Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "and it is done with known words", with known words. How do we know them?
The student: By tracking them.
The Shaykh : By tracking and induction, "and they are: nafs, 'ayn, kull, ajma', and the followers of ajma', which are: akti', atba', and absa'". Nafs and 'ayn are used to emphasize the singular, the plural, and the dual. You say: Zayd came himself, the two men came themselves, the people came themselves. This emphasis strengthens the statement, because if you say "Zayd came," the report conveys that Zayd came, right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if you say "himself," the report is emphasized and the possibility of metaphorical meaning is removed, and the possibility of metaphorical meaning is removed. That is, when you say "Zayd came," it is possible that the meaning is: his servant came, or his news came, or something similar. So if you say "himself," you emphasize the apparent meaning of the words, because the apparent meaning of your statement "Zayd came" is that he is the one who came, but with the possibility of metaphorical meaning. So if you say "himself," the possibility of metaphorical meaning is removed, and it strengthens the declarative sentence before it. All right, you also say: Zayd came, his 'ayn (eye). When you say "Zayd came," the listener understands that the one who came is Zayd, but there is a possibility that the one who came is, for example, his servant. So if you say "his 'ayn," this possibility is gone, and in your saying "his 'ayn," it is an emphasis that he himself came, not his servant. All right: "kull". Kull is used to emphasize something that has parts. It emphasizes what has parts, yes. Anything that has parts is emphasized with kull, but the singular is not emphasized with kull. For this reason, it is not appropriate to say: Zayd came, all of him. Why?
The student: Because it does not get divided.
The Shaykh : Because it does not get divided. It is not possible for part of it to come. But it is correct to say: The slave was freed, all of him. Why?
The student: It gets divided.
The Shaykh: Because the freeing gets divided. All right, did you eat the loaf, all of it?
The student: It gets divided.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It gets divided.
The Shaykh : You can eat half of it or a third of it, so it is appropriate to emphasize and say: all of it, even though the loaf is singular. All right, did the people come, all of them?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct. Why?
The student: Because they get divided.
The Shaykh : Because they get divided. It is possible for some of them to come. So if you say "the people came, all of them," this is emphasis. So kull: it is not used to emphasize anything except what gets divided. As for what does not get divided, it is not emphasized with it, but rather it is emphasized with what? With nafs or 'ayn. That is, there are ways to emphasize other than this. All right, ajma'? It is also one of the words of emphasis. Ajma' is one of the words of emphasis, and it is only used with the plural. You say: The people came, all of them. The people came, all of them. And you do not say: Zayd came, all of them. It must be with the plural. It is not used to emphasize anything except the plural. And I saw the people, all of them. And I passed by the people, all of them. Likewise, the author says: "the followers of ajma', which are: akti', atba', and absa'". The followers of ajma': the author (may Allah have mercy on him) informed us that these three words "akti', atba', and absa'" are not used to emphasize anything except with: ajma'in. So do not say: The people came, akti'in. Rather, you say: The people came, ajma'in akti'in. Because they do not come except as followers of ajma'in. As for coming alone, no. All right, you say: The people came, ajma'un akti'un atba'un absa'un. If you say this, it is as if you said: The people came, ajma'un ajma'un ajma'un ajma'un. Because these followers convey additional emphasis. All right, so now: nafs and 'ayn are used to emphasize what?
The student: The singular.
The Shaykh : The singular, huh?
The student: The dual.
The Shaykh : And the dual, and the plural. Kull: is used to emphasize what?
The student: What has parts.
The Shaykh : What has parts, or what gets divided. Ajma' and atba' and akti' and absa': are used to emphasize the plural specifically. So you say: The people came, ajma'un. And I saw the people, ajma'in. And I passed by the people, ajma'in.[Hud 11:119], [Al-Hijr 15:30-31]. All right, the emphasis agrees with the emphasized word in what?
The student: It agrees with the emphasized word in its raising, its accusative, its genitive, its definiteness, and its indefiniteness.
The Shaykh : Yes, in its raising, and its definiteness. No, it does not have... In its raising, meaning if the emphasized word is raised, then the emphasis word is? Huh?
The student: Raised.
