Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And in 'ab and its two successors, the reduction is rare *** And its shortening is more famous than its reduction."

The Shaykh :"And in 'ab and its two successors, the reduction is rare" The pronoun in "reduction" refers to the reduction. It refers to the reduction. And what are its two successors? In 'ab and its two successors, there are akh (brother) and ham (father-in-law). Akh and ham mean that the reduction is rare in them, meaning it is less common. And what is the reduction? That you decline it with visible movements on its end: you raise it with a dammah, you accuse it with a fathah, and you genitive it with a kasrah. And on this basis, the poet said:
"Adi followed his father in generosity *** And whoever resembles his father has not wronged"
He did not say "he followed his father" and he did not say "whoever resembles his father"
"Adi followed his father in generosity *** And whoever resembles his father has not wronged"
Akh, what do we say? You say: This is Zayd's brother. This is Zayd's brother. I saw Zayd's brother. And I passed by Zayd's brother. By Zayd's brother. And it appears that our colloquial language follows this language, or not? Meaning, sometimes it is like this and sometimes like that. Sometimes he says "this is his brother," yes, and sometimes he says to you "O brother." But if he says "O brother," he is correct because it is not attached, yes.
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : This is so-and-so's sister. This is so-and-so's sister.
The student: It is said all with the nominative case.

The Shaykh : Ah
The student: It is said all with the nominative case.

The Shaykh : It is all, in any case, there is no declension in the colloquial language. Now, pay attention, everyone.
"And in 'ab and its two successors, the reduction is rare" We said the pronoun refers to what? The reduction. "And its shortening" meaning the shortening of 'ab and its two successors. "is more famous than its reduction" More famous than its reduction. Its shortening is more famous than its reduction.
And by this, we know that for 'ab, akh, and ham, three languages are permissible: the completion, the reduction, and the shortening. Correct. What is the completion? That you raise it with a waw, you accuse it with an alif, and you genitive it with a ya. The reduction is that you raise it with a dammah, you accuse it with a fathah, and you genitive it with a kasrah. And the shortening is that it is always with an alif, so you decline it with movements estimated on the alif. How many languages? Three. Now, you say: This is 'aba Zayd. I saw 'aba Zayd. And I passed by 'aba Zayd. And on this basis, the poet's saying came:
"Indeed, her father and her father's father have reached *** The peak of glory"
"Indeed, her father and her father's father have reached *** The peak of glory"
The evidence is in his saying: "and her father's father" If he had declined it with letters, he would have said: and her father's father has reached the peak of glory. Did you understand?
So, three languages. I will pronounce them now. This is Abu Zayd. I honored Abu Zayd. And I was amazed by Abu Zayd. What is this? This is the completion. We raised it with the waw, we accused it with the alif, and we genitive it with the ya.
This is 'aba Zayd. I honored 'aba Zayd. And I was amazed by 'aba Zayd. This is the shortening. It is an eloquent language, but the first one is more eloquent. Now.
This is Ab Zayd. I honored Ab Zayd. And I was amazed by Ab Zayd. This is the reduction.
So, three languages are permissible in it:
The completion is that you decline it with letters: raised with the waw. Follow me. Accused with the alif. And genitive with the ya.
The shortening is that you decline it with movements estimated on the alif. The alif is obligatory for it. It is always with the alif. And you decline it with movements estimated on the alif.
The reduction is that you decline it with visible movements without an alif. Do you understand now?
Now, what suits you, O students who are beginners, is the shortening, because you will not make a mistake. If someone says: "Abu Zayd came," the second person says to him: "Pay attention." He says: "I am on the language of shortening." Correct. If he says: "I passed by 'aba Zayd," he says: "Pay attention." He says: "I am with the shorteners." If he says: "I honored 'aba Zayd," he does not say anything to him now, because the two languages are the same, but we differ in the declension.
We want to decline "Abu Zayd came."
*Jaa'a*: Past tense verb.
And Abu: is the subject, raised, and its sign of raising is the waw in place of the dammah, because it is from the names.
The student: The five.

