Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: “And the *hal* cannot be anything but an indefinite noun”. This is also a benefit, a rule. “The *hal* cannot be anything but an indefinite noun”, is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The indefinite noun, have we defined it? I mean, did it pass us before, or will it come later?
The student: It passed.
The Shaykh : Be careful, everyone. Do not say anything until you are certain of it.
The student: It passed.
The Shaykh : Yes, but you did not know that it had passed until you reviewed the book? That means you have not gained any benefit! It means we have not gained any benefit, as long as we do not know whether the indefinite noun passed us or not until we go back to the book. So, everything in our heads has flown away!
The student : Hehehe.
The Shaykh : Okay, did the definite noun pass us or not?
The student: It passed, it passed.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: It passed at the beginning of the book.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: It passed at the beginning of the book.
The Shaykh : In any case, the definite and the indefinite have passed. “The indefinite: every noun that is common in its genus, not specific to one individual over another”. This is the author’s definition. You have read it and memorized it, but, what Allah willed, how quickly knowledge flies away from you. So, it cannot be anything but an indefinite. If I said: “Zayd the virtuous came,” it is not correct, because “the virtuous” is definite. “Zayd the virtuous came” — is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : “The virtuous” becomes what?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : It becomes a *hal*, clear. So, the *hal* cannot be anything but an indefinite. Okay, do you say: “Zayd the virtuous came”?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is definite.
The Shaykh : No, it is not correct. Convert it to an indefinite. You say: “virtuous,” and it becomes a *hal*. Okay, “I saw a virtuous man”?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : But this is a description. So, if an indefinite comes after an indefinite, it is a description. And if an indefinite comes after a definite, it is a *hal*. Understood? Okay, the second point, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: “And it cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech”. This means it cannot be anything but after the completion of the sentence. The speech referred to is the sentence. So, if I said: “A virtuous one came,” “A virtuous one came” is not correct, because “virtuous” is in the position of the subject. So, the *hal* cannot be in the position of the subject. Okay, “A man standing”? Hmm? Can we say “A man standing” and make “standing” a *hal*?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because the author says it cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech, and the completion of the sentence. So, if I said “A man standing,” it is not correct. If I said “Zayd standing,” likewise.
The student: What?
The Shaykh : Zayd standing.
The student: Its grammatical analysis?
The Shaykh : Zayd is the subject, and “standing” is a *hal*.
The student: Incorrect, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. Why?
The student: The speech is not complete.
The Shaykh : Because the speech is not complete. Okay, “Zayd standing” — you said: it is not correct. How do we convert it to a correct phrase? We add “came” before it, so we say: “Zayd came standing,” is that right? So, it is correct if you say “Zayd came,” verb and subject, and the sentence is complete. So, the *hal* cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech, meaning after the completion of the sentence. Okay, “Zayd on foot.”
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The speech is not complete.
The Shaykh : The speech is not complete. And what does “on foot” mean?
The student: It means he walks on his feet.
The Shaykh : It means he walks on his feet, and not as the Egyptians say: “rajul” means “man.” Yes, I think the Egyptians say “rajul” for “man,” “O rajul.” Yes, unless they mean “O rajul” as in “O one who walks on his feet,” then it would be correct. Okay, in any case, now we say, if I said: “Zayd on foot” meaning he walks on his feet, and you made “on foot” a *hal* by making it accusative, it is not permissible, because it cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech. Okay, if we want to convert it to a *hal*, we bring a verb so that the sentence is complete, so we say: “Zayd came on foot.” Okay, he says: “And its possessor cannot be anything but a definite noun”. “Its possessor” means the possessor of the *hal* cannot be anything but a definite noun. This means the *hal* does not come except from a definite noun. And you have known the definite noun previously. So, the possessor of the *hal* cannot be anything but a definite noun. Okay, how? I mean, if I said: “A man came riding.”
The students: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Incorrect, “man” is indefinite.
The Shaykh : “A man came riding,” this is not correct. Why?
The student: Because “riding” is a *hal*.
The Shaykh : Because “riding” is a *hal* from “man,” and “man” is indefinite. And the *hal* cannot be anything but from a definite noun. Okay, convert this example to a correct example.
The student: The man came riding.
