Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :“The words that put the verb in the accusative case are ten, namely: *an*, *lan*, *idhan*, *kay*, the *lam* of *kay*, the *lam* of denial, *hatta*, the response with *fa*, *waw* ... and *aw*” is conjoined to what came before it. All right, the author says that the words that put the verb in the accusative case are ten. The question now is: what is the evidence for their being limited to ten? The answer is
The student: The following.
The Shaykh : tracking and induction. The linguists tracked the speech of the Arabs and found that only ten things put the present-tense verb in the accusative case. The first is *an*. For example, you say: “I love that you understand.” “I love that you understand.” In this sentence, there are two present-tense verbs: the first is *ahibbu* (I love) and the second is *tafhamu* (you understand). But they differ—may Allah have mercy on you—the first is in the nominative case, and the second is in the accusative case: *an tafhama*. Why? Because the first did not have a word putting it in the accusative case enter it, while the second did. Therefore, if you said: “*Uhibba* an tafhamu” (I loved that you understand), we would say this is incorrect, because you put in the accusative case what did not have a word putting it in the accusative case enter it, and you put in the nominative case what did have it enter. So what is correct? “*Ahibbu an tafhama*.” How do you parse *an tafhama*? We say: *an* is a particle of verbal noun formation. *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Tafhama* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end, and the subject is
The student: A pronoun.
The Shaykh : hidden by necessity, not by permission?
The student: By necessity.
The Shaykh : Because its implied meaning is “you.” All right, why did we say it is a particle of verbal noun formation? The scholars say: because what comes after it is combined with a verbal noun. It and what comes after it are combined with a verbal noun, because it and what comes after it are combined with a verbal noun. So your saying “*Ahibbu an tafhama*” (I love that you understand) is converted to a verbal noun: “*Ahibbu fahmaka*” (I love your understanding). Clear, everyone? Therefore, we called it what? A particle of verbal noun formation. *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation. All right, “*Ahibbu an ara’aka masrura*” (I love that I see you happy). “*Ahibbu an ara’aka*”: *Ahibbu* is a present-tense verb in the nominative case with a visible *dammah* because it is free from words that put it in the accusative or jussive case. *An*: a particle of verbal noun formation. *Ara’u*: a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is a *fathah* estimated on the *alif*, prevented from appearing by impossibility. All right.
“*Ahibbu an armiya*” (I love that I throw). “*Ahibbu an armiya*.” We parsed it: *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Armiya* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to what? Due to *an*. Due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end. So if someone asked: Why did you put it in the accusative case when its end is a weak letter? Meaning, why did you put it in the accusative case with a *fathah* when its end is a weak letter? The answer is: because the *fathah* appears on the *ya*. The *fathah* appears on the *ya*, right or not? All right, “*Ahibbu an aghawza*” (I love that I campaign). “*Ahibbu an aghawza*.” *Uhibbu* is a present-tense verb in the nominative case with a visible *dammah* because it is free from words that put it in the accusative or jussive case, and its subject is hidden by necessity, its implied meaning being “I.” *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Aghawza* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *an*. In the accusative case due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is
The student: A visible *fathah*.
The Shaykh : A visible *fathah* at its end. So if someone asked: Why did you put it in the accusative case with a *fathah* when its end is a weak letter?
The student: Because the appearance of the *fathah* on the *waw* is by necessity.
The Shaykh : Because the *fathah* appears on the *waw*, right? All right. The second is *lan*. *Lan* is also a word that puts the verb in the accusative case, putting the present-tense verb in the accusative case. But let us look. “*Lan aquma*” (I will not stand up). “*Lan aquma*.” First, is the sentence negative or affirmative?
The student: Negative.
The Shaykh : Negative. Negative? “*Lan aquma*.”
The student: Negative.
The Shaykh : Negative. All right. Second: Does “*aquma*” mean now? Meaning, I am not standing up now, or “*lan aquma*” in the future?
The student: In the future.
The Shaykh : In the future, meaning in the future. All right. “*Lan aquma*” or “*Lan aqumu*”?
The student: *Aquma*.
The Shaykh : “*Lan aquma*.” So *lan* has three things: a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity. A word of negation because it negates the verb. Accusative case because it puts it in the accusative case. Futurity because it converted the present-tense verb, which is for the present, to what? To the future. Meaning, “*Lan aquma*” in the future. Therefore, we say in parsing *lan*, my brothers: *Lan* is a word of negation, and what comes after? And accusative case and futurity. A word of negation, accusative case, and futurity.
So if I say: “*Lan aquma*,” its parsing, as we said, is: *Lan* is a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity. *Aquma* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *lan*, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end. And where is its subject? Hidden by necessity, its implied meaning being “I.” By necessity, its implied meaning being “I.”
