Mention of topics regarding the particles that govern two verbs.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The particles that govern two verbs have topics of study. The first topic is that they govern two verbs: the first is called the verb of the condition, and the second is called the response to the condition. For example:
If you strive, you will succeed. If you strive, you will succeed.
It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with both verbs in the nominative case. It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with the first in the jussive and the second in the nominative. It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with the first in the nominative and the second in the jussive. It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with both in the jussive. It is necessary to put both verbs in the jussive case. This is one point.
The second topic: All these particles are nouns, except "in" (if). They are all nouns, except "in" (if). Accordingly, you say: "In" (if) is a conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is the response to the condition. As for the others, you say:
"Ma" (whoever) is a conditional noun that governs. "Ma" (whoever) is a conditional noun that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is its response. Do you understand? Or not? Yes.
The student: Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : All right. The third topic: The jussive case occurs when the verb of the condition and the response to the condition are present-tense verbs. If the verb of the condition and the response to the condition are present-tense verbs, then it becomes the jussive case. For example:
If you strive, you will succeed.
As for when the verb of the condition and the response to the condition are past-tense verbs, they remain in their built form. They do not change in their built form; they are either on the fathah, the sukun, or the dammah. They are built on such-and-such in the position of the jussive case. Built on such-and-such in the position of the jussive case. The example is:
If Zayd strived, he succeeded. If Zayd strived, he succeeded.
The verb did not change because it is a built past-tense verb, and the past-tense verb is built. It does not change. So we say in it: If Zayd strived, he succeeded.
"In" (if): A conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is the response to the condition.
"Strived": A past-tense verb built on the fathah in the position of the jussive case for the verb of the condition.
And "Zayd": The subject.
And "succeeded": A past-tense verb built on the fathah in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition. Understood?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Yes, understood.
The Shaykh : All right, all right, you say:
If you strived, you succeeded.
Here the verb is: Built on the sukun in the position of the jussive case.
Why was it built on the sukun? "If you strived" because it is connected to a moving nominative pronoun. So you say:
"If you strived." "In" (if): A conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is its response.
"Strived": A past-tense verb built on the sukun in the position of the jussive case. Do you say it is in the jussive case? Because the sukun is the sign of inflection. This is a built form. All right, and you say:
"If they strived, they succeeded." Here it is said to be built on the dammah, my son, because it is connected to the plural "wa" (they). In the position of the jussive case, built on the dammah in the position of the jussive case. All right.
If the first is a present-tense verb and the second is a past-tense verb, for example:
"If you strive, you succeeded." What do we do? We put the first in the jussive case, and the second is built on what it is in the position of the jussive case. So you say "If you strive, you succeeded." It is not permissible to say "If you strive, you succeeded" with the first in the nominative. Is that permissible or not? If it is the reverse, for example "If Zayd strived, he will succeed," we say it is correct. "Strived"
If Zayd strived, he will succeed.
"Strived": A past-tense verb built on the fathah in the position of the jussive case.
And "Zayd": The subject.
"Will succeed": A present-tense verb in the jussive case by "in" (if), as the response to the condition. The response to the condition.
In this case, it is permissible to put the present-tense verb in the nominative case. It is permissible to put it in the nominative case. So you say:
"If Zayd strived, he will succeed." "If Zayd strived, he will succeed."
Ibn Malik said: "And after a past tense, raising the response is good ***" "And after a past tense, raising the response is good ***" What applies to his statement is that you say here: "If Zayd strived, he will succeed." But it is "good," meaning it is not forbidden. Otherwise, the original rule is "If Zayd strived, he will succeed." This is the original rule. But if you raise it, there is no harm. And at that time, we say "he will succeed." If we raise it, we say "he will succeed" is a present-tense verb, and the sentence is in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition, because the particle here did not exert its effect on the verb; it exerted its effect on the sentence. And for this reason, the verb remained in the nominative case. All right.
We now have four branches.
That both are present-tense verbs, in which case the jussive case is obligatory for both.
That both are past-tense verbs, in which case they are built, and the governing particle does not exert its effect on them.
That the first is a past-tense verb and the second is a present-tense verb, in which case the first is built and the second is in the jussive case. It is permissible to raise the second. It is permissible to raise the second.
