Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As for the technical definition, the author said: "It is the noun in the accusative case, which clarifies what is ambiguous among entities". So his saying: "It is the noun" excludes the verb and the particle, for the verb cannot be a *tamyiz* (specification), and the particle cannot be a *tamyiz*. And his saying: "in the accusative case" excludes the nominative and the genitive, so the *tamyiz* cannot be in the nominative case, nor can it be in the genitive case. And the author's saying: "what is ambiguous among entities": excludes the remaining accusative nouns. So his saying: "which clarifies what is ambiguous": the *hal* (circumstantial phrase) shares in this, because the *hal* clarifies what is ambiguous, but the *hal* is excluded from "entities," because the *hal* clarifies what is ambiguous among states. As for this, it is for what is ambiguous among entities, meaning among concrete things, meaning that the specific identity of the thing is hidden from us, so we specify it with the *tamyiz*. This becomes clear through examples. The important thing is to say: *Tamyiz* technically is: the noun in the accusative case, which clarifies what is ambiguous?
The student: From the entities.
The Shaykh : among entities. So the noun excludes?
The student: The particle and the verb.
The Shaykh : The particle and the verb. The accusative case?
The student: The nominative and the genitive.
The Shaykh : The nominative and the genitive. "Which clarifies" excludes the remaining accusative nouns except the *hal*. "What is ambiguous among entities": the *hal* is excluded by this, or the *hal* is excluded by it, for the *hal* is for what is ambiguous among states. Now, *tamyiz* has types. The first type: that it is converted from the subject (doer), that it is converted from the subject, such as saying: "Zayd sweated profusely". "Zayd sweated" means he began to sweat. What does he sweat? Blood? Water? Oil? What?
The student: Sweat.
The Shaykh : Sweat. So when "Zayd sweated" comes, it is ambiguous. What did he sweat? So when we say "sweat," we clarified it. And is sweat an entity or a state?
The student: An entity.
The Shaykh : Sweat?
The student: An entity.
The Shaykh : An entity.
The student: A clarification of the entity.
The Shaykh : The important thing is, is it an entity or a state?
The student: An entity.
The Shaykh : An entity? How is it an entity?
The student: Because it is a concrete thing.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is a concrete thing. We see sweat, you see it with your eye and it is flowing, so it is an entity. The second: "Bakr burst with fat" May Allah help us and you!!
The student : Hehehe.
The Shaykh : "Bakr burst" means he split open from the fat, he had a lot of fat, so he split. Now, "Bakr burst," we do not know if it was a boil or what? Or a burn? We do not know. When he said "fat," what?
The student: It clarified.
The Shaykh : It clarified this ambiguity, that it was his fat that burst. Now, "Muhammad was pleased in spirit," "Muhammad was pleased in spirit." Now, does "Muhammad was pleased" mean: his food was good? Meaning his food was tasty? Does it mean his dwelling was good? What was pleased? So if you say "in spirit," it becomes a clarification of what? Of what is ambiguous among entities, because we do not know if it was his dwelling that was pleased, or his vehicle, or his son?! We do not know. So when he says "in spirit," we know that it was his spirit that was pleased. Now, we call this type converted from the subject. How is that? Because if you say: "Zayd sweated profusely," you convert "sweat" to be the subject? It is said: "Zayd's sweat sweated," "Zayd's sweat sweated." So the sweat is actually the subject. This *tamyiz* is called by the grammarians: converted from what?
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject. Now, "Bakr burst with fat," this is also converted from the subject. Make it the subject?
The student: Bakr's fat burst.
The Shaykh : Bakr's fat burst. "Muhammad was pleased in spirit" is also converted to the subject. You say: "Muhammad's spirit was pleased," "Muhammad's spirit was pleased." So you find it is converted from what?
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject, because this *tamyiz* is called the converted *tamyiz*, converted from the subject. Now, if you say: "Zayd was noble in lineage"? Hmm?
The student: *Tamyiz*.
The Shaykh : Is this also *tamyiz*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because it is converted from what?
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject. If you wished, you would convert it and make it the subject. You would say?
The student: Muhammad's lineage was noble.
The Shaykh : Muhammad's lineage was noble. Now, you also say: "Zayd was noble or perfect in religion," hmm, is it like that?