The Shaykh : The six, according to the opinion of Ibn Malik. Yes, even though the more famous opinion differs from that. Now, Abu is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is the visible kasrah on its end.
I honored Abu Zayd.
I honored: verb and subject.
And Abu: is the object, accused, and its sign of accusation is the alif in place of the fathah, because it is from the six names. Abu is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
I was amazed by Abu Zayd.
I was amazed: verb and subject.
And min: is a preposition.
And Abu: is a name genitive by min, and its sign of genitive is the ya in place of the kasrah, because it is from the six names. And Abu is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
Decline it on the shortening. You say: "Abu Zayd came."
Came: is a past tense verb, built on the fathah.
Abu: is the subject, raised, and its sign of raising is a dammah estimated on the alif, prevented from appearing by impossibility. Abu is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
I honored 'aba Zayd. I honored 'aba Zayd.
I honored: verb and subject.
'Abu: is the object, accused, and its sign of accusation is, ah, a fathah estimated on the alif, prevented from appearing by impossibility. And 'Abu is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
But if someone asks: Why did you decline it with an estimated fathah? Why did you not say its sign of accusation is the alif in place of the fathah? I say: Because I knew from the speaker that he uses it in the shortened form. And in that case, there must be a sign. There must be a sign, such as the speaker saying: "I honored 'aba Zayd and I was amazed by 'aba Zayd." But if there is no sign, then we decline it on what? On the original, that it is accused with the alif in place of the fathah. Now, what remains for us? A third language?
The student: The reduction.

The Shaykh : The reduction. The genitive.
I passed by 'aba Zayd.
I passed: verb and subject.
By 'aba Zayd: The ba is a preposition, and 'aba is a name genitive by the ba, and its sign of genitive is a kasrah estimated on the alif, prevented from appearing by impossibility. And 'aba is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
The reduction: "Ab Zayd came."
*Jaa'a*: Past tense verb.
Ab: is the subject, raised, and its sign of raising is a visible dammah on its end. Correct. Ab is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
I saw Ab Zayd. I honored. Better. Let us take examples. I honored Ab Zayd.
I honored: verb and subject.
And Ab: is the object, accused, and its sign of accusation is a visible fathah on its end. And Ab is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
I was amazed by Ab Zayd. I was amazed: verb and subject. And min: is a preposition. And Ab: is a name genitive by min, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end. And Ab is attached, and Zayd is the attached-to, genitive by attachment, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah on its end.
So if someone asks: If I want to compose speech now, which of the three languages do I follow? The most eloquent, which is that you decline it as complete: raised with the waw, accused with the alif, and genitive with the ya. Because we now do not have a choice. We do not have the option. Because it is good for us to follow what? The most eloquent of the speech of the Arabs. And the most eloquent of the speech of the Arabs is what the Qur'an pronounced. Allah the Exalted said: And He did not say: "to 'abakum" or "abakum." And He said: And He did not say: "Inna 'abna." And what remains for us? The genitive. The genitive remains for us. The nominative.
The student: .

The Shaykh : And He did not say "Abana" and He did not say "Abna."
So, we now, if we want to speak or if we want to compose a book, we follow the eloquent language. But if it becomes narrow for us and we make a mistake in the eloquent language and we bring the raised with the alif, yes, there is a jackal's tunnel. What do we say? A language. We say: A language. Correct. So, know the languages. The benefit of knowing these languages is:
First: That if we come across from the speech of the Arabs, in poetry or prose, something contrary to the eloquent language, we know that it is a language and that it is not a typographical error or an error in transmission.
Second: When the standard methods become difficult for us, we find a way out. We find a way out now. Many of the mu'adhdhins say: "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." If we were to follow the standard Arabic language in this sentence, we would say that his adhan is not valid; his adhan is invalid because the predicate has not yet come, so the sentence is not complete. "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"—okay, and "I bear witness" what? The predicate must be provided, so he would say, for example: "I bear witness that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, is a truthful prophet," or "I bear witness that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, is the servant of Allah and His Messenger." Even though the sentence is complete, we say: In excuse for this man, there is a language—indeed, there is a dialect—that permits placing both parts of the sentence in the accusative case with "inna," meaning it makes "inna" put both its subject and its predicate in the accusative. This mu'adhdhin is following this dialect, even though he does not know the language. But if you asked him, "What is the meaning of 'I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah'?" he would say: "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." So the meaning he intends is correct, but the expression does not indicate it.
Also included in this is the saying of some mu'adhdhins—when the time has ended, teach me—some mu'adhdhins say "Allahu akbar" with a waw. If we took the standard Arabic language, we would say this does not hold up, because you did not complete the sentence; you brought a waw of conjunction. But there is a language, which is also standard, though rare, that permits replacing the hamzah with a waw when the preceding letter is in the dammah case. It permits what? Replacing the hamzah with a waw when the preceding letter is in the dammah case. Here, the hamzah has a dammah before it, so it is permissible to say: "Allahu akbar."
The student: ... the mu'adhdhin ...

The Shaykh : No, no, a mu'adhdhin, if Allah wills. No, there is nothing wrong. Ah, no, a mu'adhdhin, and praise be to Allah. Yes.
The student: ... Allahu akbar.

The Shaykh : Who?
The student: ... .