Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, if it does not directly precede it, then raising is obligatory, and the repetition of 'la' is obligatory. If it does not directly precede the indefinite noun, then according to the author's opinion, two things are obligatory: raising and the repetition of 'la'. In this case, we parse 'la' as a negation that is nullified (mughayyarah). The example is: "There is no man in the house and no woman." Abd al-Rahman ibn Dawud, is the example correct?
The student: There is no man in the house and no woman.
The Shaykh : Yes, "There is no man in the house and no woman." Look, we did not put "man" in the accusative case now. Which of the conditions was not met?
The student: Directness.
The Shaykh : Directness. It did not directly precede it. The prepositional phrase, which is the predicate, came between it and "man." So in this example, we say: "There is no man in the house." "La" is a nullified negation. "In the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to a hidden, implied predicate. And "man" is a postponed subject. Are you with me?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The author said: If it does not directly precede it, two things are obligatory: raising and the repetition of 'la'. According to the author's statement, you must say: "There is no man in the house and no woman," as he exemplified. "There is no man in the house and no woman." And it is not permissible for you to be silent and say only: "There is no man in the house." No, you must say: "and no woman." This is one of the two opinions among the grammarians, according to the author's statement. Some of them said: If it does not directly precede it, raising is obligatory, and the repetition is recommended (mustahabb) but not obligatory. The repetition is recommended but not obligatory. Which of the two is stronger?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second one. What is the reason?
The student: It is easier.
The Shaykh : Because it is easier. And I issue a ruling to you that following dispensations (rukhas) in the chapter of grammar is permissible, but in the chapter of jurisprudence it is not permissible. All right, so we say: The stronger opinion is that the repetition is recommended (mustahabb) and not obligatory. So, is it permissible for me to say on this basis: "There is no man in the house" only? Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. And according to the author's opinion? It is not permissible. You must say "and no woman." You must say "and no woman." If you limit it to the first 'la', it is prohibited according to the author. But we say: It is not prohibited, rather it is leaving out the most eloquent form. The most eloquent form is to repeat it, but if you do not repeat it, there is no harm. All right, if I say: "There is no book in the drawer" only, whose opinion is this?
The student: The second opinion.
The Shaykh : The second opinion. But according to the author's opinion, you must say: "There is no book in the drawer and nothing else," or "and no pen." "There is no book in the drawer and nothing else." Correct? That is why a person asks you: "Is there anyone in the house?" He says: "There are no men and no women?" And according to the second opinion, it is valid to say: "There are no men." Yes, but according to the author's opinion, he says: Give me the counterpart. "There are no men and no women." All right, this is if it does not directly precede it. Did the author stipulate this?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : All right, it comes to you. If it is repeated, because we stipulated three conditions: that its noun and its predicate be indefinite, that it directly precede it, and that it not be repeated. If it does not directly precede it, you know the ruling: raising is obligatory. What else? And the repetition according to the author's opinion. And according to the second opinion: the repetition is recommended (mustahabb). As for the parsing, it is apparent, because you say: "There is no man in the house." "La" is merely a nullified negation. And "in the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to a hidden, fronted predicate. And "man" is a postponed subject, raised, and its sign of raising is the visible dammah at its end. And "wa" is a conjunction particle. And "la" is a negation. And "woman" is conjoined to what? To "man." Nullified, yes, nullified. And "woman" is conjoined to "man." And what is conjoined to a raised noun is raised, and its sign of raising is the visible dammah at its end. What do you say, Ya Khalid, if it does not directly precede it?
The student: If it does not directly precede it, according to the author's opinion, raising and the repetition of 'la' are obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Some of them said raising is obligatory, and the repetition is not a condition.
The Shaykh : And the repetition is not obligatory, but the repetition is better.
The student: There is no man in the house and no woman.
The Shaykh : Yes, "There is no man in the house and no woman." Look, we did not put "man" in the accusative case now. Which of the conditions was not met?
The student: Directness.
The Shaykh : Directness. It did not directly precede it. The prepositional phrase, which is the predicate, came between it and "man." So in this example, we say: "There is no man in the house." "La" is a nullified negation. "In the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to a hidden, implied predicate. And "man" is a postponed subject. Are you with me?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The author said: If it does not directly precede it, two things are obligatory: raising and the repetition of 'la'. According to the author's statement, you must say: "There is no man in the house and no woman," as he exemplified. "There is no man in the house and no woman." And it is not permissible for you to be silent and say only: "There is no man in the house." No, you must say: "and no woman." This is one of the two opinions among the grammarians, according to the author's statement. Some of them said: If it does not directly precede it, raising is obligatory, and the repetition is recommended (mustahabb) but not obligatory. The repetition is recommended but not obligatory. Which of the two is stronger?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second one. What is the reason?
The student: It is easier.
The Shaykh : Because it is easier. And I issue a ruling to you that following dispensations (rukhas) in the chapter of grammar is permissible, but in the chapter of jurisprudence it is not permissible. All right, so we say: The stronger opinion is that the repetition is recommended (mustahabb) and not obligatory. So, is it permissible for me to say on this basis: "There is no man in the house" only? Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. And according to the author's opinion? It is not permissible. You must say "and no woman." You must say "and no woman." If you limit it to the first 'la', it is prohibited according to the author. But we say: It is not prohibited, rather it is leaving out the most eloquent form. The most eloquent form is to repeat it, but if you do not repeat it, there is no harm. All right, if I say: "There is no book in the drawer" only, whose opinion is this?
The student: The second opinion.
The Shaykh : The second opinion. But according to the author's opinion, you must say: "There is no book in the drawer and nothing else," or "and no pen." "There is no book in the drawer and nothing else." Correct? That is why a person asks you: "Is there anyone in the house?" He says: "There are no men and no women?" And according to the second opinion, it is valid to say: "There are no men." Yes, but according to the author's opinion, he says: Give me the counterpart. "There are no men and no women." All right, this is if it does not directly precede it. Did the author stipulate this?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : All right, it comes to you. If it is repeated, because we stipulated three conditions: that its noun and its predicate be indefinite, that it directly precede it, and that it not be repeated. If it does not directly precede it, you know the ruling: raising is obligatory. What else? And the repetition according to the author's opinion. And according to the second opinion: the repetition is recommended (mustahabb). As for the parsing, it is apparent, because you say: "There is no man in the house." "La" is merely a nullified negation. And "in the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to a hidden, fronted predicate. And "man" is a postponed subject, raised, and its sign of raising is the visible dammah at its end. And "wa" is a conjunction particle. And "la" is a negation. And "woman" is conjoined to what? To "man." Nullified, yes, nullified. And "woman" is conjoined to "man." And what is conjoined to a raised noun is raised, and its sign of raising is the visible dammah at its end. What do you say, Ya Khalid, if it does not directly precede it?
The student: If it does not directly precede it, according to the author's opinion, raising and the repetition of 'la' are obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Some of them said raising is obligatory, and the repetition is not a condition.
The Shaykh : And the repetition is not obligatory, but the repetition is better.