Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And I saw" "I saw" can mean "I knew," it can mean "I thought," it can mean "I perceived with my eyes," and it can mean "I struck its eye." How many meanings is that?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four meanings: "I knew," "I thought," here "I perceived with my eyes," and "I struck its eye." Good. If it means "I knew" or "I thought," it is one of the sisters of *dhan* (thought), one of the sisters of *dhan*. And if it means "I perceived with my eyes," then it takes only one object. And if it means "I struck its eye," it also takes only one object.
So if someone asked you, "Did you see Zayd?" and you are looking at him with your own eyes, you say, "By Allah, I did not see him," meaning you did not strike his eye. Are you telling the truth or not? You are telling the truth. This is useful for interpretation. This is useful for interpretation. If a person is looking for someone and says, "I did not see so-and-so," and you saw him a little while ago, you say, "No, by Allah, I did not see him," and you swear, "By Allah, I did not see him," while you intend that you did not strike his eye. This is useful for you, and you remain faithful to your oath. Good.
The poet said: "I saw that Allah is greater than everything *** [and] the attempt, and most of them are soldiers"
This "saw" means "knew," it means "knew," and you say:
"I saw the patient and I thought he was being treated." Yes. "I saw" or "I returned to" the patient and I saw him being treated. Here it means "I thought," it means "I thought" he was being treated, meaning I did not see him being treated, but I thought he was being treated because I saw his condition was better than before. Good.
And you say, "I saw Zayd," "I saw Zayd" meaning "I perceived him with my eyes." And you say, "I saw Zayd" meaning "I struck his eye." But this last one is far-fetched, meaning it is not known except by the one who intended it himself. As for the listener, it does not occur to him that "I saw him" means "I struck his eye." This is far-fetched for the listener. Good.
The important point is that the one that is among the sisters of *dhan* is "I saw" meaning "I knew" and "I saw" meaning "I thought." As for "I perceived with my eyes," it does not take anything but one object. And likewise, "I saw" meaning "I struck his eye."
"And I knew" Yes. "I knew" takes two objects. "I knew" takes two objects. You say:
"I knew 'Umar was staring." "I knew 'Umar was staring." This parsing is correct.
"I knew": verb and subject. "I knew" is a past tense verb built on sukun (stillness) due to its connection to the moving subject pronoun of the nominative case. And it takes two objects: the first is the subject (mubtada') and the second is the predicate (khabar). The *ta* is the first-person singular pronoun, built on dammah (raised vowel) in the position of the nominative subject.
And "'Umar": its first object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a fathah (open vowel) appearing at its end.
And "staring": its second object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a fathah appearing at its end.
"And I found" Yes. Allah the Exalted said:[An-Nisa 4:96] And "found" comes to mean "I found him in a certain state," and it comes to mean "I met him," I met him. So you say:
"I sought the dirham that was lost to me, and I found it," meaning I met it. Good. And you say:
"I sought the dirham that was lost to me, and I found it buried." Look, the first one means "I met it," it means "I met it," it did not take anything but one object. As for this one, it took two objects because the meaning is "I found him in a certain state," I found him buried.
"They found Allah Forgiving and Merciful" means, yes, yes, in any state. Good.
And "found" comes to mean "grieved," it means "grieved." You say:
"His camel was lost, and he grieved over it," meaning he grieved over it. Good.
Now, "found" can be used in this example for the three matters. You say:
"His camel was lost, and he grieved over it," meaning he grieved,
"His camel was lost, and he found it," he met it,
"His camel was lost, and he found dust on it." Here, this takes two objects, it takes two objects. And what clarifies for us one of the three meanings is the context. Good.
"And I took" Allah the Exalted said:[An-Nisa 4:125] We will parse it.
"Took": past tense verb built on fathah. And "the noble name" (referring to Ibrahim) is the subject, in the nominative case with a visible dammah. And "took" takes two objects: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
And "Ibrahim": the first object, its first object, in the accusative case due to it with a visible fathah.
And "a friend": its second object, in the accusative case due to it with a visible fathah. Good.
"And I made" Good. "I made"
You say, "I made the wood a door," "I made the wood a door."
How many objects did it take? It means "I turned," I turned the wood into a door.
Allah the Exalted said:[An-Naba 78:10-11] Good. Let us take the example we struck first.
"I made the wood a door" means "I turned it."
So "I made": verb and subject. "Made" is a past tense verb built on sukun due to its connection to the moving subject pronoun of the nominative case. And the *ta* is the first-person singular pronoun, built on dammah in the position of...
