Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, the author says: If this is repeated, is this the opposite of his statement?
The student: That it is not repeated.
The Shaykh : This is the opposite of his statement: "and it was not repeated." In the first case, he said: If it is repeated, it is permissible to use it as a negator or to cancel it.
The student: And if it is repeated, it falls under ...
The Shaykh : ... in the case where it directly precedes the noun, yes. If it is repeated, it is permissible to use it as a negator. If you wish, you may say: "There is no man in the house and no woman," and if you wish, you may say: "There is no man in the house and no woman." Do you understand, everyone? If it is repeated, meaning with direct precedence. If it is repeated with direct precedence, meaning that the absence of direct precedence has been established for us. According to the author's opinion, it is necessary to ...?
The student: The raising.
The Shaykh : If it does not directly precede the noun, raising the noun and repeating the particle are obligatory. But our discussion now is if it directly precedes the noun and is repeated; in that case, both using it as a negator and canceling it are permissible. Look, this has three cases now. Did we understand? It has three cases: it directly precedes the noun and is not repeated, right?
The student: Making it accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Accusative case is obligatory. It does not directly precede the noun?
The student: Raising is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Raising and repetition are obligatory. If it directly precedes the noun and is repeated, both options are permissible: accusative and nominative. You say: "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), or "and no woman" (nominative). Or is this for choice? Is it for questioning? "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), "There is no man in the house and no woman" (nominative). Look at the word: how "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative)
The student: And no woman.
The Shaykh : Hm?
The student: All of it ... and no woman ...
The Shaykh : The author says: And no woman (accusative), right?
The student: This is based on cancellation, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : If you wish, you may say: "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), and "no woman" without tanwin. All right, so what you have is better: "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), meaning "and no woman" (accusative) in the house. Grammarians refer to this as "There is no power or strength except by Allah," instead of the author's: "There is no man in the house and no woman." And there is a battle; do you want us to engage in the battle now or the next night?
The student: The next night.
The Shaykh : Like that? If Allah wills, the next night. All right.
The student: That it is not repeated.
The Shaykh : This is the opposite of his statement: "and it was not repeated." In the first case, he said: If it is repeated, it is permissible to use it as a negator or to cancel it.
The student: And if it is repeated, it falls under ...
The Shaykh : ... in the case where it directly precedes the noun, yes. If it is repeated, it is permissible to use it as a negator. If you wish, you may say: "There is no man in the house and no woman," and if you wish, you may say: "There is no man in the house and no woman." Do you understand, everyone? If it is repeated, meaning with direct precedence. If it is repeated with direct precedence, meaning that the absence of direct precedence has been established for us. According to the author's opinion, it is necessary to ...?
The student: The raising.
The Shaykh : If it does not directly precede the noun, raising the noun and repeating the particle are obligatory. But our discussion now is if it directly precedes the noun and is repeated; in that case, both using it as a negator and canceling it are permissible. Look, this has three cases now. Did we understand? It has three cases: it directly precedes the noun and is not repeated, right?
The student: Making it accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Accusative case is obligatory. It does not directly precede the noun?
The student: Raising is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Raising and repetition are obligatory. If it directly precedes the noun and is repeated, both options are permissible: accusative and nominative. You say: "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), or "and no woman" (nominative). Or is this for choice? Is it for questioning? "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), "There is no man in the house and no woman" (nominative). Look at the word: how "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative)
The student: And no woman.
The Shaykh : Hm?
The student: All of it ... and no woman ...
The Shaykh : The author says: And no woman (accusative), right?
The student: This is based on cancellation, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : If you wish, you may say: "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), and "no woman" without tanwin. All right, so what you have is better: "There is no man in the house and no woman" (accusative), meaning "and no woman" (accusative) in the house. Grammarians refer to this as "There is no power or strength except by Allah," instead of the author's: "There is no man in the house and no woman." And there is a battle; do you want us to engage in the battle now or the next night?
The student: The next night.
The Shaykh : Like that? If Allah wills, the next night. All right.