All right, Allah the Exalted said:[Az-Zukhruf 43:39] He said: “*Wa lan yanfa’a*,” and He did not say “*Wa lan yanfa’u*,” and He did not say “*Wa lan yanfa’*.” It was not raised to the nominative case, nor put in the jussive case. It was not raised to the nominative case, nor put in the jussive case. Why was it put in the accusative case? Due to the entry of *lan*. Due to the entry of *lan*.
All right, and Allah the Exalted said in the Holy Hadith:Sahih Muslim 2577a “*Lan tablugha*.” What was put in the accusative case?
The student: It was put in the accusative case. It was put in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : How? It was put in the accusative case by deleting the *nun*, because *tablugha* is from the five verbs. The original form of *tablugha* is *tablughun*, but when *lan* entered it, the *nun* was deleted, so it became Clear, everyone? I think *lan* is clear. *Lan* is a word of what? You, here.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, that’s not it.
The student: A word of negation.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: A word of negation.
The Shaykh : And what else?
The student: And accusative case.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: A word of negation, accusative case, and futurity.
The Shaykh : And futurity. Correct. So if I say: “*Lan natakallama*,” its parsing is.
The student: *Lan* is a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: *Natakallama* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative case is.
The Shaykh : With what is it in the accusative case?
The student: In the accusative case due to *lan*.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And the sign of its accusative case is the *fathah* on *natakallama*.
The Shaykh : *Lan natakallama*.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student: A visible *fathah* on its end.
The Shaykh : And the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end, and the subject is.
The student: And the subject is a hidden pronoun, its implied meaning being “we,” by necessity. A hidden pronoun, by necessity, its implied meaning being “we.”
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, that’s fine.
Do you think that *lan* always means negation, or negation of the present? Can it affirm?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second is: if it negates, it does not always negate. Therefore, the argument of the people of *ta'til* (denial of the divine attributes) using the saying of Allah the Exalted: regarding the negation of seeing Allah in the Hereafter is invalid. Because the people of *ta'til* say that Allah is not seen in the Hereafter, because Allah said: And *lan* is for perpetual negation. We say: No, it is not for perpetual negation, but it is for negation in the present time, and the future may change. And the evidence for that is that Allah said about the people of the Fire: [Al-Baqarah 2:95] And He said about them, while they are in the Fire: [Az-Zukhruf 43:77] What does “*liyaqda*” mean? “*Limutunna*,” we perish. So they wished for death, right? They wished for it and called for it. And Allah has said: So the two verses indicate that *lan* does not imply perpetuity. And on this basis, the saying of Ibn Malik:
“And if you see negation with *lan* as perpetual *** Then return his saying, and support the rest”
All right, when the time is over, inform me.
Previously, we said that *an* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Lan* is a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity. Negation because it negates the verb. Accusative case because it puts it in the accusative case. Futurity because it converts it from the present to the future.
The third is *idhan*. *Idhan* is among the words that put the verb in the accusative case, but with the condition that it be at the beginning of the sentence, and that it be connected to the verb such that nothing separates it from the verb, and that the verb after it be in the future. Three conditions: that it be started with, that the verb after it be in the future, and that it be connected, with nothing separating it from it except an oath. And on this basis, Ibn Malik says:
“And they put in the accusative case the future with *idhan* if it is started *** And the verb after it is connected, or before it is an oath”
All right, so we say: its conditions are three. Its conditions are three: that it be at the beginning, that the verb be in the future, and that it be connected, except if an oath separates it from it. All right, an example of that: A man said to you: “I will visit you tomorrow.” You said: “*Idhan akramaka*” (Then I will honor you). “*Idhan akramaka*.” Apply the conditions. First, it is at the beginning of the speech. The verb after it is in the future. When will the honoring be? Tomorrow, if he visits. It is connected to the verb, not separated? Connected. All right, another answer: Someone said to you: “I will visit you tomorrow.” So you said, “O Ahmad: *Inni idhan akramaka*” (Indeed, then I will honor you). “*Inni idhan akramaka*.” This is incorrect. It is not permissible for me to say: “*Inni idhan akramaka*.” Rather, I say: “*Inni idhan akramuka*.” *Akramuka*. Why? Because it is not at the beginning, because it came in the middle of the sentence. The beginning of the sentence is: “*Inni*.” “*Inni*,” like this. All right, he said: The third answer: “If you visit me, *idhan akramaka*.”
The student: Error
The Shaykh : “If you visit me, *idhan akramaka*.” What do we say about this?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : This is incorrect. Why? Because it is not at the beginning of the sentence. It is not started with, because you said: “If you visit me, *idhan akramaka*.” So what do I say? “If you visit me, *idhan akramuka*.” Because it is not at the beginning of the sentence. All right.
