Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The chapter on the passive verb whose agent is not named". "Not named" means not mentioned; no agent is mentioned for it. When the agent is deleted, the object takes its place, right? It advances; the object takes the place of the agent.
He says: "It is the nominative noun whose agent is not mentioned with it" ...
"The noun". The noun excludes what? The verb and the particle. So the verb and the particle cannot be a passive agent.
"The nominative". This explains its ruling: it is to be in the nominative case.
"Whose agent is not mentioned with it". This is to distinguish it from what has an agent mentioned with it. If an agent is mentioned with it, it becomes an object; it becomes an object and is not a passive agent. This is because the passive agent and the agent it replaces do not coexist. If the agent it replaces is present, the ruling of the passive agent ceases. If the agent it replaces is absent, the ruling of the passive agent remains. The ruling of the passive agent is exactly the same as the ruling of the agent; there is no difference. Now, Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Mu'minun 23:12] How do we parse "man" (human)?
The student: Object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Object
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or is it a passive agent?
The student: Object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Why do we say it is an object? Because the agent is present: "We created." Now,
[An-Nisa 4:28] We created man
The student: The substitute for the doer.
The Shaykh : This is a passive agent. Why? Because the agent is absent. Because the agent is absent. For this reason, he said: "Whose agent is not mentioned with it". Now, "Zayd ate the food." "Zayd ate the food." How do we parse "the food"?
The student: Object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Object
The student: Yes
The Shaykh : And we do not parse it as a passive agent. "The food was eaten."
The student: The substitute for the doer.
The Shaykh : It is a passive agent. Why? Because we deleted the agent; it was not mentioned. So the author's statement applies to these examples and their like: when the agent is deleted and the object is placed in its stead, it becomes a passive agent. It becomes a passive agent. Yes.
He says: "The nominative noun whose agent is not mentioned with it". But the passive agent means: if we want to place the object in the position of the agent, in the position of the agent, if we want to place the object in the position of the agent, it is necessary to change the verb. It is necessary to change the verb so that the agent is not confused with the passive agent. The language is precise. When the agent is deleted and the object is placed in its stead, it becomes necessary to change the verb. What do we change? The verb. How is the change made?
He says: "If the verb is past tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah". In any case, if it is past tense, the change is required in its first letter and the letter before the last. In its first letter and the letter before the last. In its first letter, yes, Bassam, it is made dammah, and the letter before the last is made kasrah. Is that so, or is it not made kasrah? Meaning, the letter, even if it was not kasrah before. But if it was kasrah before, the matter is clear. For example, "alima" (he knew) does not require changing the letter before the last. Why? Because it is already kasrah. We change the first letter. So the first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah, whether it was kasrah before or not. For example, if we want to make "daraba" (he hit) passive for the agent, what do we say? If we want to make "daraba" passive for the agent?
The student: Dharaba
The Shaykh : "Dharaba" for the passive agent.
The student: Duriba
The Shaykh : "Duriba." "Alima" for the agent, "ulima" for the passive agent. Now, "akala" (he ate) for the agent, "ukila" for the passive agent, and so on. So the first letter of the past tense verb is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah. "Ramaya" (he threw), "rumiya" (it was thrown) for the passive. "Rumiyah." Now, "ridiya" (he was pleased).
The student: For the agent.
The Shaykh : For the passive.
The student: Rudiya
The Shaykh : "Ridiya" for the agent, "rudiya" for the passive agent. "Rudiya." Now, the present tense.
"And if it is present tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made fathah". Its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made fathah. Its first letter must be made dammah, and the letter before the last must be made fathah. Two things. Now,
An example of that: "yadribu" (he hits) for the agent, "yudrabu" (it is hit) for the passive agent. "Yadribu": the first letter is fathah and the letter before the last is kasrah. "Yudrabu": the first letter is dammah and the letter before the last is fathah. "Yakhsha" (he fears), "yukhasha" (it is feared) for the passive agent. "Yukhasha." "Yarida" (he is pleased), "yurida" (it is pleased) for the passive agent. I say "yarida" for the agent, "yurida" for the passive agent. Now, the "dha" is fathah in both cases; it is fathah in both cases. We say "ma yadhar" (it does not harm); look, its first letter is made dammah. Now, "yukrimu" (he honors).
The student: For the agent.
The Shaykh : For the agent. For the passive agent.
The student: Yukramu
The Shaykh : "Yukramu" ... it is necessary ... but what changed in "yukrimu"? The first letter, or the letter before the last? The letter before the last. The letter before the last. Now, so if there is a passive agent, it is obligatory to change the verb. If it is past tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah. If it is present tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made fathah. Now,
He says: "It is the nominative noun whose agent is not mentioned with it" ...