The student: nominative subject.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: nominative subject.
The Shaykh : In the position of the nominative subject. "The wood": its first object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end.
"A door": its second object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end. Good.
"And I heard" "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say." But this tool, "I heard," the grammarians differed on it. Some said it takes two objects, and some said it does not take two objects, because hearing is one of the senses, and whatever is perceived by the senses does not take two objects. Look at "I saw": if it means "I knew," it takes two objects, but if it means "I perceived with my eyes," here it does not take anything but one object.
So the author said, and whoever holds that it takes two objects said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say." Yes. So "Messenger" is the first object, and the clause "say" is the second object, because "Messenger says" is valid to be made a subject and predicate. So you say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) says." And when a subject and predicate are entered by a tool and then made accusative, it becomes operative on them. And you say, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say." And you sometimes say, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saying." I know, so we say to them, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say," just as you say, "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praying" while you are watching him. So here, "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praying," do we say "Prophet" is the first object and "praying" is the second object? No, we do not say "Prophet" is the object and "praying" is in the accusative case as a state (hal) in the position of accusative as a state. So "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say," we say "Prophet" is the object and "say" is in the position of accusative as a state, in the position of accusative as a state. Be careful.
Good. So "I heard," the grammarians differed on it. Some said it is one of the sisters of *dhan*, and others said it is not one of its sisters, because the species is different. This is from the sheep and this is from the goats, or not? Here, what do we say?
The student: Sheep and goats.
The Shaykh : No, sheep are a type of goats, meaning a part of them. So this is from the sheep and this is from the goats, correct. Good. In any case, they said, "It is not possible to make 'heard' take two objects unless you agree with us that 'saw' with the eyes takes two objects, because visual sight and hearing are both sensory tools, sensory tools, so they do not take anything but one object. In any case, regarding the form, it does not differ; the difference is in the parsing. So if I said, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saying such and such," here it is correct. "I heard him say" is correct. "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) doing such and such" is correct. "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) bowing." Look, "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) bowing," how do you parse "bowing"? As a state. You do not say "bowing" is the second object, because sight and hearing do not take anything but one object. Clear. Good. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"You say: I thought Zayd was closed and I supposed 'Umar was staring, and the like of that" And Allah knows best. Yes.
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four meanings: "I knew," "I thought," here "I perceived with my eyes," and "I struck its eye." Good. If it means "I knew" or "I thought," it is one of the sisters of *dhan* (thought), one of the sisters of *dhan*. And if it means "I perceived with my eyes," then it takes only one object. And if it means "I struck its eye," it also takes only one object.
So if someone asked you, "Did you see Zayd?" and you are looking at him with your own eyes, you say, "By Allah, I did not see him," meaning you did not strike his eye. Are you telling the truth or not? You are telling the truth. This is useful for interpretation. This is useful for interpretation. If a person is looking for someone and says, "I did not see so-and-so," and you saw him a little while ago, you say, "No, by Allah, I did not see him," and you swear, "By Allah, I did not see him," while you intend that you did not strike his eye. This is useful for you, and you remain faithful to your oath. Good.
The poet said: "I saw that Allah is greater than everything *** [and] the attempt, and most of them are soldiers"
This "saw" means "knew," it means "knew," and you say:
"I saw the patient and I thought he was being treated." Yes. "I saw" or "I returned to" the patient and I saw him being treated. Here it means "I thought," it means "I thought" he was being treated, meaning I did not see him being treated, but I thought he was being treated because I saw his condition was better than before. Good.
And you say, "I saw Zayd," "I saw Zayd" meaning "I perceived him with my eyes." And you say, "I saw Zayd" meaning "I struck his eye." But this last one is far-fetched, meaning it is not known except by the one who intended it himself. As for the listener, it does not occur to him that "I saw him" means "I struck his eye." This is far-fetched for the listener. Good.
The important point is that the one that is among the sisters of *dhan* is "I saw" meaning "I knew" and "I saw" meaning "I thought." As for "I perceived with my eyes," it does not take anything but one object. And likewise, "I saw" meaning "I struck his eye."
"And I knew" Yes. "I knew" takes two objects. "I knew" takes two objects. You say:
"I knew 'Umar was staring." "I knew 'Umar was staring." This parsing is correct.
"I knew": verb and subject. "I knew" is a past tense verb built on sukun (stillness) due to its connection to the moving subject pronoun of the nominative case. And it takes two objects: the first is the subject (mubtada') and the second is the predicate (khabar). The *ta* is the first-person singular pronoun, built on dammah (raised vowel) in the position of the nominative subject.