Fourth answer: He said: “I will visit you tomorrow.” You said: “*Idhan hiyak Allah akramaka*” (Then may Allah welcome you, I will honor you).
The student: Incorrect. Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Because of the separator. So what? I say: “*Inni hiyak Allah akramuka*.” Because of the separation. Fifth answer.
The student: The following.
The Shaykh : tracking and induction. The linguists tracked the speech of the Arabs and found that only ten things put the present-tense verb in the accusative case. The first is *an*. For example, you say: “I love that you understand.” “I love that you understand.” In this sentence, there are two present-tense verbs: the first is *ahibbu* (I love) and the second is *tafhamu* (you understand). But they differ—may Allah have mercy on you—the first is in the nominative case, and the second is in the accusative case: *an tafhama*. Why? Because the first did not have a word putting it in the accusative case enter it, while the second did. Therefore, if you said: “*Uhibba* an tafhamu” (I loved that you understand), we would say this is incorrect, because you put in the accusative case what did not have a word putting it in the accusative case enter it, and you put in the nominative case what did have it enter. So what is correct? “*Ahibbu an tafhama*.” How do you parse *an tafhama*? We say: *an* is a particle of verbal noun formation. *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Tafhama* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end, and the subject is
The student: A pronoun.
The Shaykh : hidden by necessity, not by permission?
The student: By necessity.
The Shaykh : Because its implied meaning is “you.” All right, why did we say it is a particle of verbal noun formation? The scholars say: because what comes after it is combined with a verbal noun. It and what comes after it are combined with a verbal noun, because it and what comes after it are combined with a verbal noun. So your saying “*Ahibbu an tafhama*” (I love that you understand) is converted to a verbal noun: “*Ahibbu fahmaka*” (I love your understanding). Clear, everyone? Therefore, we called it what? A particle of verbal noun formation. *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation. All right, “*Ahibbu an ara’aka masrura*” (I love that I see you happy). “*Ahibbu an ara’aka*”: *Ahibbu* is a present-tense verb in the nominative case with a visible *dammah* because it is free from words that put it in the accusative or jussive case. *An*: a particle of verbal noun formation. *Ara’u*: a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is a *fathah* estimated on the *alif*, prevented from appearing by impossibility. All right.
“*Ahibbu an armiya*” (I love that I throw). “*Ahibbu an armiya*.” We parsed it: *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Armiya* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to what? Due to *an*. Due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end. So if someone asked: Why did you put it in the accusative case when its end is a weak letter? Meaning, why did you put it in the accusative case with a *fathah* when its end is a weak letter? The answer is: because the *fathah* appears on the *ya*. The *fathah* appears on the *ya*, right or not? All right, “*Ahibbu an aghawza*” (I love that I campaign). “*Ahibbu an aghawza*.” *Uhibbu* is a present-tense verb in the nominative case with a visible *dammah* because it is free from words that put it in the accusative or jussive case, and its subject is hidden by necessity, its implied meaning being “I.” *An* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Aghawza* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *an*. In the accusative case due to *an*, and the sign of its accusative case is
The student: A visible *fathah*.
The Shaykh : A visible *fathah* at its end. So if someone asked: Why did you put it in the accusative case with a *fathah* when its end is a weak letter?
The student: Because the appearance of the *fathah* on the *waw* is by necessity.
The Shaykh : Because the *fathah* appears on the *waw*, right? All right. The second is *lan*. *Lan* is also a word that puts the verb in the accusative case, putting the present-tense verb in the accusative case. But let us look. “*Lan aquma*” (I will not stand up). “*Lan aquma*.” First, is the sentence negative or affirmative?
The student: Negative.
The Shaykh : Negative. Negative? “*Lan aquma*.”
The student: Negative.
The Shaykh : Negative. All right. Second: Does “*aquma*” mean now? Meaning, I am not standing up now, or “*lan aquma*” in the future?
The student: In the future.
The Shaykh : In the future, meaning in the future. All right. “*Lan aquma*” or “*Lan aqumu*”?
The student: *Aquma*.
The Shaykh : “*Lan aquma*.” So *lan* has three things: a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity. A word of negation because it negates the verb. Accusative case because it puts it in the accusative case. Futurity because it converted the present-tense verb, which is for the present, to what? To the future. Meaning, “*Lan aquma*” in the future. Therefore, we say in parsing *lan*, my brothers: *Lan* is a word of negation, and what comes after? And accusative case and futurity. A word of negation, accusative case, and futurity.
So if I say: “*Lan aquma*,” its parsing, as we said, is: *Lan* is a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity. *Aquma* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case due to *lan*, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end. And where is its subject? Hidden by necessity, its implied meaning being “I.” By necessity, its implied meaning being “I.”