"The noun". The noun excludes what? The verb and the particle. So the verb and the particle cannot be a passive agent.
"The nominative". This explains its ruling: it is to be in the nominative case.
"Whose agent is not mentioned with it". This is to distinguish it from what has an agent mentioned with it. If an agent is mentioned with it, it becomes an object; it becomes an object and is not a passive agent. This is because the passive agent and the agent it replaces do not coexist. If the agent it replaces is present, the ruling of the passive agent ceases. If the agent it replaces is absent, the ruling of the passive agent remains. The ruling of the passive agent is exactly the same as the ruling of the agent; there is no difference. Now, Allah the Exalted said:
And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.
ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طينWe created man
خلقنا الإنسانThe student: Object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Object
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or is it a passive agent?
The student: Object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Why do we say it is an object? Because the agent is present: "We created." Now,
and mankind was created weak.
وخلق الإنسان ضعيفاThe student: The substitute for the doer.
The Shaykh : This is a passive agent. Why? Because the agent is absent. Because the agent is absent. For this reason, he said: "Whose agent is not mentioned with it". Now, "Zayd ate the food." "Zayd ate the food." How do we parse "the food"?
The student: Object of the verb.
The Shaykh : Object
The student: Yes
The Shaykh : And we do not parse it as a passive agent. "The food was eaten."
The student: The substitute for the doer.
The Shaykh : It is a passive agent. Why? Because we deleted the agent; it was not mentioned. So the author's statement applies to these examples and their like: when the agent is deleted and the object is placed in its stead, it becomes a passive agent. It becomes a passive agent. Yes.
He says: "The nominative noun whose agent is not mentioned with it". But the passive agent means: if we want to place the object in the position of the agent, in the position of the agent, if we want to place the object in the position of the agent, it is necessary to change the verb. It is necessary to change the verb so that the agent is not confused with the passive agent. The language is precise. When the agent is deleted and the object is placed in its stead, it becomes necessary to change the verb. What do we change? The verb. How is the change made?
He says: "If the verb is past tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah". In any case, if it is past tense, the change is required in its first letter and the letter before the last. In its first letter and the letter before the last. In its first letter, yes, Bassam, it is made dammah, and the letter before the last is made kasrah. Is that so, or is it not made kasrah? Meaning, the letter, even if it was not kasrah before. But if it was kasrah before, the matter is clear. For example, "alima" (he knew) does not require changing the letter before the last. Why? Because it is already kasrah. We change the first letter. So the first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah, whether it was kasrah before or not. For example, if we want to make "daraba" (he hit) passive for the agent, what do we say? If we want to make "daraba" passive for the agent?
The student: Dharaba
The Shaykh : "Dharaba" for the passive agent.
The student: Duriba
The Shaykh : "Duriba." "Alima" for the agent, "ulima" for the passive agent. Now, "akala" (he ate) for the agent, "ukila" for the passive agent, and so on. So the first letter of the past tense verb is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah. "Ramaya" (he threw), "rumiya" (it was thrown) for the passive. "Rumiyah." Now, "ridiya" (he was pleased).
The student: For the agent.
The Shaykh : For the passive.
The student: Rudiya
The Shaykh : "Ridiya" for the agent, "rudiya" for the passive agent. "Rudiya." Now, the present tense.
"And if it is present tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made fathah". Its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made fathah. Its first letter must be made dammah, and the letter before the last must be made fathah. Two things. Now,
An example of that: "yadribu" (he hits) for the agent, "yudrabu" (it is hit) for the passive agent. "Yadribu": the first letter is fathah and the letter before the last is kasrah. "Yudrabu": the first letter is dammah and the letter before the last is fathah. "Yakhsha" (he fears), "yukhasha" (it is feared) for the passive agent. "Yukhasha." "Yarida" (he is pleased), "yurida" (it is pleased) for the passive agent. I say "yarida" for the agent, "yurida" for the passive agent. Now, the "dha" is fathah in both cases; it is fathah in both cases. We say "ma yadhar" (it does not harm); look, its first letter is made dammah. Now, "yukrimu" (he honors).
The student: For the agent.
The Shaykh : For the agent. For the passive agent.
The student: Yukramu
The Shaykh : "Yukramu" ... it is necessary ... but what changed in "yukrimu"? The first letter, or the letter before the last? The letter before the last. The letter before the last. Now, so if there is a passive agent, it is obligatory to change the verb. If it is past tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made kasrah. If it is present tense, its first letter is made dammah and the letter before the last is made fathah. Now,