Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: "… and the five names, which are: your father, your brother, your uncle, your mouth, and the owner of wealth …"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The second location is regarding the five names. These five names are those that the grammarians have limited, and we cannot add to them except for one about which there is disagreement. However, the author is from Kufa and holds that the names are five, while Ibn Malik is from Basra and holds that they are six, adding "huna" to them. But let us proceed according to the author's book. The five names are: your father, your brother, your uncle, your mouth, and the owner of wealth.
The student: Your uncle.
The Shaykh : No… no, they are not all the same. Okay, how many are these? Five: your father, your brother, your uncle, your mouth, and the owner of wealth. These five names are raised with the waw.[Yusuf 12:94] Yes, why? Because it says "their father" and not "their father" (accusative), because it is in the nominative case, and it is raised with the waw, right? Okay, so the five names are raised with the waw. But let us consider that there are necessary conditions: that they be in the form the author stated. The author stated them in the singular form, so take this as a condition: that they be singular. If they are plural, like "aba'" (fathers), they are not raised with the waw. "Aba'" is the plural of "ab" (father). What type of plural is it? Broken plural. And what is it raised with?
The student: With the dammah.
The Shaykh : With the dammah, because it was established for us that the broken plural is raised with the dammah. It must be singular, and it must be in the standard form (not diminutive). If it is not in the standard form, it is not raised with the waw. For example, if a person comes with a small child, and you say to him: "My little brother came…" My little brother. Do I raise it with the waw and say "my little brother" (with waw)? No. If it is diminutive, it is raised with the dammah. So the condition is that it be in the standard form. Okay.
The third condition: The third condition is that it be attached (mudaf). If it is not attached, it is not raised with the waw; it is raised with the dammah. So you say, for example, "Your father came," which is correct. But if you remove the attachment and say "A father came," it is not permissible to say "Abu came" (with waw). It is forbidden grammatically, not religiously. It is forbidden grammatically. Okay, so in "A father came," how do we raise "ab"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is a singular noun. Okay, it must be attached. Okay, if it is attached, is it necessary that it be attached to a pronoun? Or does it have this grammatical status whether it is attached to a pronoun or to an explicit noun?
The student: To a pronoun or an explicit noun.
The Shaykh : The second option means that it is raised with the waw whether it is attached to a pronoun, like "your father," or to an explicit noun, like "Zayd's father." "Zayd's father came," is that correct or not? "Zayd's father came" is attached.
The fourth condition: That its attachment be to something other than the first-person singular pronoun (ya' al-mutakallim). If it is attached to the first-person singular pronoun, it is not raised with the waw. An example of attachment to the first-person singular pronoun is when you say: "My father stood up." "My father stood up." Now, what is it attached to? To the first-person singular pronoun. So it is not permissible to raise it with the waw. It is not permissible to say "My father" (with waw). So is our language wrong, or is it not wrong? We do not say "My father" (with waw). Yes, that is wrong. The correct form in the Arabic language is "My father stood up," "My father stood up," and you do not use the waw.
Okay, if it is attached to the first-person singular pronoun, with what do we raise it?
The student: With the kasrah.
The Shaykh : We raise it with the kasrah, O Shaykh! Who said that, O Hidayat Allah? We raise it with a hidden dammah on the letter before the first-person singular pronoun. We raise it with a hidden dammah on the letter before the first-person singular pronoun, prevented from appearing because the position is occupied by the movement of correspondence, because the first-person singular pronoun corresponds to the kasrah. Okay, the sixth condition.
The student: The fifth.
The Shaykh : The fifth condition. Where did you get this from, O Bukhari?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, these are… Okay.
The fifth condition is that "faw" (mouth) be free from the letter mim.
The student: This is specific.
The Shaykh : This is specific to "faw." This is specific to the last one of them, not the one before the last. The one before the last must be free from the letter mim. Why do we stipulate this? Because there is a dialect in which they use a mim instead of these letters, so it is said: "Open your mouth." If it is said "Open your mouth," do you say "Open your mouth" (with waw)? No, we do not say that. We do not bring the waw. We say "Open your mouth," and it becomes a singular noun. And a singular noun is raised with what?
The student: With the dammah.
The Shaykh : With the dammah. Yes, it is raised with the dammah.
The sixth condition is also specific: that "dhu" mean "owner." That "dhu" mean "owner," to avoid the "dhu" that means "which," because there is a dialect of the Tayy tribe in which they use "dhu" to mean "which." One of their poets said:
"For the water is the water of my father and my grandfather, *** And my well is the one I dug and the one I covered"
The evidence is his statement: "The one you dug and the one you buried" "The one you dug" means "the one that you dug," "the one that you dug," and "the one you buried" means "the one that you buried." So the conditions are six: four are common and two are specific. That it be singular, in the standard form, attached, its attachment be to something other than the first-person singular pronoun, that "faw" be free from the letter mim, and that "dhu" mean "owner." You say, for example: "The owner of wealth came to me." If I say "The owner of wealth came to me" (with dhal),
The student: Error
The Shaykh : it is wrong. And if I say "The owner of wealth came to me" (with dammah), removing the waw and raising it with the dammah, it is wrong. So what is raised with the waw is two categories, or the waw is a sign of the nominative case in two places: the first is in the sound masculine plural, and the second is in the five names, which the author (may Allah have mercy on him) enumerated. Okay. The time is over.