The Shaykh : Raised, if the emphasized word is raised. If the emphasized word is in the accusative, the emphasis word is in the accusative. If it is in the genitive, the emphasis word is in the genitive. If it is definite, the emphasis word is definite. And the grammarians differed on whether the indefinite is emphasized or not? Some of them said: it is not emphasized. And some of them said: rather, it is emphasized. And the apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is not emphasized, because he did not say what? And its indefiniteness.
The student: And its indefiniteness.
The Shaykh : All right, huh?
The student: It is here!
The Shaykh : No, it is not here for me. It is explained for me, it is not here. All right, let us now take an exercise on this thing. Emphasize Zayd. Give an example of emphasizing Zayd?
The student: Zayd came himself.
The Shaykh : Nafsu or nafsu?
The student: Nafsu.
The Shaykh : Nafsu. Parse it?
The student: Jaa'a is a past tense verb built on fathah.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Zayd: is the subject, raised by the visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Nafsu!
The Shaykh : Nafsu, good?
The student: Nafsu: is emphasis!
The Shaykh : Yes, emphasis.
The student: Emphasis!
The Shaykh : Nafs: is emphasis for Zayd.
The student: Emphasis for Zayd.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Nafs is a mudaf (possessed noun).
The Shaykh : Wait, and the emphasis of the raised word?
The student: And the emphasis of the raised word is raised.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the sign of its raising?
The student: The visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Nafs: is a mudaf, and the haa: is a mudaf ilayh (possessor).
The Shaykh : Yes, built on damm in the position of genitive. All right, these are the basics. The followers of ajma' are three: akti', atba', and absa'. So how many are all the words?
The students: Seven.
The Shaykh : Seven. Four and three make seven. These words follow the emphasized word in raising, accusative, genitive, and definiteness. And the matter in them is clear. So now we will take the periodic parsing, and I think we are at the third level?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh: Huh? All right, good. Nafs and 'ayn are clear. Nafsu: means he himself. 'Aynu: means he himself. Kull: its meaning is generality. Ajma'in: also its meaning is generality. Akti', atba', and absa': mean ajma'in. All right, from...
The student: By tracking them.
The Shaykh : By tracking and induction, "and they are: nafs, 'ayn, kull, ajma', and the followers of ajma', which are: akti', atba', and absa'". Nafs and 'ayn are used to emphasize the singular, the plural, and the dual. You say: Zayd came himself, the two men came themselves, the people came themselves. This emphasis strengthens the statement, because if you say "Zayd came," the report conveys that Zayd came, right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if you say "himself," the report is emphasized and the possibility of metaphorical meaning is removed, and the possibility of metaphorical meaning is removed. That is, when you say "Zayd came," it is possible that the meaning is: his servant came, or his news came, or something similar. So if you say "himself," you emphasize the apparent meaning of the words, because the apparent meaning of your statement "Zayd came" is that he is the one who came, but with the possibility of metaphorical meaning. So if you say "himself," the possibility of metaphorical meaning is removed, and it strengthens the declarative sentence before it. All right, you also say: Zayd came, his 'ayn (eye). When you say "Zayd came," the listener understands that the one who came is Zayd, but there is a possibility that the one who came is, for example, his servant. So if you say "his 'ayn," this possibility is gone, and in your saying "his 'ayn," it is an emphasis that he himself came, not his servant. All right: "kull". Kull is used to emphasize something that has parts. It emphasizes what has parts, yes. Anything that has parts is emphasized with kull, but the singular is not emphasized with kull. For this reason, it is not appropriate to say: Zayd came, all of him. Why?
The student: Because it does not get divided.
The Shaykh : Because it does not get divided. It is not possible for part of it to come. But it is correct to say: The slave was freed, all of him. Why?
The student: It gets divided.
The Shaykh: Because the freeing gets divided. All right, did you eat the loaf, all of it?
The student: It gets divided.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It gets divided.
The Shaykh : You can eat half of it or a third of it, so it is appropriate to emphasize and say: all of it, even though the loaf is singular. All right, did the people come, all of them?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct. Why?
The student: Because they get divided.