The Shaykh : The man came riding. Okay, in the first example, “A man came riding,” if we want to keep the phrase as it is, we must make “riding” nominative. “A man came riding” to be a description. So, here are three things. First: the *hal* cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech. Second: the possessor of the *hal* cannot be anything but a definite noun. Third: it cannot be anything but an indefinite, it cannot be definite ever. So, if I said: “Zayd the virtuous came,” yes. “Zayd the man came,” intending “the man” to be a *hal*, we say: this is not correct, because the *hal* cannot be anything but an indefinite. Okay, in some cases, it came among the Arabs as a definite noun, like: “Strive alone,” “Strive alone.” Here, “alone” is a *hal*, although it is what?
The student: Definite.
The Shaykh : Definite, attached to a pronoun. And what is attached to a pronoun is definite. So, how do we answer the author’s statement? We say: The grammarians (may Allah have mercy on them), as our sheikhs said to us: “Their arguments are like a gerbil’s house”, or “like a gerbil’s burrow”. If you block one door, it speaks from the other door. Yes, he says: “Alone” we interpret it as “separately.” “Strive alone” means with the implied “Strive separately.” And “separately” is indefinite or definite?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : Indefinite. Did you see how? “Separately.” They said: The Arabs judge us, and we do not judge them. So, if the Arabs express themselves and say: “Strive alone,” or “So-and-so came alone,” we do not say: You made a mistake. But we direct their speech to what is correct. We say: “Alone” means “separately.” Yes, meaning “separately,” we interpret it. And interpretation is correct, because they establish their rules. If something comes that contradicts them, they interpret it according to these rules. For this reason, the later scholars call the sciences of Arabic what?
The student: The rules.
The Shaykh : The rules. They call them the rules, the rules of grammar. Because when they establish a rule, it must apply to all speech. So, if something comes that contradicts the rule, they interpret it. But if someone says: Do you not deny interpretation? What do we say? We say: Yes, but in religious matters. In religious matters, we deny interpretation, because it is obligatory to carry out the speech of the Lawgiver as it is. But in non-religious matters, there is no harm in interpretation. For this reason, we said: The consistent rule I told you before: “That if the Kufans and the Basrans disagree on an issue, follow the easiest”. Follow the easiest. And if this were said in jurisprudential issues, is it correct or not?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Because it is not permissible for us to follow dispensations. But in the chapter of grammar, there is no obstacle to following dispensations, and it is not a problem for you. So, interpretation in the chapter of grammar is not a problem, because as long as the rules that the general speech of the Arabs indicated are established, whatever deviates from them we return to them. Understood? Okay, I think there is time left?
The student: Yes, there is time left.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The indefinite noun, have we defined it? I mean, did it pass us before, or will it come later?
The student: It passed.
The Shaykh : Be careful, everyone. Do not say anything until you are certain of it.
The student: It passed.
The Shaykh : Yes, but you did not know that it had passed until you reviewed the book? That means you have not gained any benefit! It means we have not gained any benefit, as long as we do not know whether the indefinite noun passed us or not until we go back to the book. So, everything in our heads has flown away!
The student : Hehehe.
The Shaykh : Okay, did the definite noun pass us or not?
The student: It passed, it passed.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: It passed at the beginning of the book.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: It passed at the beginning of the book.
The Shaykh : In any case, the definite and the indefinite have passed. “The indefinite: every noun that is common in its genus, not specific to one individual over another”. This is the author’s definition. You have read it and memorized it, but, what Allah willed, how quickly knowledge flies away from you. So, it cannot be anything but an indefinite. If I said: “Zayd the virtuous came,” it is not correct, because “the virtuous” is definite. “Zayd the virtuous came” — is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : “The virtuous” becomes what?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : It becomes a *hal*, clear. So, the *hal* cannot be anything but an indefinite. Okay, do you say: “Zayd the virtuous came”?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is definite.
The Shaykh : No, it is not correct. Convert it to an indefinite. You say: “virtuous,” and it becomes a *hal*. Okay, “I saw a virtuous man”?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : But this is a description. So, if an indefinite comes after an indefinite, it is a description. And if an indefinite comes after a definite, it is a *hal*. Understood? Okay, the second point, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: “And it cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech”. This means it cannot be anything but after the completion of the sentence. The speech referred to is the sentence. So, if I said: “A virtuous one came,” “A virtuous one came” is not correct, because “virtuous” is in the position of the subject. So, the *hal* cannot be in the position of the subject. Okay, “A man standing”? Hmm? Can we say “A man standing” and make “standing” a *hal*?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because the author says it cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech, and the completion of the sentence. So, if I said “A man standing,” it is not correct. If I said “Zayd standing,” likewise.
The student: What?
The Shaykh : Zayd standing.
The student: Its grammatical analysis?
The Shaykh : Zayd is the subject, and “standing” is a *hal*.
