Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The definition of the khabar is "it is the raised noun". In these two descriptions, it shares the characteristic with all raised nouns, including the mubtada, the fa'il, the na'ib al-fa'il, the ism of kana, and the khabar of inna. And his statement "that is attributed to something" means that which is attributed to the mubtada. "Attributed to something" means attributed to the mubtada. This restriction is to exclude the other raised nouns. Why? Because the mubtada is free from verbal particles and is not attributed to anything, whereas the khabar is attributed to the mubtada. The same applies to the fa'il, which is attributed to the verb, and so on. Here is an example.
"Such as your saying: Zayd is standing". Zayd is standing. Zayd is the mubtada because it is a complete raised noun free from verbal particles. Qa'im is the khabar of the mubtada because it is a raised noun attributed to the mubtada, to Zayd. Because if you asked, "Who is standing?" the answer is "Zayd is standing." But how do we parse it?
We say: Zayd: mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
Qa'im: the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada because it is attributed to the mubtada which raised it, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end. Good.
So, the mubtada is raised by what? By the state of being a mubtada. And the khabar is raised by the mubtada. Yes, this is the correct view: that the khabar is raised by the mubtada, and that the mubtada is raised by the state of being a mubtada. Good.
"Such as your saying: Zayd is standing". Another example: "The two Zayds are standing". Al-Zaydani is a dual, raised by alif in place of the dammah, raised by alif in place of the dammah, and the nun is a substitute for the tanwin in the singular noun. And Qayyaman is the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada, and the sign of its raising is alif in place of the dammah because it is a dual, and the nun is a substitute for the tanwin in the singular noun. "And the Zayds are standing"
The student: Qayyuman.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Qayyuman.
The Shaykh : Or rather, Qayyimin.
The student: Qayyuman.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : It is raised by waw. The khabar. Good. Al-Zaydun is the mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is waw in place of the dammah because it is a sound masculine plural. And Qayyuman is the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada, and the sign of its raising is waw in place of the dammah because it is a sound masculine plural, and the nun is a substitute for the tanwin in the singular noun. Good.
Zayd is your brother, here.
Zayd: mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
Akhuka. Akhu: the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada, and the sign of its raising is waw in place of the dammah because it is one of the five nouns, and it is mudaf. The kaf is a mudaf ilayh, built on fath, in the position of genitive. Zayd is my brother.
The student: It is a mistake. It is "my brother."
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: In grammar.
The Shaykh : Why is it not one of the five nouns?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Except for "brother," "brother" and "father."
The student: … to the yaa.
The Shaykh : Because we stipulated in the five nouns that they must not be added to the yaa of the first person. If it is added to the yaa of the first person, it is not raised by waw, nor declined by alif, nor genitive by yaa. Good.
Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The mubtada is of two types". Before we move on to this stage, how are the mubtada and the khabar in your saying: "The Muslim women are obedient" or "The Muslim women are obedient"?
The student: The Muslim women (with dammah).
The Shaykh : The Muslim women (with dammah), because the feminine plural is raised by dammah. So we must say: The Muslim women are obedient.
The Muslim women: mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
And Qa'imatun: the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada. Yes, the khabar is raised by the mubtada. The one raised by the state of being a mubtada is the mubtada. Clear?
"Such as your saying: Zayd is standing". Zayd is standing. Zayd is the mubtada because it is a complete raised noun free from verbal particles. Qa'im is the khabar of the mubtada because it is a raised noun attributed to the mubtada, to Zayd. Because if you asked, "Who is standing?" the answer is "Zayd is standing." But how do we parse it?
We say: Zayd: mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
Qa'im: the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada because it is attributed to the mubtada which raised it, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end. Good.
So, the mubtada is raised by what? By the state of being a mubtada. And the khabar is raised by the mubtada. Yes, this is the correct view: that the khabar is raised by the mubtada, and that the mubtada is raised by the state of being a mubtada. Good.
"Such as your saying: Zayd is standing". Another example: "The two Zayds are standing". Al-Zaydani is a dual, raised by alif in place of the dammah, raised by alif in place of the dammah, and the nun is a substitute for the tanwin in the singular noun. And Qayyaman is the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada, and the sign of its raising is alif in place of the dammah because it is a dual, and the nun is a substitute for the tanwin in the singular noun. "And the Zayds are standing"
The student: Qayyuman.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Qayyuman.
The Shaykh : Or rather, Qayyimin.
The student: Qayyuman.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : It is raised by waw. The khabar. Good. Al-Zaydun is the mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is waw in place of the dammah because it is a sound masculine plural. And Qayyuman is the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada, and the sign of its raising is waw in place of the dammah because it is a sound masculine plural, and the nun is a substitute for the tanwin in the singular noun. Good.
Zayd is your brother, here.
Zayd: mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
Akhuka. Akhu: the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada, and the sign of its raising is waw in place of the dammah because it is one of the five nouns, and it is mudaf. The kaf is a mudaf ilayh, built on fath, in the position of genitive. Zayd is my brother.
The student: It is a mistake. It is "my brother."
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: In grammar.
The Shaykh : Why is it not one of the five nouns?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Except for "brother," "brother" and "father."
The student: … to the yaa.
The Shaykh : Because we stipulated in the five nouns that they must not be added to the yaa of the first person. If it is added to the yaa of the first person, it is not raised by waw, nor declined by alif, nor genitive by yaa. Good.
Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The mubtada is of two types". Before we move on to this stage, how are the mubtada and the khabar in your saying: "The Muslim women are obedient" or "The Muslim women are obedient"?
The student: The Muslim women (with dammah).
The Shaykh : The Muslim women (with dammah), because the feminine plural is raised by dammah. So we must say: The Muslim women are obedient.
The Muslim women: mubtada, raised by the state of being a mubtada, and the sign of its raising is a visible dammah at its end.
And Qa'imatun: the khabar of the mubtada, raised by the mubtada. Yes, the khabar is raised by the mubtada. The one raised by the state of being a mubtada is the mubtada. Clear?