All right, Allah the Exalted said:
And never will it benefit you that Day, when you have wronged, that you are [all] sharing in the punishment.
ولن ينفعَكم اليوم إذ ظننتم أنكم في العذاب مشتركونAll right, and Allah the Exalted said in the Holy Hadith:
O My servants, you will not attain harming Me
يا عبادي إنكم لن تبلغوا ضريThe student: It was put in the accusative case. It was put in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : How? It was put in the accusative case by deleting the *nun*, because *tablugha* is from the five verbs. The original form of *tablugha* is *tablughun*, but when *lan* entered it, the *nun* was deleted, so it became
You will not reach My harm.
لن تبلغوا ضريThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, that’s not it.
The student: A word of negation.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: A word of negation.
The Shaykh : And what else?
The student: And accusative case.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: A word of negation, accusative case, and futurity.
The Shaykh : And futurity. Correct. So if I say: “*Lan natakallama*,” its parsing is.
The student: *Lan* is a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: *Natakallama* is a present-tense verb in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative case is.
The Shaykh : With what is it in the accusative case?
The student: In the accusative case due to *lan*.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And the sign of its accusative case is the *fathah* on *natakallama*.
The Shaykh : *Lan natakallama*.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The student: A visible *fathah* on its end.
The Shaykh : And the sign of its accusative case is a visible *fathah* at its end, and the subject is.
The student: And the subject is a hidden pronoun, its implied meaning being “we,” by necessity. A hidden pronoun, by necessity, its implied meaning being “we.”
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, that’s fine.
Do you think that *lan* always means negation, or negation of the present? Can it affirm?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second is: if it negates, it does not always negate. Therefore, the argument of the people of *ta'til* (denial of the divine attributes) using the saying of Allah the Exalted:
you will not see Me
لن ترانيyou will not see Me
لن ترانيBut they will never wish for it, ever, because of what their hands have put forth
ولن يتمنوه أبداً بما قدمت أيديهمO Malik, let your Lord put an end to us!
يا مالك ليقض علينا ربكAnd they will not wish for it
ولن يتمنوه“And if you see negation with *lan* as perpetual *** Then return his saying, and support the rest”
All right, when the time is over, inform me.
Previously, we said that *an* is a particle of verbal noun formation that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. *Lan* is a word of negation, accusative case, and futurity. Negation because it negates the verb. Accusative case because it puts it in the accusative case. Futurity because it converts it from the present to the future.
The third is *idhan*. *Idhan* is among the words that put the verb in the accusative case, but with the condition that it be at the beginning of the sentence, and that it be connected to the verb such that nothing separates it from the verb, and that the verb after it be in the future. Three conditions: that it be started with, that the verb after it be in the future, and that it be connected, with nothing separating it from it except an oath. And on this basis, Ibn Malik says:
“And they put in the accusative case the future with *idhan* if it is started *** And the verb after it is connected, or before it is an oath”
All right, so we say: its conditions are three. Its conditions are three: that it be at the beginning, that the verb be in the future, and that it be connected, except if an oath separates it from it. All right, an example of that: A man said to you: “I will visit you tomorrow.” You said: “*Idhan akramaka*” (Then I will honor you). “*Idhan akramaka*.” Apply the conditions. First, it is at the beginning of the speech. The verb after it is in the future. When will the honoring be? Tomorrow, if he visits. It is connected to the verb, not separated? Connected. All right, another answer: Someone said to you: “I will visit you tomorrow.” So you said, “O Ahmad: *Inni idhan akramaka*” (Indeed, then I will honor you). “*Inni idhan akramaka*.” This is incorrect. It is not permissible for me to say: “*Inni idhan akramaka*.” Rather, I say: “*Inni idhan akramuka*.” *Akramuka*. Why? Because it is not at the beginning, because it came in the middle of the sentence. The beginning of the sentence is: “*Inni*.” “*Inni*,” like this. All right, he said: The third answer: “If you visit me, *idhan akramaka*.”
The student: Error
The Shaykh : “If you visit me, *idhan akramaka*.” What do we say about this?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : This is incorrect. Why? Because it is not at the beginning of the sentence. It is not started with, because you said: “If you visit me, *idhan akramaka*.” So what do I say? “If you visit me, *idhan akramuka*.” Because it is not at the beginning of the sentence. All right.
Fourth answer: He said: “I will visit you tomorrow.” You said: “*Idhan hiyak Allah akramaka*” (Then may Allah welcome you, I will honor you).
The student: Incorrect. Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Because of the separator. So what? I say: “*Inni hiyak Allah akramuka*.” Because of the separation. Fifth answer.