The student: Incorrect, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. Why?
The student: The speech is not complete.
The Shaykh : Because the speech is not complete. Okay, “Zayd standing” — you said: it is not correct. How do we convert it to a correct phrase? We add “came” before it, so we say: “Zayd came standing,” is that right? So, it is correct if you say “Zayd came,” verb and subject, and the sentence is complete. So, the *hal* cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech, meaning after the completion of the sentence. Okay, “Zayd on foot.”
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The speech is not complete.
The Shaykh : The speech is not complete. And what does “on foot” mean?
The student: It means he walks on his feet.
The Shaykh : It means he walks on his feet, and not as the Egyptians say: “rajul” means “man.” Yes, I think the Egyptians say “rajul” for “man,” “O rajul.” Yes, unless they mean “O rajul” as in “O one who walks on his feet,” then it would be correct. Okay, in any case, now we say, if I said: “Zayd on foot” meaning he walks on his feet, and you made “on foot” a *hal* by making it accusative, it is not permissible, because it cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech. Okay, if we want to convert it to a *hal*, we bring a verb so that the sentence is complete, so we say: “Zayd came on foot.” Okay, he says: “And its possessor cannot be anything but a definite noun”. “Its possessor” means the possessor of the *hal* cannot be anything but a definite noun. This means the *hal* does not come except from a definite noun. And you have known the definite noun previously. So, the possessor of the *hal* cannot be anything but a definite noun. Okay, how? I mean, if I said: “A man came riding.”
The students: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Incorrect, “man” is indefinite.
The Shaykh : “A man came riding,” this is not correct. Why?
The student: Because “riding” is a *hal*.
The Shaykh : Because “riding” is a *hal* from “man,” and “man” is indefinite. And the *hal* cannot be anything but from a definite noun. Okay, convert this example to a correct example.
The student: The man came riding.
The Shaykh : The man came riding. Okay, in the first example, “A man came riding,” if we want to keep the phrase as it is, we must make “riding” nominative. “A man came riding” to be a description. So, here are three things. First: the *hal* cannot be anything but after the completion of the speech. Second: the possessor of the *hal* cannot be anything but a definite noun. Third: it cannot be anything but an indefinite, it cannot be definite ever. So, if I said: “Zayd the virtuous came,” yes. “Zayd the man came,” intending “the man” to be a *hal*, we say: this is not correct, because the *hal* cannot be anything but an indefinite. Okay, in some cases, it came among the Arabs as a definite noun, like: “Strive alone,” “Strive alone.” Here, “alone” is a *hal*, although it is what?
The student: Definite.
The Shaykh : Definite, attached to a pronoun. And what is attached to a pronoun is definite. So, how do we answer the author’s statement? We say: The grammarians (may Allah have mercy on them), as our sheikhs said to us: “Their arguments are like a gerbil’s house”, or “like a gerbil’s burrow”. If you block one door, it speaks from the other door. Yes, he says: “Alone” we interpret it as “separately.” “Strive alone” means with the implied “Strive separately.” And “separately” is indefinite or definite?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : Indefinite. Did you see how? “Separately.” They said: The Arabs judge us, and we do not judge them. So, if the Arabs express themselves and say: “Strive alone,” or “So-and-so came alone,” we do not say: You made a mistake. But we direct their speech to what is correct. We say: “Alone” means “separately.” Yes, meaning “separately,” we interpret it. And interpretation is correct, because they establish their rules. If something comes that contradicts them, they interpret it according to these rules. For this reason, the later scholars call the sciences of Arabic what?
The student: The rules.
The Shaykh : The rules. They call them the rules, the rules of grammar. Because when they establish a rule, it must apply to all speech. So, if something comes that contradicts the rule, they interpret it. But if someone says: Do you not deny interpretation? What do we say? We say: Yes, but in religious matters. In religious matters, we deny interpretation, because it is obligatory to carry out the speech of the Lawgiver as it is. But in non-religious matters, there is no harm in interpretation. For this reason, we said: The consistent rule I told you before: “That if the Kufans and the Basrans disagree on an issue, follow the easiest”. Follow the easiest. And if this were said in jurisprudential issues, is it correct or not?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Because it is not permissible for us to follow dispensations. But in the chapter of grammar, there is no obstacle to following dispensations, and it is not a problem for you. So, interpretation in the chapter of grammar is not a problem, because as long as the rules that the general speech of the Arabs indicated are established, whatever deviates from them we return to them. Understood? Okay, I think there is time left?
The student: Yes, there is time left.
The Shaykh : Fine.