Every." It is similar to the "every" to which it was conjoined. Yes, therefore it is permissible for the possessed noun to remain in the genitive case, just as if the possessor (mudaf) had not been omitted, because there is evidence for it. But on the condition that what is omitted is similar to what it is conjoined with. Is that clear now? The rule from the two verses is: the possessor is omitted and the possessed noun takes its place. Do you understand, Ghannam? The possessor is omitted and the possessed noun takes its place. This is the first rule. Second: the possessed noun may remain in the genitive case on the condition that it is conjoined, or that the omitted word is similar to the word it is conjoined with. That is, the omitted word, which is the possessor, must be similar to the word it is conjoined with. An example is the poet's saying:
"Every man you consider a man *** and a fire that burns at night a fire"
The evidence is: "And every fire that burns at night a fire," which is the reverse of this issue.