The fourth: The first is a present-tense verb and the second is a past-tense verb, in which case the first is in the jussive case and the second is built, and it is in the position of the jussive case. Is that right or not? All right. How many topics did we mention?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four topics or three?
The student: Three.
Another student: Four.
The Shaykh : All right. We proceed with these particles. All these particles are nouns, except "in" (if).
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: ...
Another student: Their ruling is the same.
The student: ... the jussive case for the present-tense verb ...
The Shaykh : So, three. The topics are three. The topics are three.
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Yes. All right. The topics are three.
The fourth topic: If the response to the condition is a sentence, it is not correct for the conditional particle to directly precede it. "If the response to the condition is a sentence that is not suitable for direct connection to the conditional particle, it must be connected with the faw" with the faw. I repeat the rule: If the response to the condition is a sentence that is not suitable for direct connection to the conditional particle, it must be connected with the faw. It must be connected with the faw. Do you know this?
The student: Yes, yes
The Shaykh : If the response to the condition is here:
The student: A sentence.
The Shaykh : A sentence that is not suitable for direct connection to the conditional particle must be connected with the faw. Ibn Malik said:
"And connect with the faw certainly the response if you make *** a condition with 'in' or others, it will not be made" All right. And approximately for this, some people summarized it in a verse, which is:
"Nominal, imperative, and with a static word *** and with 'ma', 'qad', 'lan', and with the negation"
Nominal, yes Basam. "Imperative, and with a static word, and with 'ma', 'qad', 'lan', and with the negation"
I repeat it. The third one.
"Nominal, imperative, and with a static word *** and with 'ma', 'qad', 'lan', and with the negation"
Whoever memorizes it ... meaning, if the response to the condition is a nominal sentence, it must be connected with the faw. It must be connected with the faw. The example is:
If you strive, then you are successful. If you strive, then you are successful.
"In" (if): A conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is its response.
"Strive": A present-tense verb in the jussive case by "in" (if). Here, the verb of the condition, and the sign of its jussive case is the sukun. And its subject is hidden and obligatory, estimated to be "you."
"Then you are successful." The faw: A connector for the response. Pay attention, the faw is a connector for the response, meaning it connects what comes after it to what comes before it.
And "you": The subject (mubtada').
And "successful": Its predicate (khabar).
So the sentence now is nominal. The sentence is nominal. So we say the sentence consisting of the subject and predicate is in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition. This is the grammatical analysis. This is the grammatical analysis. We said the faw is a connector for the response, and "you" is the subject, and "successful" is the predicate, and the sentence consisting of the subject and predicate is in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition. All right.
Another man said: "If you strive, you are successful." Is that correct?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect because the sentence is nominal and must be connected
The student: With the letter "fa"
The Shaykh : with the faw. All right. This is nominal.[At-Taghabun 64:14]
The student: "Pardon."
The Shaykh : "Pardon" and what is conjoined to it. Where is the response to the condition? "Then indeed Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." Why was it connected with the faw? Because the sentence is nominal. Every sentence beginning with "inna" is nominal. The sentence is nominal. Therefore, it must be connected with the faw. All right. In other than the Qur'an, if someone said: "If you pardon the one who wronged you, you are a doer of good."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : No, my brother. It is incorrect. How? Listen: "If you pardon the one who wronged you, you are a doer of good."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect. Why? What do I say? What is the correct form? "Then you are a doer of good."[At-Taghabun 64:14] Clear, everyone? All right. This is the nominal sentence.
Imperative. Imperative. Everything that indicates a request, such as command, prohibition, and interrogation. Command, prohibition, and interrogation. You say:
If a guest comes to you, then honor him. If a guest comes to you, then honor him.
Where is the verb of the condition? "A guest came to you." All right. "Then honor him" is the response to the condition. Why was it connected with the faw? Because the response is imperative, a command verb. All right. Someone said: "If a guest comes to you, honor him."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect. Why? Because it must be connected with the faw. Imperative. Example: "If the talebearer tells you, then do not believe him."
