Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And acting as a substitute for the verb without *** being affected, and without any original need."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And acting as a substitute for the verb without being affected" Pay attention, is this the third or the fourth? It is the third: the resemblance in substitution. The resemblance in substitution means that the particle resembles the verb in its function, without being affected. Without being affected by the grammatical factors, because the particle functions but is not affected. It functions, but nothing functions in it. Right? Yes, it remains as it is, but it functions in [the noun]. It causes the genitive case, but nothing causes a case in it. If you say, for example, "I sat in the mosque," you have "sat" as a verb and a subject, and "in" as a preposition. What does it do? The preposition "in" makes "mosque" genitive. Now, "in" functioned, but nothing functioned in it. So, what resembles the particle in this aspect—becoming something that functions but in which nothing functions—is indeclinable. What is this? They said: This is the name of the verb. This is the name of the verb. Therefore, all names of the verb are indeclinable.
For the sake of Allah, which is easier: to tell people that all names of the verb are indeclinable, or to say that what resembles the particle in that it functions but in which nothing functions is indeclinable? Or to say, as Ibn Malik said, after "acting as a substitute without being affected," that it acts as a substitute for the verb without being affected? We have three sentences: All names of the verb are indeclinable. What resembles the particle in that it functions but in which nothing functions is indeclinable. Go back to the word of the Arabs; open the dictionary from beginning to end. The one that functions but in which nothing functions. Third: What acts as a substitute for the verb without being affected by the factors is indeclinable. Which is easier? The first. So we say: Names of the verb are indeclinable, and we are done. Good.
His saying: "And acting as a substitute for the verb without being affected" means that it functions but in which nothing functions. This excludes the verbal noun that acts as a substitute for its verb, because it acts as a substitute for the verb, but it is affected. For example, if you say "Zidra" meaning "Strike Zayd," the word "Zidra" here is not indeclinable, even though it functions and nothing functions in it, because it is affected by the factors. It is affected by the factors, so it is not indeclinable. Good.
So, the verbal noun that functions like its verb is excluded, because it is not indeclinable. Why, my brothers? Because it is affected by the factors. Because it is affected by the factors. The word "strike": you say, "I like Zayd striking 'Amr," and you say, "I denied Zayd striking 'Amr," and you say, "I was surprised by Zayd striking 'Amr." Do you find the word "strike" affected or not? It is affected by the factors. So, it is excluded by Ibn Malik's (may Allah have mercy on him) saying "without being affected."
The fourth resemblance: He said: "And without any original need" "Without any original need" means a resemblance in original need. By this, he refers to the relative pronouns. By this, he refers to the relative pronouns. If Ibn Malik or any other scholar had said "and the relative pronouns," which is clearer: to say "and what resembles the particle in original need," or to say "and the relative pronouns"? Ah, the second. So, all relative pronouns are indeclinable. All relative pronouns are indeclinable. He guarded against [other cases] by his saying: "Without any original need". He guarded against the case where the need is incidental, because if the need is incidental, it does not necessitate indeclinability. If the need is incidental, it does not necessitate indeclinability. An example of incidental need: the description of an indefinite noun. The description of an indefinite noun is incidental. You say: "I passed by a man who complains of pain in his leg." You want to clarify the state of the man, so you must say "who complains of pain in his leg." But this need, what is it? It is incidental. It is incidental. If you wanted not to clarify and said, "I passed by a man," the sentence is correct. Good. Also, the need must be for a sentence or something similar to it. If the need is for a single word, the word is not indeclinable. For example, "Subhan" (Glory be to Allah). "Subhan" is in need of the genitive case because it is always in the genitive case; it does not come alone. And yet, it is declinable. Why? Because its need is for something other than a sentence, not for a sentence.
Good. The relative pronouns, so they are indeclinable. And "idha" (if/when) is in need of a sentence, so it is indeclinable. Even though we can do without it by saying: "Idha" (if/when). If it is an adverb of time, the correct cause for indeclinability is the need [for a sentence]. But if it is a conditional particle, it resembles the particle in what? In meaning. Let us go back to know what the indeclinable nouns are. What are the indeclinable nouns? The pronouns, taken from the author's saying: "Like the names of 'we came to you'". The conditional nouns, from his saying: "When". The interrogative nouns, from his saying: "When". The demonstrative nouns, from his saying: "Here". The names of the verb, from his saying: "And acting as a substitute for the verb without being affected". The relative pronouns, from his saying: "And without any original need". So, the author mentioned for us six categories of indeclinable nouns. Recite them.
The student: First, the pronouns.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: "Like the names of 'we came to you'" The interrogative nouns and the conditional nouns.
The Shaykh : From his saying.
The student: From his saying: "When" "When" is for interrogative nouns, and "here" is for conditional nouns. "When" comes for conditional nouns, and "when" comes for interrogative nouns.
The Shaykh : So, the conditional and interrogative nouns are from his saying: "When". Ah, the fourth.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : The demonstrative nouns.
The student: The demonstrative nouns.
The Shaykh : In his saying: "Here" From his saying: "Here".
The student: "Acting as a substitute for the verb without being affected" This is... the names of the agent.
The Shaykh : Asma'.
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : Do not confuse them.
The student: Nouns.
The Shaykh : The names of the verb are not the names of the agent. The names of the agent are declinable. The names of the verb are like this. Good.
The student: Without being affected.
The Shaykh : And the sixth.