And "'Umar": its first object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a fathah (open vowel) appearing at its end.
And "staring": its second object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a fathah appearing at its end.
"And I found" Yes. Allah the Exalted said:
And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.
لوجدوا الله غفورا رحيما"I sought the dirham that was lost to me, and I found it," meaning I met it. Good. And you say:
"I sought the dirham that was lost to me, and I found it buried." Look, the first one means "I met it," it means "I met it," it did not take anything but one object. As for this one, it took two objects because the meaning is "I found him in a certain state," I found him buried.
"They found Allah Forgiving and Merciful" means, yes, yes, in any state. Good.
And "found" comes to mean "grieved," it means "grieved." You say:
"His camel was lost, and he grieved over it," meaning he grieved over it. Good.
Now, "found" can be used in this example for the three matters. You say:
"His camel was lost, and he grieved over it," meaning he grieved,
"His camel was lost, and he found it," he met it,
"His camel was lost, and he found dust on it." Here, this takes two objects, it takes two objects. And what clarifies for us one of the three meanings is the context. Good.
"And I took" Allah the Exalted said:
And Allah took Abraham as an intimate friend.
واتخذ الله إبراهيم خليلا"Took": past tense verb built on fathah. And "the noble name" (referring to Ibrahim) is the subject, in the nominative case with a visible dammah. And "took" takes two objects: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
And "Ibrahim": the first object, its first object, in the accusative case due to it with a visible fathah.
And "a friend": its second object, in the accusative case due to it with a visible fathah. Good.
"And I made" Good. "I made"
You say, "I made the wood a door," "I made the wood a door."
How many objects did it take? It means "I turned," I turned the wood into a door.
Allah the Exalted said:
(10) And made the night as clothing (11) And made the day for livelihood
وجعلنا الليل لباسا وجعلنا النهار معاشا"I made the wood a door" means "I turned it."
So "I made": verb and subject. "Made" is a past tense verb built on sukun due to its connection to the moving subject pronoun of the nominative case. And the *ta* is the first-person singular pronoun, built on dammah in the position of...
The student: nominative subject.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: nominative subject.
The Shaykh : In the position of the nominative subject. "The wood": its first object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end.
"A door": its second object, in the accusative case due to it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end. Good.
"And I heard" "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say." But this tool, "I heard," the grammarians differed on it. Some said it takes two objects, and some said it does not take two objects, because hearing is one of the senses, and whatever is perceived by the senses does not take two objects. Look at "I saw": if it means "I knew," it takes two objects, but if it means "I perceived with my eyes," here it does not take anything but one object.
So the author said, and whoever holds that it takes two objects said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say." Yes. So "Messenger" is the first object, and the clause "say" is the second object, because "Messenger says" is valid to be made a subject and predicate. So you say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) says." And when a subject and predicate are entered by a tool and then made accusative, it becomes operative on them. And you say, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say." And you sometimes say, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saying." I know, so we say to them, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say," just as you say, "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praying" while you are watching him. So here, "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praying," do we say "Prophet" is the first object and "praying" is the second object? No, we do not say "Prophet" is the object and "praying" is in the accusative case as a state (hal) in the position of accusative as a state. So "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say," we say "Prophet" is the object and "say" is in the position of accusative as a state, in the position of accusative as a state. Be careful.
Good. So "I heard," the grammarians differed on it. Some said it is one of the sisters of *dhan*, and others said it is not one of its sisters, because the species is different. This is from the sheep and this is from the goats, or not? Here, what do we say?
The student: Sheep and goats.
The Shaykh : No, sheep are a type of goats, meaning a part of them. So this is from the sheep and this is from the goats, correct. Good. In any case, they said, "It is not possible to make 'heard' take two objects unless you agree with us that 'saw' with the eyes takes two objects, because visual sight and hearing are both sensory tools, sensory tools, so they do not take anything but one object. In any case, regarding the form, it does not differ; the difference is in the parsing. So if I said, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saying such and such," here it is correct. "I heard him say" is correct. "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) doing such and such" is correct. "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) bowing." Look, "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) bowing," how do you parse "bowing"? As a state. You do not say "bowing" is the second object, because sight and hearing do not take anything but one object. Clear. Good. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"You say: I thought Zayd was closed and I supposed 'Umar was staring, and the like of that" And Allah knows best. Yes.