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Correct. "If the talebearer tells you, then do not believe him." Here it is imperative, or not? What is the request? Prohibition. Prohibition. If you said "If the talebearer tells you, do not believe him," it is incorrect because the sentence is imperative, so it must be connected here with the faw. All right. Interrogation: "If the liar tells you, do you believe him?"
The student: Is valid.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "If the liar tells you." What is "the liar"? "The liar." "Then do not believe him." "Do you believe him?" "Do you believe him?" What is the response?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Why? Because it is imperative by interrogation. -Sit down, sit down, do not hesitate- We say this is imperative because it is interrogative. If someone said: "If the liar tells you, do you believe him?"
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect. Why?
The student: Because it was not connected with the faw.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is imperative, so it must be connected with the faw.
"And with a static word" meaning, if the response to the condition is a static verb, meaning it was affected by cold until it froze. Correct.
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The static word, they say, is that which does not inflect. It does not inflect, so it is static in its name.[An-Naml 27:88] It is static and does not change. For example, "bays" (how bad) is static.
The student: Static.
Another student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It has no present-tense verb and no imperative verb. It does not inflect. It is not.
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Here, if it is a non-verbal noun that does not take a verb, it must be joined with the *fa* (conjunction) as an obligation. For example: "If the criminal transgresses against you, he is not harming you except by Allah's permission." Is this example correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if the criminal transgresses against you, he is not harming you except by Allah's permission.
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Because the answer clause begins with a verb.
The student: Non-verbal.
The Shaykh : With a non-verbal noun. Okay, "If you accompany so-and-so, he is a good friend."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : how
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Non-verbal.
The Shaykh : Because "naima" (excellent) is a non-verbal noun. "If you accompany so-and-so, he is an excellent friend" is incorrect. What is the reason? Because you dropped the *fa*. The *fa* must be joined with a non-verbal noun when it serves as the answer to a condition.
"And with a non-verbal noun, and with *ma*" If the answer to the condition is joined with *ma*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. It is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. For example: "If these people disbelieve, then they are not going to escape." "If these people disbelieve, then they are not going to escape." Is this correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if someone said, "If these people disbelieve, they are not going to escape," that is incorrect. What is the reason?
The student: That which is
The Shaykh : Because the answer is joined with *ma*. The answer is joined with *ma*, so it must be joined with the *fa*. So if it begins with *ma*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. "And with *qad*" If the answer is a verbal noun preceded by *qad*, then it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. For example: "If you go seeking your lost camel, you may catch it." Correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if I said, "If you go seeking your lost camel, you may catch it."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Is this correct?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes. Allah the Exalted said: Okay. [Al-An'am 6:89] The point is: So the answer was joined with the *fa* because it is a verbal noun preceded by *qad*.
"And with *lan*" If the answer begins with *lan*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*.[Al-Ma'idah 5:42] [Al-Ma'idah 5:42]
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Because if the answer begins with *lan*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay. "And with *ma*, and with *qad*, and with *lan*, and with the implied *sawfa*" This last one, the implied *sawfa*, means that the answer is an implied verbal noun preceded by *sina* or *sawfa*. Yes, implied with what? With *sina* or *sawfa*. Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Ma'idah 5:54] [Al-Baqarah 2:217] [Al-Ma'idah 5:54] "Whoever among you turns back from his religion." This is the verb of the condition. "Then Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him." The clause is the answer to the condition. The clause is the answer to the condition. This is *sawfa*.
The *sina*. You say, "If Zayd strives, then he will succeed." So if I said, "If Zayd strives, he will succeed," that is incorrect. And know that all of this third, fourth, and fifth discussion: every answer that is joined with the *fa*, the *jazm* (jussive mood) is local. That is, you say the clause is in the position of the jussive of the answer to the condition. And that is because the operator does not have authority over its raising, but only over its position and place. So you say the clause is in the position of the jussive of the answer to the condition. Is that clear? Okay, and the time has now been announced. Yes.
If you strive, you will succeed. If you strive, you will succeed.
It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with both verbs in the nominative case. It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with the first in the jussive and the second in the nominative. It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with the first in the nominative and the second in the jussive. It is not correct to say "If you strive, you will succeed" with both in the jussive. It is necessary to put both verbs in the jussive case. This is one point.
