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 Gracious, the Most Merciful. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The Chapter on the Mubtada' and the Khabar". The Mubtada' and the Khabar are among the nominative nouns, and they are the third and fourth, because the first is the doer (fa'il) and the second is the substitute for the doer. The third and fourth are the Mubtada' and the Khabar, for example:
"Allah is our Lord". "Allah is our Lord" and "Muhammad is our Prophet"
This is an example from Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) in *Al-Qitir*. As for Ibn Malik, his example is:
"Allah is generous, and the hands of His favors are His witness"
Both examples are good. "Allah is generous" means that the evidence of His generosity is abundant good and generosity. "The hands of His favors" are the abundant blessings that cannot be counted. "The hands are His witness." As for Ibn Hisham, he said: "Allah is our Lord". This is the meaning of "There is no god but Allah." "Muhammad is our Prophet" is the meaning of "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Good.
So, the Mubtada', we say, is the noun. The author says: "It is the nominative noun that is free from verbal particles". "Free" means devoid of verbal particles. Verbal particles are like "Zayd stood up." What raised Zayd? The verb "stood up" is a verbal particle.
"Zayd was struck." What raised it? The verb "was struck," and this is a verbal particle that was pronounced.
"Allah was Forgiving." What raised the Name of Glory? "Was" is a verbal particle. We do not say "Allah" is a Mubtada' because it was raised by a verbal particle.
"Inna Zaydan is standing." "Standing" is a nominative noun, but what raised it? "Inna," which is a verbal particle.
But "Zayd is standing." What raised Zayd? It is not a verbal particle. It is not a verbal particle. So we know that Zayd in your saying "Zayd is standing" is a Mubtada' because it is a nominative noun free from verbal particles.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) benefited us by saying: "Free from verbal particles", that it must have a particle, but it is a conceptual one, because every dependent word must have a particle. But the particle for the Mubtada' is conceptual. The particle for the Mubtada' is conceptual. What is the conceptual one? The beginning, meaning that where we began with it, it deserved to be nominative. So the particle is then conceptual, not verbal. Once more.
The definition of the Mubtada': "The nominative noun that is free from verbal particles". Good. "Noun" excludes the verb, so it cannot be a Mubtada', and the particle, so it cannot be a Mubtada'. "Nominative" excludes the accusative and the genitive, so it cannot be a Mubtada'. Yes.
The student: And the jussive.
The Shaykh : The jussive is from the verbs.
The student: Meaning it was excluded...
The Shaykh : No, it was not excluded, because the jussive was excluded by our saying "noun," because it is from the verbs. Good. So if you say "I honored Zayd," we do not say Zayd is a Mubtada' because it is accusative, the object of the verb that follows it. And if you say "I passed by Zayd," Zayd is also not a Mubtada' because it is genitive, and its particle is what follows it. Good.
"Free from verbal particles", to exclude the nominative noun that was raised by a verbal particle, like the doer, the substitute for the doer, the name of "was," and the news of "inna." Clear. Good. He says:
"The nominative noun". What shared with it in his saying "the nominative noun"? The doer and the substitute for the doer, and all the nominatives. All the nominatives from the nouns shared in his saying "the nominative noun", and the remaining nominatives were excluded by his saying "free from verbal particles".
"Allah is our Lord". "Allah is our Lord" and "Muhammad is our Prophet"
This is an example from Ibn Hisham (may Allah have mercy on him) in *Al-Qitir*. As for Ibn Malik, his example is:
"Allah is generous, and the hands of His favors are His witness"
Both examples are good. "Allah is generous" means that the evidence of His generosity is abundant good and generosity. "The hands of His favors" are the abundant blessings that cannot be counted. "The hands are His witness." As for Ibn Hisham, he said: "Allah is our Lord". This is the meaning of "There is no god but Allah." "Muhammad is our Prophet" is the meaning of "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Good.
So, the Mubtada', we say, is the noun. The author says: "It is the nominative noun that is free from verbal particles". "Free" means devoid of verbal particles. Verbal particles are like "Zayd stood up." What raised Zayd? The verb "stood up" is a verbal particle.
"Zayd was struck." What raised it? The verb "was struck," and this is a verbal particle that was pronounced.
"Allah was Forgiving." What raised the Name of Glory? "Was" is a verbal particle. We do not say "Allah" is a Mubtada' because it was raised by a verbal particle.
"Inna Zaydan is standing." "Standing" is a nominative noun, but what raised it? "Inna," which is a verbal particle.
But "Zayd is standing." What raised Zayd? It is not a verbal particle. It is not a verbal particle. So we know that Zayd in your saying "Zayd is standing" is a Mubtada' because it is a nominative noun free from verbal particles.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) benefited us by saying: "Free from verbal particles", that it must have a particle, but it is a conceptual one, because every dependent word must have a particle. But the particle for the Mubtada' is conceptual. The particle for the Mubtada' is conceptual. What is the conceptual one? The beginning, meaning that where we began with it, it deserved to be nominative. So the particle is then conceptual, not verbal. Once more.
The definition of the Mubtada': "The nominative noun that is free from verbal particles". Good. "Noun" excludes the verb, so it cannot be a Mubtada', and the particle, so it cannot be a Mubtada'. "Nominative" excludes the accusative and the genitive, so it cannot be a Mubtada'. Yes.
The student: And the jussive.
The Shaykh : The jussive is from the verbs.
The student: Meaning it was excluded...
The Shaykh : No, it was not excluded, because the jussive was excluded by our saying "noun," because it is from the verbs. Good. So if you say "I honored Zayd," we do not say Zayd is a Mubtada' because it is accusative, the object of the verb that follows it. And if you say "I passed by Zayd," Zayd is also not a Mubtada' because it is genitive, and its particle is what follows it. Good.
"Free from verbal particles", to exclude the nominative noun that was raised by a verbal particle, like the doer, the substitute for the doer, the name of "was," and the news of "inna." Clear. Good. He says:
"The nominative noun". What shared with it in his saying "the nominative noun"? The doer and the substitute for the doer, and all the nominatives. All the nominatives from the nouns shared in his saying "the nominative noun", and the remaining nominatives were excluded by his saying "free from verbal particles".