The student: Without being affected. The names of the verb... the relative pronouns.
The Shaykh : The relative pronouns, like this. These are the indeclinable nouns. Good.
Do indeclinable nouns get affected by the factors? Ah, no. That is why you say: "The one who, if he promised, kept his word, came," and "I honored the one who, if he promised, kept his word," and "I passed by the one who, if he promised, kept his word." Did "the one who" change? It did not change, because it is indeclinable, and the indeclinable does not change with the variation of factors.
For the sake of Allah, which is easier: to tell people that all names of the verb are indeclinable, or to say that what resembles the particle in that it functions but in which nothing functions is indeclinable? Or to say, as Ibn Malik said, after "acting as a substitute without being affected," that it acts as a substitute for the verb without being affected? We have three sentences: All names of the verb are indeclinable. What resembles the particle in that it functions but in which nothing functions is indeclinable. Go back to the word of the Arabs; open the dictionary from beginning to end. The one that functions but in which nothing functions. Third: What acts as a substitute for the verb without being affected by the factors is indeclinable. Which is easier? The first. So we say: Names of the verb are indeclinable, and we are done. Good.
His saying: "And acting as a substitute for the verb without being affected" means that it functions but in which nothing functions. This excludes the verbal noun that acts as a substitute for its verb, because it acts as a substitute for the verb, but it is affected. For example, if you say "Zidra" meaning "Strike Zayd," the word "Zidra" here is not indeclinable, even though it functions and nothing functions in it, because it is affected by the factors. It is affected by the factors, so it is not indeclinable. Good.
So, the verbal noun that functions like its verb is excluded, because it is not indeclinable. Why, my brothers? Because it is affected by the factors. Because it is affected by the factors. The word "strike": you say, "I like Zayd striking 'Amr," and you say, "I denied Zayd striking 'Amr," and you say, "I was surprised by Zayd striking 'Amr." Do you find the word "strike" affected or not? It is affected by the factors. So, it is excluded by Ibn Malik's (may Allah have mercy on him) saying "without being affected."
The fourth resemblance: He said: "And without any original need" "Without any original need" means a resemblance in original need. By this, he refers to the relative pronouns. By this, he refers to the relative pronouns. If Ibn Malik or any other scholar had said "and the relative pronouns," which is clearer: to say "and what resembles the particle in original need," or to say "and the relative pronouns"? Ah, the second. So, all relative pronouns are indeclinable. All relative pronouns are indeclinable. He guarded against [other cases] by his saying: "Without any original need". He guarded against the case where the need is incidental, because if the need is incidental, it does not necessitate indeclinability. If the need is incidental, it does not necessitate indeclinability. An example of incidental need: the description of an indefinite noun. The description of an indefinite noun is incidental. You say: "I passed by a man who complains of pain in his leg." You want to clarify the state of the man, so you must say "who complains of pain in his leg." But this need, what is it? It is incidental. It is incidental. If you wanted not to clarify and said, "I passed by a man," the sentence is correct. Good. Also, the need must be for a sentence or something similar to it. If the need is for a single word, the word is not indeclinable. For example, "Subhan" (Glory be to Allah). "Subhan" is in need of the genitive case because it is always in the genitive case; it does not come alone. And yet, it is declinable. Why? Because its need is for something other than a sentence, not for a sentence.
Good. The relative pronouns, so they are indeclinable. And "idha" (if/when) is in need of a sentence, so it is indeclinable. Even though we can do without it by saying: "Idha" (if/when). If it is an adverb of time, the correct cause for indeclinability is the need [for a sentence]. But if it is a conditional particle, it resembles the particle in what? In meaning. Let us go back to know what the indeclinable nouns are. What are the indeclinable nouns? The pronouns, taken from the author's saying: "Like the names of 'we came to you'". The conditional nouns, from his saying: "When". The interrogative nouns, from his saying: "When". The demonstrative nouns, from his saying: "Here". The names of the verb, from his saying: "And acting as a substitute for the verb without being affected". The relative pronouns, from his saying: "And without any original need". So, the author mentioned for us six categories of indeclinable nouns. Recite them.
The student: First, the pronouns.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: "Like the names of 'we came to you'" The interrogative nouns and the conditional nouns.
The Shaykh : From his saying.
The student: From his saying: "When" "When" is for interrogative nouns, and "here" is for conditional nouns. "When" comes for conditional nouns, and "when" comes for interrogative nouns.
The Shaykh : So, the conditional and interrogative nouns are from his saying: "When". Ah, the fourth.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : The demonstrative nouns.
The student: The demonstrative nouns.
The Shaykh : In his saying: "Here" From his saying: "Here".
The student: "Acting as a substitute for the verb without being affected" This is... the names of the agent.
The Shaykh : Asma'.
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : Do not confuse them.
The student: Nouns.
The Shaykh : The names of the verb are not the names of the agent. The names of the agent are declinable. The names of the verb are like this. Good.
The student: Without being affected.
The Shaykh : And the sixth.
The student: Without being affected. The names of the verb... the relative pronouns.
The Shaykh : The relative pronouns, like this. These are the indeclinable nouns. Good.
Do indeclinable nouns get affected by the factors? Ah, no. That is why you say: "The one who, if he promised, kept his word, came," and "I honored the one who, if he promised, kept his word," and "I passed by the one who, if he promised, kept his word." Did "the one who" change? It did not change, because it is indeclinable, and the indeclinable does not change with the variation of factors.