The second topic: All these particles are nouns, except "in" (if). They are all nouns, except "in" (if). Accordingly, you say: "In" (if) is a conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is the response to the condition. As for the others, you say:
"Ma" (whoever) is a conditional noun that governs. "Ma" (whoever) is a conditional noun that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is its response. Do you understand? Or not? Yes.
The student: Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : All right. The third topic: The jussive case occurs when the verb of the condition and the response to the condition are present-tense verbs. If the verb of the condition and the response to the condition are present-tense verbs, then it becomes the jussive case. For example:
If you strive, you will succeed.
As for when the verb of the condition and the response to the condition are past-tense verbs, they remain in their built form. They do not change in their built form; they are either on the fathah, the sukun, or the dammah. They are built on such-and-such in the position of the jussive case. Built on such-and-such in the position of the jussive case. The example is:
If Zayd strived, he succeeded. If Zayd strived, he succeeded.
The verb did not change because it is a built past-tense verb, and the past-tense verb is built. It does not change. So we say in it: If Zayd strived, he succeeded.
"In" (if): A conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is the response to the condition.
"Strived": A past-tense verb built on the fathah in the position of the jussive case for the verb of the condition.
And "Zayd": The subject.
And "succeeded": A past-tense verb built on the fathah in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition. Understood?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Yes, understood.
The Shaykh : All right, all right, you say:
If you strived, you succeeded.
Here the verb is: Built on the sukun in the position of the jussive case.
Why was it built on the sukun? "If you strived" because it is connected to a moving nominative pronoun. So you say:
"If you strived." "In" (if): A conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is its response.
"Strived": A past-tense verb built on the sukun in the position of the jussive case. Do you say it is in the jussive case? Because the sukun is the sign of inflection. This is a built form. All right, and you say:
"If they strived, they succeeded." Here it is said to be built on the dammah, my son, because it is connected to the plural "wa" (they). In the position of the jussive case, built on the dammah in the position of the jussive case. All right.
If the first is a present-tense verb and the second is a past-tense verb, for example:
"If you strive, you succeeded." What do we do? We put the first in the jussive case, and the second is built on what it is in the position of the jussive case. So you say "If you strive, you succeeded." It is not permissible to say "If you strive, you succeeded" with the first in the nominative. Is that permissible or not? If it is the reverse, for example "If Zayd strived, he will succeed," we say it is correct. "Strived"
If Zayd strived, he will succeed.
"Strived": A past-tense verb built on the fathah in the position of the jussive case.
And "Zayd": The subject.
"Will succeed": A present-tense verb in the jussive case by "in" (if), as the response to the condition. The response to the condition.
In this case, it is permissible to put the present-tense verb in the nominative case. It is permissible to put it in the nominative case. So you say:
"If Zayd strived, he will succeed." "If Zayd strived, he will succeed."
Ibn Malik said: "And after a past tense, raising the response is good ***" "And after a past tense, raising the response is good ***" What applies to his statement is that you say here: "If Zayd strived, he will succeed." But it is "good," meaning it is not forbidden. Otherwise, the original rule is "If Zayd strived, he will succeed." This is the original rule. But if you raise it, there is no harm. And at that time, we say "he will succeed." If we raise it, we say "he will succeed" is a present-tense verb, and the sentence is in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition, because the particle here did not exert its effect on the verb; it exerted its effect on the sentence. And for this reason, the verb remained in the nominative case. All right.
We now have four branches.
That both are present-tense verbs, in which case the jussive case is obligatory for both.
That both are past-tense verbs, in which case they are built, and the governing particle does not exert its effect on them.
That the first is a past-tense verb and the second is a present-tense verb, in which case the first is built and the second is in the jussive case. It is permissible to raise the second. It is permissible to raise the second.
The fourth: The first is a present-tense verb and the second is a past-tense verb, in which case the first is in the jussive case and the second is built, and it is in the position of the jussive case. Is that right or not? All right. How many topics did we mention?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four topics or three?
The student: Three.
Another student: Four.
The Shaykh : All right. We proceed with these particles. All these particles are nouns, except "in" (if).
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: ...
Another student: Their ruling is the same.