The Shaykh : Because they get divided. It is possible for some of them to come. So if you say "the people came, all of them," this is emphasis. So kull: it is not used to emphasize anything except what gets divided. As for what does not get divided, it is not emphasized with it, but rather it is emphasized with what? With nafs or 'ayn. That is, there are ways to emphasize other than this. All right, ajma'? It is also one of the words of emphasis. Ajma' is one of the words of emphasis, and it is only used with the plural. You say: The people came, all of them. The people came, all of them. And you do not say: Zayd came, all of them. It must be with the plural. It is not used to emphasize anything except the plural. And I saw the people, all of them. And I passed by the people, all of them. Likewise, the author says: "the followers of ajma', which are: akti', atba', and absa'". The followers of ajma': the author (may Allah have mercy on him) informed us that these three words "akti', atba', and absa'" are not used to emphasize anything except with: ajma'in. So do not say: The people came, akti'in. Rather, you say: The people came, ajma'in akti'in. Because they do not come except as followers of ajma'in. As for coming alone, no. All right, you say: The people came, ajma'un akti'un atba'un absa'un. If you say this, it is as if you said: The people came, ajma'un ajma'un ajma'un ajma'un. Because these followers convey additional emphasis. All right, so now: nafs and 'ayn are used to emphasize what?
The student: The singular.
The Shaykh : The singular, huh?
The student: The dual.
The Shaykh : And the dual, and the plural. Kull: is used to emphasize what?
The student: What has parts.
The Shaykh : What has parts, or what gets divided. Ajma' and atba' and akti' and absa': are used to emphasize the plural specifically. So you say: The people came, ajma'un. And I saw the people, ajma'in. And I passed by the people, ajma'in.
I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together."
لأملأن جهنّم من الجنة والناس أجمعين(30) So the angels prostrated - all of them entirely, (31) Except Iblees, he refused to be with those who prostrated.
فسجد الملائكة كلهم أجمعون إلا إبليسThe student: It agrees with the emphasized word in its raising, its accusative, its genitive, its definiteness, and its indefiniteness.
The Shaykh : Yes, in its raising, and its definiteness. No, it does not have... In its raising, meaning if the emphasized word is raised, then the emphasis word is? Huh?
The student: Raised.
The Shaykh : Raised, if the emphasized word is raised. If the emphasized word is in the accusative, the emphasis word is in the accusative. If it is in the genitive, the emphasis word is in the genitive. If it is definite, the emphasis word is definite. And the grammarians differed on whether the indefinite is emphasized or not? Some of them said: it is not emphasized. And some of them said: rather, it is emphasized. And the apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is not emphasized, because he did not say what? And its indefiniteness.
The student: And its indefiniteness.
The Shaykh : All right, huh?
The student: It is here!
The Shaykh : No, it is not here for me. It is explained for me, it is not here. All right, let us now take an exercise on this thing. Emphasize Zayd. Give an example of emphasizing Zayd?
The student: Zayd came himself.
The Shaykh : Nafsu or nafsu?
The student: Nafsu.
The Shaykh : Nafsu. Parse it?
The student: Jaa'a is a past tense verb built on fathah.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Zayd: is the subject, raised by the visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Nafsu!
The Shaykh : Nafsu, good?
The student: Nafsu: is emphasis!
The Shaykh : Yes, emphasis.
The student: Emphasis!
The Shaykh : Nafs: is emphasis for Zayd.
The student: Emphasis for Zayd.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Nafs is a mudaf (possessed noun).
The Shaykh : Wait, and the emphasis of the raised word?
The student: And the emphasis of the raised word is raised.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the sign of its raising?
The student: The visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Nafs: is a mudaf, and the haa: is a mudaf ilayh (possessor).
The Shaykh : Yes, built on damm in the position of genitive. All right, these are the basics. The followers of ajma' are three: akti', atba', and absa'. So how many are all the words?
The students: Seven.
The Shaykh : Seven. Four and three make seven. These words follow the emphasized word in raising, accusative, genitive, and definiteness. And the matter in them is clear. So now we will take the periodic parsing, and I think we are at the third level?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh: Huh? All right, good. Nafs and 'ayn are clear. Nafsu: means he himself. 'Aynu: means he himself. Kull: its meaning is generality. Ajma'in: also its meaning is generality. Akti', atba', and absa': mean ajma'in. All right, from...