Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the plural of the tamyiz and the apparent fa'il have appeared *** In them there is a disagreement that has become famous among them."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said:
"And the plural of the tamyiz and the apparent fa'il have appeared *** In them there is a disagreement that has become famous among them"
When he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned that they raise a hidden pronoun that is explained by them, it is as if a questioner is asking: Do they also raise an apparent noun when a tamyiz is present? Do they raise an apparent noun with the presence of a tamyiz or not? The author says: There is disagreement in this; there is disagreement regarding the plural of the tamyiz and the apparent fa'il. Some say: It is not permissible to combine the fa'il and the tamyiz, because the meaning of that is that we have combined the explainer and what? and the explained, and this is redundancy in speech with no need for it. And some said: It is permissible, it is permissible because it is from the category of emphasis, as if we are emphasizing them: How many times? Twice. An example of that is: "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion." "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion." Here we have combined the fa'il and the tamyiz. So some said: This is prohibited. And some said: It is not prohibited, rather it is permissible. Yes? Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), which one did he prefer? He did not prefer anything; he stated the disagreement openly. And we have mentioned a rule we follow, which is that if no clear evidence from the language is established, we follow the easier path. So we say: It is permissible for you to combine the tamyiz and the fa'il, and it is permissible for you not to combine them. So if someone says: "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion," we say: Correct. And if someone says: "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion," we say: Correct. Yes?
The student : Conciseness is better than elaboration.
The Shaykh : Yes, but elaboration, when it has the benefit of emphasis, is permissible. Yes.
The student : Those who say it is permissible have evidence from poetry.
The Shaykh : Yes, the one who says it is a choice.
The student : From the category of ease.
The Shaykh : Yes "And the Taghlibis, what a bad stallion is their stallion *** A stallion, and their mother is a loud, clear-voiced mare"
I seek refuge in Allah, they have no good in them; their stallions have no good in them, and their mother is likewise. The Taghlibis, what a bad stallion is their stallion, a stallion. Look now, "bad" is a past tense verb, and "stallion" is the fa'il, and "their stallion" is the subject (mubtada'), and "a stallion" is the tamyiz. Yes. As for "and their mother is a loud, clear-voiced mare," that is an independent sentence, okay?
The student : Those who prohibited it, how do they respond to this?
The Shaykh : Simply, the response of the grammarians is that they say it is anomalous and rare, and that is it, and it ends. It is not a problem, because they do not have texts where we say, "By Allah, we are afraid we will contradict it and sin." How easy... Therefore, it has passed us many times that they say: The argument of the grammarian is like the burrow of the jerboa. Yes, do you know the burrow of the jerboa?
The student: It is well known.
The Shaykh : It appears some of them do not know it. Ah, it is known, good. It is blocked with the door and moves with that, you do not know about it. Yes, good. Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said.
"And the plural of the tamyiz and the apparent fa'il have appeared *** In them there is a disagreement that has become famous among them"
When he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned that they raise a hidden pronoun that is explained by them, it is as if a questioner is asking: Do they also raise an apparent noun when a tamyiz is present? Do they raise an apparent noun with the presence of a tamyiz or not? The author says: There is disagreement in this; there is disagreement regarding the plural of the tamyiz and the apparent fa'il. Some say: It is not permissible to combine the fa'il and the tamyiz, because the meaning of that is that we have combined the explainer and what? and the explained, and this is redundancy in speech with no need for it. And some said: It is permissible, it is permissible because it is from the category of emphasis, as if we are emphasizing them: How many times? Twice. An example of that is: "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion." "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion." Here we have combined the fa'il and the tamyiz. So some said: This is prohibited. And some said: It is not prohibited, rather it is permissible. Yes? Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), which one did he prefer? He did not prefer anything; he stated the disagreement openly. And we have mentioned a rule we follow, which is that if no clear evidence from the language is established, we follow the easier path. So we say: It is permissible for you to combine the tamyiz and the fa'il, and it is permissible for you not to combine them. So if someone says: "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion," we say: Correct. And if someone says: "What a good group of men, a group of men, is their companion," we say: Correct. Yes?
The student : Conciseness is better than elaboration.
The Shaykh : Yes, but elaboration, when it has the benefit of emphasis, is permissible. Yes.
The student : Those who say it is permissible have evidence from poetry.
The Shaykh : Yes, the one who says it is a choice.
The student : From the category of ease.
The Shaykh : Yes "And the Taghlibis, what a bad stallion is their stallion *** A stallion, and their mother is a loud, clear-voiced mare"
I seek refuge in Allah, they have no good in them; their stallions have no good in them, and their mother is likewise. The Taghlibis, what a bad stallion is their stallion, a stallion. Look now, "bad" is a past tense verb, and "stallion" is the fa'il, and "their stallion" is the subject (mubtada'), and "a stallion" is the tamyiz. Yes. As for "and their mother is a loud, clear-voiced mare," that is an independent sentence, okay?
The student : Those who prohibited it, how do they respond to this?
The Shaykh : Simply, the response of the grammarians is that they say it is anomalous and rare, and that is it, and it ends. It is not a problem, because they do not have texts where we say, "By Allah, we are afraid we will contradict it and sin." How easy... Therefore, it has passed us many times that they say: The argument of the grammarian is like the burrow of the jerboa. Yes, do you know the burrow of the jerboa?
The student: It is well known.
The Shaykh : It appears some of them do not know it. Ah, it is known, good. It is blocked with the door and moves with that, you do not know about it. Yes, good. Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said.