The student: ... the jussive case for the present-tense verb ...
The Shaykh : So, three. The topics are three. The topics are three.
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Yes. All right. The topics are three.
The fourth topic: If the response to the condition is a sentence, it is not correct for the conditional particle to directly precede it. "If the response to the condition is a sentence that is not suitable for direct connection to the conditional particle, it must be connected with the faw" with the faw. I repeat the rule: If the response to the condition is a sentence that is not suitable for direct connection to the conditional particle, it must be connected with the faw. It must be connected with the faw. Do you know this?
The student: Yes, yes
The Shaykh : If the response to the condition is here:
The student: A sentence.
The Shaykh : A sentence that is not suitable for direct connection to the conditional particle must be connected with the faw. Ibn Malik said:
"And connect with the faw certainly the response if you make *** a condition with 'in' or others, it will not be made" All right. And approximately for this, some people summarized it in a verse, which is:
"Nominal, imperative, and with a static word *** and with 'ma', 'qad', 'lan', and with the negation"
Nominal, yes Basam. "Imperative, and with a static word, and with 'ma', 'qad', 'lan', and with the negation"
I repeat it. The third one.
"Nominal, imperative, and with a static word *** and with 'ma', 'qad', 'lan', and with the negation"
Whoever memorizes it ... meaning, if the response to the condition is a nominal sentence, it must be connected with the faw. It must be connected with the faw. The example is:
If you strive, then you are successful. If you strive, then you are successful.
"In" (if): A conditional particle that governs two verbs: the first is the verb of the condition, and the second is its response.
"Strive": A present-tense verb in the jussive case by "in" (if). Here, the verb of the condition, and the sign of its jussive case is the sukun. And its subject is hidden and obligatory, estimated to be "you."
"Then you are successful." The faw: A connector for the response. Pay attention, the faw is a connector for the response, meaning it connects what comes after it to what comes before it.
And "you": The subject (mubtada').
And "successful": Its predicate (khabar).
So the sentence now is nominal. The sentence is nominal. So we say the sentence consisting of the subject and predicate is in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition. This is the grammatical analysis. This is the grammatical analysis. We said the faw is a connector for the response, and "you" is the subject, and "successful" is the predicate, and the sentence consisting of the subject and predicate is in the position of the jussive case for the response to the condition. All right.
Another man said: "If you strive, you are successful." Is that correct?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect because the sentence is nominal and must be connected
The student: With the letter "fa"
The Shaykh : with the faw. All right. This is nominal.
But if you pardon and overlook and forgive - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
وإن تعفوا وتصفحوا وتغفروا فإن الله غفور رحيمThe student: "Pardon."
The Shaykh : "Pardon" and what is conjoined to it. Where is the response to the condition? "Then indeed Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." Why was it connected with the faw? Because the sentence is nominal. Every sentence beginning with "inna" is nominal. The sentence is nominal. Therefore, it must be connected with the faw. All right. In other than the Qur'an, if someone said: "If you pardon the one who wronged you, you are a doer of good."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : No, my brother. It is incorrect. How? Listen: "If you pardon the one who wronged you, you are a doer of good."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect. Why? What do I say? What is the correct form? "Then you are a doer of good."
But if you pardon and overlook and forgive - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
إن تعفوا وتصفحوا وتغفروا فإن الله غفور رحيمImperative. Imperative. Everything that indicates a request, such as command, prohibition, and interrogation. Command, prohibition, and interrogation. You say:
If a guest comes to you, then honor him. If a guest comes to you, then honor him.
Where is the verb of the condition? "A guest came to you." All right. "Then honor him" is the response to the condition. Why was it connected with the faw? Because the response is imperative, a command verb. All right. Someone said: "If a guest comes to you, honor him."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect. Why? Because it must be connected with the faw. Imperative. Example: "If the talebearer tells you, then do not believe him."
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Correct. "If the talebearer tells you, then do not believe him." Here it is imperative, or not? What is the request? Prohibition. Prohibition. If you said "If the talebearer tells you, do not believe him," it is incorrect because the sentence is imperative, so it must be connected here with the faw. All right. Interrogation: "If the liar tells you, do you believe him?"
