Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But in technical terminology, the author says: “It is the accused noun that explains what is ambiguous in the states”. So his saying “it is a noun” informs us that a verb cannot be a *hal*. A verb cannot be a *hal*. As for the one who says: “Zayd came hurrying”, “hurrying” is not the *hal*. The *hal* is the verbal sentence, not the verb itself. Pay attention! So his saying “noun” here excludes the verb. Therefore, a verb cannot be a *hal*. If someone were to say: “Don’t you say that in ‘Zayd is hurrying,’ the sentence ‘hurrying’ is a *hal*?” The answer is: Yes. If you say “Zayd came hurrying,” the sentence “hurrying” is a *hal*. But the *hal* is not the verb; the *hal* is the sentence. Now, “accused” (mansub) excludes the nominative and the genitive. If I say: “I passed by a man standing,” “standing” is a *hal*, even though it describes the state of the one standing and describes the act of standing, it is not a *hal* in that context. And if I say: “Zayd is standing,” “standing” is not a *hal* either. Why?
The student: It is nominative, not accusative.
The Shaykh : It is not accusative. But if I say: “Zayd came riding,” “riding” is a *hal* because it is an accusative noun. Now, “that explains what is ambiguous in the states”. “Explains” means clarifies what is ambiguous, derived from the word for ambiguity, meaning what is hidden in the states, meaning the state of the thing. “that explains what is ambiguous in the states”: means from the state of the thing. For example, if I say: “Zayd came riding,” “Zayd came riding,” “riding” clarified Zayd’s state when he came. If I only said “Zayd came,” we would not know if he came riding, walking, or being carried. We wouldn’t know. So if you say “riding,” you have explained what was ambiguous in what?
The student: In the state.
The Shaykh : In the state. So, the *hal* in technical terminology is: “the accused noun that explains what is ambiguous in the states”. “Ambiguous” means what?
The student: Hidden.
The Shaykh : Hidden. So, like your saying: “Zayd came riding.” Zayd came, and what was his state?
The student: Riding.
The Shaykh : Riding. So, it explained his state. To approximate this: the *hal* serves as an answer to “how,” because if you say “Zayd came,” the person you are addressing asks, “How did he come?” You say: “Riding.” This restricts it to being the thing that serves as an answer to “how.” “And I rode the horse saddled”, meaning with a saddle placed on it. “Saddled” is a *hal* from whom?
The student: From the riding.
The Shaykh : From the horse, not from the riding, my brothers. From the horse or from the rider?
The student: From the horse.
The Shaykh : From the horse, because it is the one that is saddled. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) brought the second example to show us that the *hal* can be from the doer and from the object acted upon. Is that correct, 'Abdullah?
The student: Me?
The Shaykh : Are you with us?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Good, say what I am saying.
The student: He brought this example to show that the *hal* comes for the object acted upon and the doer.
The Shaykh : Well done. Now, “Zayd came riding,” this *hal* is from whom?
The student: From the doer.
The Shaykh : From the doer. “I rode the horse saddled,” a *hal* from the object acted upon. Is that right or not? Now, do you say: “I looked at the tree in bloom”?
The student: It is the object of the verb.
The Shaykh : No, “I looked at the tree in bloom” (muhdharatan), a *hal* from the genitive.
The student: A *hal* from the genitive?
The Shaykh : A *hal* from the genitive. The tree is in the genitive case. So, the *hal* comes from the doer, the object acted upon, and the genitive. Is that right or not? Now, the third, the third example: “I met 'Abdullah riding”
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : “Riding”: a *hal*. “Walking” for you?
The student: Riding.
The Shaykh : I have “riding.” The example does not change even if it were “walking.” The meaning is correct and different, but the example does not change. Now: “I met 'Abdullah riding”?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : “Riding” is a *hal*, but from whom?
The student: From the one seen.
The Shaykh : Is it from the one seeing or from the one seen?
The student: From the one seen.
The Shaykh : Did I meet 'Abdullah while I was riding, or did I meet 'Abdullah while he was riding?
The student: I met 'Abdullah while he was riding.
The Shaykh : It is ambiguous, it is ambiguous, correct? We don’t know, let’s look again and search. Was this speaker riding and passed by 'Abdullah, or was 'Abdullah riding and this speaker passed by him? If it is the first: that this speaker was riding and passed by 'Abdullah, then “riding” becomes a *hal* from the doer, from “I met.” And if the meaning is that this one who met passed by 'Abdullah while he was riding, then it is a *hal* from the object acted upon. Correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Now, if I say: “I met the slave freed,” a *hal* from whom?
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : From the object acted upon or from the doer?
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : No, no.
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : The slave is the one who is freed. This is a clear indication that the slave is the one freed. Now, if I say: “I met the horse saddled”?
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : This is from the horse, necessarily, because a person does not saddle, no matter who it is. Now, in any case, the most important thing for us is that the *hal* is: “the accused noun that explains what is ambiguous in the states”. Now, sometimes a verb comes instead of a noun, but the verb is not the *hal*. The verb is the sentence. For example: “'Abdullah met me walking.” The sentence “walking”: a *hal* from 'Abdullah. We do not say: the verb is the *hal*. The sentence is the *hal*. And the proof that it is a *hal* is that if you delete the sentence and replace it with a single noun, its meaning would be “I met 'Abdullah walking.” Now, the author said: “and the like”. Let’s give examples from this. Like what?
