Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said, "The Chapter of the Doer". Linguistically, the doer is the one upon whom the action is performed. Sit in your place, my brother... it is confusing... delay a little. The doer is the one upon whom the action is performed linguistically. So if you say "Zayd is standing," then he is a doer linguistically. Zayd is a doer linguistically, but what is he in the technical terminology? And if you say "Zayd is dead," is Zayd a doer? No, why? Because the doer in the linguistic sense is broader than the doer in the technical sense. What is the doer in the linguistic sense? Everyone upon whom the action is performed, whether it is a subject, a doer, a "kan" noun, or an "inna" noun. That is what matters.
As for the technical definition, they said, "It is a noun". By "noun," verbs are excluded, so a verb cannot be a doer. And by "noun," particles are excluded, so a particle cannot be a doer.
"Nominative". By "nominative," accusative and genitive nouns are excluded, so they cannot be doers. And a genitive noun likewise cannot be a doer.
"Whose verb is mentioned before it". "Whose verb is mentioned before it" means that the verb occurring from it is mentioned before it. This excludes cases where the verb is mentioned after it, so it would not be a doer. If I say "Zayd came," Zayd is not a doer. But if I say "Came Zayd," Zayd becomes a doer. Why? Because in the first case, "Zayd came," his verb was not mentioned before him. In the second case, "Came Zayd," his verb was mentioned before him. So let us look at the precautions in the definition.
"Noun". By this, verbs and particles are excluded, so they cannot be doers.
"Nominative". By this, accusative and genitive nouns are excluded, so they cannot be doers.
"Whose verb is mentioned before it". By this, what is mentioned after its verb is excluded, so it cannot be a doer. Clear? Good. If I say "He goes," "He stands," "He stands," this is a doer.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why? Because it is not a noun. Good. "He goes to the market," "to" is a doer?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Because it is not a noun; it is a particle. Good. If I say "Zayd ate," "Zayd ate."
The student: It is a doer.
The Shaykh : No, that is wrong; it is not a doer.
The student: Because it is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : Because it is in the accusative case. It is not possible for "he eats."
The student: It doesn't work.
The Shaykh : It is not possible for "he eats." How? "The fish ate him," "he ate his meat" by backbiting. The point is, if you say "Zayd ate" (with Zayd in the accusative), do not say this is a doer. Why? Because it is in the accusative case. Good.
"Zayd came" is not a doer; it is not a doer because the verb is delayed after it. We say it must be that his verb is mentioned before it. Good.
"And it is of two types", meaning the doer is of two types: "explicit and hidden". Explicit and hidden. The explicit is explicit in its name, and the hidden is the one that is concealed, i.e., hidden and not made clear.
As for the technical definition, they said, "It is a noun". By "noun," verbs are excluded, so a verb cannot be a doer. And by "noun," particles are excluded, so a particle cannot be a doer.
"Nominative". By "nominative," accusative and genitive nouns are excluded, so they cannot be doers. And a genitive noun likewise cannot be a doer.
"Whose verb is mentioned before it". "Whose verb is mentioned before it" means that the verb occurring from it is mentioned before it. This excludes cases where the verb is mentioned after it, so it would not be a doer. If I say "Zayd came," Zayd is not a doer. But if I say "Came Zayd," Zayd becomes a doer. Why? Because in the first case, "Zayd came," his verb was not mentioned before him. In the second case, "Came Zayd," his verb was mentioned before him. So let us look at the precautions in the definition.
"Noun". By this, verbs and particles are excluded, so they cannot be doers.
"Nominative". By this, accusative and genitive nouns are excluded, so they cannot be doers.
"Whose verb is mentioned before it". By this, what is mentioned after its verb is excluded, so it cannot be a doer. Clear? Good. If I say "He goes," "He stands," "He stands," this is a doer.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why? Because it is not a noun. Good. "He goes to the market," "to" is a doer?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Because it is not a noun; it is a particle. Good. If I say "Zayd ate," "Zayd ate."
The student: It is a doer.
The Shaykh : No, that is wrong; it is not a doer.
The student: Because it is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : Because it is in the accusative case. It is not possible for "he eats."
The student: It doesn't work.
The Shaykh : It is not possible for "he eats." How? "The fish ate him," "he ate his meat" by backbiting. The point is, if you say "Zayd ate" (with Zayd in the accusative), do not say this is a doer. Why? Because it is in the accusative case. Good.
"Zayd came" is not a doer; it is not a doer because the verb is delayed after it. We say it must be that his verb is mentioned before it. Good.
"And it is of two types", meaning the doer is of two types: "explicit and hidden". Explicit and hidden. The explicit is explicit in its name, and the hidden is the one that is concealed, i.e., hidden and not made clear.