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : Do we convert it to the subject or not?
The student: We convert it.
The Shaykh : We convert it to the subject and we say?
The student: Muhammad's religion was perfect.
The Shaykh : Muhammad's religion was perfect.
The student : Shaykh
The Shaykh : There is no question now. This is converted from what?
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject. It may be converted from the object. It may be converted from the object, such as His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):[Al-Qamar 54:12]
The student: The springs of the earth.
The Shaykh : The springs of the earth.
The student: From the entities.
The Shaykh : among entities. So the noun excludes?
The student: The particle and the verb.
The Shaykh : The particle and the verb. The accusative case?
The student: The nominative and the genitive.
The Shaykh : The nominative and the genitive. "Which clarifies" excludes the remaining accusative nouns except the *hal*. "What is ambiguous among entities": the *hal* is excluded by this, or the *hal* is excluded by it, for the *hal* is for what is ambiguous among states. Now, *tamyiz* has types. The first type: that it is converted from the subject (doer), that it is converted from the subject, such as saying: "Zayd sweated profusely". "Zayd sweated" means he began to sweat. What does he sweat? Blood? Water? Oil? What?
The student: Sweat.
The Shaykh : Sweat. So when "Zayd sweated" comes, it is ambiguous. What did he sweat? So when we say "sweat," we clarified it. And is sweat an entity or a state?
The student: An entity.
The Shaykh : Sweat?
The student: An entity.
The Shaykh : An entity.
The student: A clarification of the entity.
The Shaykh : The important thing is, is it an entity or a state?
The student: An entity.
The Shaykh : An entity? How is it an entity?
The student: Because it is a concrete thing.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is a concrete thing. We see sweat, you see it with your eye and it is flowing, so it is an entity. The second: "Bakr burst with fat" May Allah help us and you!!
The student : Hehehe.
The Shaykh : "Bakr burst" means he split open from the fat, he had a lot of fat, so he split. Now, "Bakr burst," we do not know if it was a boil or what? Or a burn? We do not know. When he said "fat," what?
The student: It clarified.
The Shaykh : It clarified this ambiguity, that it was his fat that burst. Now, "Muhammad was pleased in spirit," "Muhammad was pleased in spirit." Now, does "Muhammad was pleased" mean: his food was good? Meaning his food was tasty? Does it mean his dwelling was good? What was pleased? So if you say "in spirit," it becomes a clarification of what? Of what is ambiguous among entities, because we do not know if it was his dwelling that was pleased, or his vehicle, or his son?! We do not know. So when he says "in spirit," we know that it was his spirit that was pleased. Now, we call this type converted from the subject. How is that? Because if you say: "Zayd sweated profusely," you convert "sweat" to be the subject? It is said: "Zayd's sweat sweated," "Zayd's sweat sweated." So the sweat is actually the subject. This *tamyiz* is called by the grammarians: converted from what?
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject. Now, "Bakr burst with fat," this is also converted from the subject. Make it the subject?
The student: Bakr's fat burst.
The Shaykh : Bakr's fat burst. "Muhammad was pleased in spirit" is also converted to the subject. You say: "Muhammad's spirit was pleased," "Muhammad's spirit was pleased." So you find it is converted from what?
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject, because this *tamyiz* is called the converted *tamyiz*, converted from the subject. Now, if you say: "Zayd was noble in lineage"? Hmm?
The student: *Tamyiz*.
The Shaykh : Is this also *tamyiz*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because it is converted from what?
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject. If you wished, you would convert it and make it the subject. You would say?
The student: Muhammad's lineage was noble.
The Shaykh : Muhammad's lineage was noble. Now, you also say: "Zayd was noble or perfect in religion," hmm, is it like that?
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : Do we convert it to the subject or not?
The student: We convert it.
The Shaykh : We convert it to the subject and we say?
The student: Muhammad's religion was perfect.
The Shaykh : Muhammad's religion was perfect.
The student : Shaykh
The Shaykh : There is no question now. This is converted from what?
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the subject. It may be converted from the object. It may be converted from the object, such as His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):
And caused the earth to burst with springs
وفجّرنا الأرض عيونًاThe student: The springs of the earth.
The Shaykh : The springs of the earth.