Explanation of the author's statement: "And whatever is separated from a living thing is like its carcass."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And whatever is separated from a living thing is like its carcass" This is a jurisprudential rule. What is the grammatical status of "ma" (what)? It is a subject in the nominative case. But what type is it? Is it an interrogative or a conditional?
The questioner : It is a relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : It is a relative pronoun, but if you treat it as a relative pronoun, the "fa" (so/then) in the phrase "huwa ka-maytatihi" (it is like its carcass) presents a problem. Why? Because the "fa" does not come except as a connector, so it would enter the clause that is the answer to the condition. Yes.
The questioner : ... The condition in the general sense is included in the original rule.
The Shaykh : Now, this is contrary to the original rule. This means that if we treat "ma" as a relative pronoun, we have likened it to a conditional and introduced the "fa" into its answer, which is understood. But if we treat "ma" as a conditional, it is more appropriate, both in meaning and in wording. As for the wording, it is because of the presence of the "fa" in the answer. As for the meaning, it is because this is a rule, and using the conditional in a rule is more eloquent than using a relative pronoun. So we say that "ma" in "ma abina" is a conditional, and "abina" means "separated." And his saying "min hayy" means from a living animal, and not even from living trees.
The questioner : From the animal.
The Shaykh : Yes, from the animal. And his saying "huwa ka-maytatihi" (it is like its carcass) means regarding purity and impurity, and permissibility and prohibition. Do you understand? Whatever is separated from a human being is pure but forbidden due to its sanctity, not due to its impurity or filth. Whatever is separated from a cow is impure, impure and forbidden because its carcass is impure and forbidden. Whatever is separated from a fish is pure and permissible. Now, whatever is separated from a locust, is it permissible to take the locust, cut off the living part, and eat it? Yes, it is permissible. And Allah knows best.
The questioner : It is a relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : It is a relative pronoun, but if you treat it as a relative pronoun, the "fa" (so/then) in the phrase "huwa ka-maytatihi" (it is like its carcass) presents a problem. Why? Because the "fa" does not come except as a connector, so it would enter the clause that is the answer to the condition. Yes.
The questioner : ... The condition in the general sense is included in the original rule.
The Shaykh : Now, this is contrary to the original rule. This means that if we treat "ma" as a relative pronoun, we have likened it to a conditional and introduced the "fa" into its answer, which is understood. But if we treat "ma" as a conditional, it is more appropriate, both in meaning and in wording. As for the wording, it is because of the presence of the "fa" in the answer. As for the meaning, it is because this is a rule, and using the conditional in a rule is more eloquent than using a relative pronoun. So we say that "ma" in "ma abina" is a conditional, and "abina" means "separated." And his saying "min hayy" means from a living animal, and not even from living trees.
The questioner : From the animal.
The Shaykh : Yes, from the animal. And his saying "huwa ka-maytatihi" (it is like its carcass) means regarding purity and impurity, and permissibility and prohibition. Do you understand? Whatever is separated from a human being is pure but forbidden due to its sanctity, not due to its impurity or filth. Whatever is separated from a cow is impure, impure and forbidden because its carcass is impure and forbidden. Whatever is separated from a fish is pure and permissible. Now, whatever is separated from a locust, is it permissible to take the locust, cut off the living part, and eat it? Yes, it is permissible. And Allah knows best.