Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "On the condition of conjunction and addition to *** the like of that to which you added the first."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"On the condition of conjunction and addition to *** the like of that to which you added the first"
This means: on the condition that a conjunction follows it, yes, and that something is omitted from it, and that there exists in it, along with it, something resembling the omitted part. There must be something conjoined to the first, and present in it must be something that matches the omitted part of the first. In other words, it is the exact opposite of the first issue; it is the complete opposite of the first issue. That is, if the *mudaf ilayh* (the word to which something is added) is omitted, it is permissible on the condition, on the condition of what? That there exists in the conjoined word the like of what was omitted from the first. For example, you say: "May Allah cut off the hand and leg of the one who cuts the road." We now have two *mudaf* (words to which something is added): hand and leg. As for the leg, which is the second, it is clear; it is added in reality, meaning both in expression and in estimation, or not? Because he said: "leg of the one who cut," added to "of." The first, the hand, was not added in expression, but it is added in estimation. The estimation is: "May Allah cut off the hand of the one who cut the road, and the leg of the one who cut the road." Do you understand? The grammarians differed on this issue into three opinions. The first opinion is what the author followed: that the omission is from the first, due to the indication of the second. The original sentence is: "May Allah cut off the hand of the one who cut it, and the leg of the one who cut it." It was said: the omission is from the second; the omission is from the second, and what follows it follows the first. So the second was inserted between the *mudaf* and the *mudaf ilayh*. The original is: "May Allah cut off the hand of the one who cut it, and the leg," and "the leg" means "and the leg of the one who cut it." This is a weak opinion without a doubt, because the original rule is that the *mudaf* should be adjacent to the *mudaf ilayh*. Then, this insertion is an insertion by the *waw* (conjunction), which implies that it was not inserted, but is independent and conjoined. The third opinion, which is the easiest, says: that the two names are *mudaf* (added); the two names are added to the last *mudaf ilayh*. So you say: "hand" is *mudaf*, "leg" is *mudaf*, and "of the one who cut" is the *mudaf ilayh*.
The student: There is a *waw* of conjunction.
The Shaykh : What contradicts the *waw* of conjunction? You made the two names like one name. This is easy; this is easier according to the rule. It is the stronger position; it is the stronger position according to the rule. So you say: "May Allah cut off." "Cut off" is a past tense verb, and "Allah" is the doer, and "hand" is the object, and the *waw* is a letter of conjunction, and "leg" is conjoined to "hand," and both are added to "of," yes, to "of," which is a relative pronoun. So now we have three opinions: The first opinion is that the first *mudaf* is the one in which the *mudaf ilayh* was omitted, due to the indication of the second. The second is the opposite. And the third is that the *mudaf ilayh* in the second is for both of them. You also say, for example: "I bought a car and a house from Ali." Like this example, "car" is *mudaf* and "Ali" is the *mudaf ilayh* in estimation.
This means: on the condition that a conjunction follows it, yes, and that something is omitted from it, and that there exists in it, along with it, something resembling the omitted part. There must be something conjoined to the first, and present in it must be something that matches the omitted part of the first. In other words, it is the exact opposite of the first issue; it is the complete opposite of the first issue. That is, if the *mudaf ilayh* (the word to which something is added) is omitted, it is permissible on the condition, on the condition of what? That there exists in the conjoined word the like of what was omitted from the first. For example, you say: "May Allah cut off the hand and leg of the one who cuts the road." We now have two *mudaf* (words to which something is added): hand and leg. As for the leg, which is the second, it is clear; it is added in reality, meaning both in expression and in estimation, or not? Because he said: "leg of the one who cut," added to "of." The first, the hand, was not added in expression, but it is added in estimation. The estimation is: "May Allah cut off the hand of the one who cut the road, and the leg of the one who cut the road." Do you understand? The grammarians differed on this issue into three opinions. The first opinion is what the author followed: that the omission is from the first, due to the indication of the second. The original sentence is: "May Allah cut off the hand of the one who cut it, and the leg of the one who cut it." It was said: the omission is from the second; the omission is from the second, and what follows it follows the first. So the second was inserted between the *mudaf* and the *mudaf ilayh*. The original is: "May Allah cut off the hand of the one who cut it, and the leg," and "the leg" means "and the leg of the one who cut it." This is a weak opinion without a doubt, because the original rule is that the *mudaf* should be adjacent to the *mudaf ilayh*. Then, this insertion is an insertion by the *waw* (conjunction), which implies that it was not inserted, but is independent and conjoined. The third opinion, which is the easiest, says: that the two names are *mudaf* (added); the two names are added to the last *mudaf ilayh*. So you say: "hand" is *mudaf*, "leg" is *mudaf*, and "of the one who cut" is the *mudaf ilayh*.
The student: There is a *waw* of conjunction.
The Shaykh : What contradicts the *waw* of conjunction? You made the two names like one name. This is easy; this is easier according to the rule. It is the stronger position; it is the stronger position according to the rule. So you say: "May Allah cut off." "Cut off" is a past tense verb, and "Allah" is the doer, and "hand" is the object, and the *waw* is a letter of conjunction, and "leg" is conjoined to "hand," and both are added to "of," yes, to "of," which is a relative pronoun. So now we have three opinions: The first opinion is that the first *mudaf* is the one in which the *mudaf ilayh* was omitted, due to the indication of the second. The second is the opposite. And the third is that the *mudaf ilayh* in the second is for both of them. You also say, for example: "I bought a car and a house from Ali." Like this example, "car" is *mudaf* and "Ali" is the *mudaf ilayh* in estimation.