The student: I saw Zayd’s slave riding.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: I saw Zayd’s slave riding.
The Shaykh : I saw Zayd’s slave riding, is that right? Now, there are many examples. Now, if I say: “I entered the mosque barefoot,” a *hal* from whom?
The student: From the doer.
The Shaykh : From the doer, a *hal* from the doer, because the mosque cannot be barefoot. The one who is barefoot is the one entering.
The student: It is nominative, not accusative.
The Shaykh : It is not accusative. But if I say: “Zayd came riding,” “riding” is a *hal* because it is an accusative noun. Now, “that explains what is ambiguous in the states”. “Explains” means clarifies what is ambiguous, derived from the word for ambiguity, meaning what is hidden in the states, meaning the state of the thing. “that explains what is ambiguous in the states”: means from the state of the thing. For example, if I say: “Zayd came riding,” “Zayd came riding,” “riding” clarified Zayd’s state when he came. If I only said “Zayd came,” we would not know if he came riding, walking, or being carried. We wouldn’t know. So if you say “riding,” you have explained what was ambiguous in what?
The student: In the state.
The Shaykh : In the state. So, the *hal* in technical terminology is: “the accused noun that explains what is ambiguous in the states”. “Ambiguous” means what?
The student: Hidden.
The Shaykh : Hidden. So, like your saying: “Zayd came riding.” Zayd came, and what was his state?
The student: Riding.
The Shaykh : Riding. So, it explained his state. To approximate this: the *hal* serves as an answer to “how,” because if you say “Zayd came,” the person you are addressing asks, “How did he come?” You say: “Riding.” This restricts it to being the thing that serves as an answer to “how.” “And I rode the horse saddled”, meaning with a saddle placed on it. “Saddled” is a *hal* from whom?
The student: From the riding.
The Shaykh : From the horse, not from the riding, my brothers. From the horse or from the rider?
The student: From the horse.
The Shaykh : From the horse, because it is the one that is saddled. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) brought the second example to show us that the *hal* can be from the doer and from the object acted upon. Is that correct, 'Abdullah?
The student: Me?
The Shaykh : Are you with us?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Good, say what I am saying.
The student: He brought this example to show that the *hal* comes for the object acted upon and the doer.
The Shaykh : Well done. Now, “Zayd came riding,” this *hal* is from whom?
The student: From the doer.
The Shaykh : From the doer. “I rode the horse saddled,” a *hal* from the object acted upon. Is that right or not? Now, do you say: “I looked at the tree in bloom”?
The student: It is the object of the verb.
The Shaykh : No, “I looked at the tree in bloom” (muhdharatan), a *hal* from the genitive.
The student: A *hal* from the genitive?
The Shaykh : A *hal* from the genitive. The tree is in the genitive case. So, the *hal* comes from the doer, the object acted upon, and the genitive. Is that right or not? Now, the third, the third example: “I met 'Abdullah riding”
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : “Riding”: a *hal*. “Walking” for you?
The student: Riding.
The Shaykh : I have “riding.” The example does not change even if it were “walking.” The meaning is correct and different, but the example does not change. Now: “I met 'Abdullah riding”?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : “Riding” is a *hal*, but from whom?
The student: From the one seen.
The Shaykh : Is it from the one seeing or from the one seen?
The student: From the one seen.
The Shaykh : Did I meet 'Abdullah while I was riding, or did I meet 'Abdullah while he was riding?
The student: I met 'Abdullah while he was riding.
The Shaykh : It is ambiguous, it is ambiguous, correct? We don’t know, let’s look again and search. Was this speaker riding and passed by 'Abdullah, or was 'Abdullah riding and this speaker passed by him? If it is the first: that this speaker was riding and passed by 'Abdullah, then “riding” becomes a *hal* from the doer, from “I met.” And if the meaning is that this one who met passed by 'Abdullah while he was riding, then it is a *hal* from the object acted upon. Correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Now, if I say: “I met the slave freed,” a *hal* from whom?
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : From the object acted upon or from the doer?
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : No, no.
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : The slave is the one who is freed. This is a clear indication that the slave is the one freed. Now, if I say: “I met the horse saddled”?
The student: From the object acted upon.
The Shaykh : This is from the horse, necessarily, because a person does not saddle, no matter who it is. Now, in any case, the most important thing for us is that the *hal* is: “the accused noun that explains what is ambiguous in the states”. Now, sometimes a verb comes instead of a noun, but the verb is not the *hal*. The verb is the sentence. For example: “'Abdullah met me walking.” The sentence “walking”: a *hal* from 'Abdullah. We do not say: the verb is the *hal*. The sentence is the *hal*. And the proof that it is a *hal* is that if you delete the sentence and replace it with a single noun, its meaning would be “I met 'Abdullah walking.” Now, the author said: “and the like”. Let’s give examples from this. Like what?
The student: I saw Zayd’s slave riding.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: I saw Zayd’s slave riding.
The Shaykh : I saw Zayd’s slave riding, is that right? Now, there are many examples. Now, if I say: “I entered the mosque barefoot,” a *hal* from whom?
The student: From the doer.
The Shaykh : From the doer, a *hal* from the doer, because the mosque cannot be barefoot. The one who is barefoot is the one entering.