The student: Your uncle.
The Shaykh : No… no, they are not all the same. Okay, how many are these? Five: your father, your brother, your uncle, your mouth, and the owner of wealth. These five names are raised with the waw.
And when the caravan departed [from Egypt], their father said
ولما فَصلت العير قال أبوهمtheir father said
قال أبوهمThe student: With the dammah.
The Shaykh : With the dammah, because it was established for us that the broken plural is raised with the dammah. It must be singular, and it must be in the standard form (not diminutive). If it is not in the standard form, it is not raised with the waw. For example, if a person comes with a small child, and you say to him: "My little brother came…" My little brother. Do I raise it with the waw and say "my little brother" (with waw)? No. If it is diminutive, it is raised with the dammah. So the condition is that it be in the standard form. Okay.
The third condition: The third condition is that it be attached (mudaf). If it is not attached, it is not raised with the waw; it is raised with the dammah. So you say, for example, "Your father came," which is correct. But if you remove the attachment and say "A father came," it is not permissible to say "Abu came" (with waw). It is forbidden grammatically, not religiously. It is forbidden grammatically. Okay, so in "A father came," how do we raise "ab"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is a singular noun. Okay, it must be attached. Okay, if it is attached, is it necessary that it be attached to a pronoun? Or does it have this grammatical status whether it is attached to a pronoun or to an explicit noun?
The student: To a pronoun or an explicit noun.
The Shaykh : The second option means that it is raised with the waw whether it is attached to a pronoun, like "your father," or to an explicit noun, like "Zayd's father." "Zayd's father came," is that correct or not? "Zayd's father came" is attached.
The fourth condition: That its attachment be to something other than the first-person singular pronoun (ya' al-mutakallim). If it is attached to the first-person singular pronoun, it is not raised with the waw. An example of attachment to the first-person singular pronoun is when you say: "My father stood up." "My father stood up." Now, what is it attached to? To the first-person singular pronoun. So it is not permissible to raise it with the waw. It is not permissible to say "My father" (with waw). So is our language wrong, or is it not wrong? We do not say "My father" (with waw). Yes, that is wrong. The correct form in the Arabic language is "My father stood up," "My father stood up," and you do not use the waw.
Okay, if it is attached to the first-person singular pronoun, with what do we raise it?
The student: With the kasrah.
The Shaykh : We raise it with the kasrah, O Shaykh! Who said that, O Hidayat Allah? We raise it with a hidden dammah on the letter before the first-person singular pronoun. We raise it with a hidden dammah on the letter before the first-person singular pronoun, prevented from appearing because the position is occupied by the movement of correspondence, because the first-person singular pronoun corresponds to the kasrah. Okay, the sixth condition.
The student: The fifth.
The Shaykh : The fifth condition. Where did you get this from, O Bukhari?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, these are… Okay.
The fifth condition is that "faw" (mouth) be free from the letter mim.
The student: This is specific.
The Shaykh : This is specific to "faw." This is specific to the last one of them, not the one before the last. The one before the last must be free from the letter mim. Why do we stipulate this? Because there is a dialect in which they use a mim instead of these letters, so it is said: "Open your mouth." If it is said "Open your mouth," do you say "Open your mouth" (with waw)? No, we do not say that. We do not bring the waw. We say "Open your mouth," and it becomes a singular noun. And a singular noun is raised with what?
The student: With the dammah.
The Shaykh : With the dammah. Yes, it is raised with the dammah.
The sixth condition is also specific: that "dhu" mean "owner." That "dhu" mean "owner," to avoid the "dhu" that means "which," because there is a dialect of the Tayy tribe in which they use "dhu" to mean "which." One of their poets said:
"For the water is the water of my father and my grandfather, *** And my well is the one I dug and the one I covered"
The evidence is his statement: "The one you dug and the one you buried" "The one you dug" means "the one that you dug," "the one that you dug," and "the one you buried" means "the one that you buried." So the conditions are six: four are common and two are specific. That it be singular, in the standard form, attached, its attachment be to something other than the first-person singular pronoun, that "faw" be free from the letter mim, and that "dhu" mean "owner." You say, for example: "The owner of wealth came to me." If I say "The owner of wealth came to me" (with dhal),
The student: Error
The Shaykh : it is wrong. And if I say "The owner of wealth came to me" (with dammah), removing the waw and raising it with the dammah, it is wrong. So what is raised with the waw is two categories, or the waw is a sign of the nominative case in two places: the first is in the sound masculine plural, and the second is in the five names, which the author (may Allah have mercy on him) enumerated. Okay. The time is over.