The student: Is valid.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "If the liar tells you." What is "the liar"? "The liar." "Then do not believe him." "Do you believe him?" "Do you believe him?" What is the response?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Why? Because it is imperative by interrogation. -Sit down, sit down, do not hesitate- We say this is imperative because it is interrogative. If someone said: "If the liar tells you, do you believe him?"
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is incorrect. Why?
The student: Because it was not connected with the faw.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is imperative, so it must be connected with the faw.
"And with a static word" meaning, if the response to the condition is a static verb, meaning it was affected by cold until it froze. Correct.
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The static word, they say, is that which does not inflect. It does not inflect, so it is static in its name.
And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds
وترى الجبال تحسبها جامدة وهي تمر مر السحابThe student: Static.
Another student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It has no present-tense verb and no imperative verb. It does not inflect. It is not.
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Here, if it is a non-verbal noun that does not take a verb, it must be joined with the *fa* (conjunction) as an obligation. For example: "If the criminal transgresses against you, he is not harming you except by Allah's permission." Is this example correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if the criminal transgresses against you, he is not harming you except by Allah's permission.
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Because the answer clause begins with a verb.
The student: Non-verbal.
The Shaykh : With a non-verbal noun. Okay, "If you accompany so-and-so, he is a good friend."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : how
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Non-verbal.
The Shaykh : Because "naima" (excellent) is a non-verbal noun. "If you accompany so-and-so, he is an excellent friend" is incorrect. What is the reason? Because you dropped the *fa*. The *fa* must be joined with a non-verbal noun when it serves as the answer to a condition.
"And with a non-verbal noun, and with *ma*" If the answer to the condition is joined with *ma*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. It is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. For example: "If these people disbelieve, then they are not going to escape." "If these people disbelieve, then they are not going to escape." Is this correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if someone said, "If these people disbelieve, they are not going to escape," that is incorrect. What is the reason?
The student: That which is
The Shaykh : Because the answer is joined with *ma*. The answer is joined with *ma*, so it must be joined with the *fa*. So if it begins with *ma*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. "And with *qad*" If the answer is a verbal noun preceded by *qad*, then it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. For example: "If you go seeking your lost camel, you may catch it." Correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if I said, "If you go seeking your lost camel, you may catch it."
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Is this correct?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes. Allah the Exalted said:
Then if they disbelieve in it, We have entrusted it to a people who are not disbelievers in it.
فإن يكفر بها هؤلاء فقد وكلنا بهاWe have entrusted it to a people who are not therein disbelievers.
فقد وكلنا بها قوما ليسوا بها بكافرينThen if they disbelieve in it, We have entrusted it.
فإن يكفر بها هؤلاء فقد وكلنا"And with *lan*" If the answer begins with *lan*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*.
And if you turn away from them - never will they harm you at all
وإن تعرض عنهم فلن يضروك شيئاAnd if you turn away from them - never will they harm you at all
وإن تعرض عنهم فلن يضروك شيئاThe student: Error
The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Because if the answer begins with *lan*, it is obligatory that it be joined with the *fa*. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay. "And with *ma*, and with *qad*, and with *lan*, and with the implied *sawfa*" This last one, the implied *sawfa*, means that the answer is an implied verbal noun preceded by *sina* or *sawfa*. Yes, implied with what? With *sina* or *sawfa*. Allah the Exalted said:
Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him
فسوف يأتي الله بقوم يحبهم ويحبونهAnd whoever of you reverts from his religion
ومن يرتد منكم عن دينهO you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him
يا أيها الذين آمنوا من يرتد منكم عن دينه فسوف يأت الله بقوم يحبهم ويحبونهThe *sina*. You say, "If Zayd strives, then he will succeed." So if I said, "If Zayd strives, he will succeed," that is incorrect. And know that all of this third, fourth, and fifth discussion: every answer that is joined with the *fa*, the *jazm* (jussive mood) is local. That is, you say the clause is in the position of the jussive of the answer to the condition. And that is because the operator does not have authority over its raising, but only over its position and place. So you say the clause is in the position of the jussive of the answer to the condition. Is that clear? Okay, and the time has now been announced. Yes.