Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And what by which one reaches to wonder, connect it *** To a blocker by which one reaches to preference, connect it."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said: "And what by which one reaches to wonder, connect it *** To a blocker by which one reaches to preference, connect it".
(may Allah have mercy on him) "And what by which one reaches to wonder, connect it *** To a blocker by which one reaches to preference, connect it".
Let us look at the grammatical parsing of the verse, because it contains fronting and postponement: "what by which": what is the parsing of "what"?
The student: A relative noun.
The Shaykh : It is a relative noun, the subject, and "by which" is a preposition and its object, connected to "connect," or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So the intended meaning is: "And what by which one connected to wonder", and his saying: "to a blocker": is connected to "connect," and his saying: "by which to preference, connect": "by which" is a preposition and its object, connected to "connect," and on this basis: "connect by which to preference", and the clause "connect" is in the position of a predicate for "what," the predicate of the subject "what," I think it is clear?!
And the construction of the verse is: "And what by which one connected to wonder by a blocker, connect by which to preference".
It is as if he is saying: one reaches in the rule, the rule is: "one reaches to preference by what cannot be formed from what? By 'ashadd' (more intense) - no, or 'ashadd' like - by 'ashadd' and its like, by 'ashadd' and its similar", this is the rule, after we said that it is not permissible to say: this carpet is redder than the carpet, and what do I say?
The student: More intense redness.
The Shaykh : I say: this is more intense redness, and after we said that it is not permissible for me to say: so-and-so is more concerned with this matter than so-and-so, here what do I say?
The student: More intense concern.
The Shaykh : More intense concern with it, and as we said that it is not permissible: so-and-so is more dead than so-and-so, here?
The student: More intense death.
The Shaykh : Okay, more intense death is the same thing, there is no difference, here?
The student: The same thing.
The Shaykh : And for this reason Ibn Malik says: "It replaces some conditions with absence", some conditions does not mean that everything when the condition is absent, one comes with 'ashadd,' he said: "some conditions".
So if you say: more intense death, it may not be correct that the intended meaning is death itself, yes, if you say: more intense death, it means more intense extraction when the soul is being extracted, perhaps, but more intense death meaning that after he dies, this becomes more intense than this?!!! It is like the dead, yes, okay: so-and-so is more blind than so-and-so, here?
The student: Correct if it is blindness of the heart.
The Shaykh : Let us leave blindness of the heart, blindness of the heart, even "blinder than so-and-so" is correct, but blindness of the sight!
The student: Blindness is one.
The Shaykh : Blindness is one, but the one whose sight is weak is not said to be: blind, it is not said blind.
The student: Blindness of the heart.
The Shaykh : Except, but let us leave blindness of the heart, they who prevent it is blindness of the sight, the person who does not see, does not see, and there is no difference, or not? There is no preference.
The student: Okay, some see the light and some do not see!!
The Shaykh : It does not become completely blind, it does not become completely blind.
The student: Blind, he does not see anything except the light.
The Shaykh : He sees something, he sees the light, meaning the equivalent of this exists, some people become deaf, they hear speech but do not distinguish it, they hear speech but do not distinguish it, or not?! You find for example he hears the sound but does not distinguish what you are saying, this is like the one who sees the thing but does not distinguish it, but he sees its light, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: Is he called deaf, this one who hears the sound and does not distinguish it?
The Shaykh : Yes, is he called? No, it is not said deaf, it appears that it is said deficient in hearing, the deaf one is the one who does not hear at all, yes, correct.
Okay, the important thing is that if we want to reach to preference of what cannot be formed from preference, here? To preference of what cannot be formed from preference, we come with 'ashadd' or its like.
(may Allah have mercy on him) "And what by which one reaches to wonder, connect it *** To a blocker by which one reaches to preference, connect it".
Let us look at the grammatical parsing of the verse, because it contains fronting and postponement: "what by which": what is the parsing of "what"?
The student: A relative noun.
The Shaykh : It is a relative noun, the subject, and "by which" is a preposition and its object, connected to "connect," or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So the intended meaning is: "And what by which one connected to wonder", and his saying: "to a blocker": is connected to "connect," and his saying: "by which to preference, connect": "by which" is a preposition and its object, connected to "connect," and on this basis: "connect by which to preference", and the clause "connect" is in the position of a predicate for "what," the predicate of the subject "what," I think it is clear?!
And the construction of the verse is: "And what by which one connected to wonder by a blocker, connect by which to preference".
It is as if he is saying: one reaches in the rule, the rule is: "one reaches to preference by what cannot be formed from what? By 'ashadd' (more intense) - no, or 'ashadd' like - by 'ashadd' and its like, by 'ashadd' and its similar", this is the rule, after we said that it is not permissible to say: this carpet is redder than the carpet, and what do I say?
The student: More intense redness.
The Shaykh : I say: this is more intense redness, and after we said that it is not permissible for me to say: so-and-so is more concerned with this matter than so-and-so, here what do I say?
The student: More intense concern.
The Shaykh : More intense concern with it, and as we said that it is not permissible: so-and-so is more dead than so-and-so, here?
The student: More intense death.
The Shaykh : Okay, more intense death is the same thing, there is no difference, here?
The student: The same thing.
The Shaykh : And for this reason Ibn Malik says: "It replaces some conditions with absence", some conditions does not mean that everything when the condition is absent, one comes with 'ashadd,' he said: "some conditions".
So if you say: more intense death, it may not be correct that the intended meaning is death itself, yes, if you say: more intense death, it means more intense extraction when the soul is being extracted, perhaps, but more intense death meaning that after he dies, this becomes more intense than this?!!! It is like the dead, yes, okay: so-and-so is more blind than so-and-so, here?
The student: Correct if it is blindness of the heart.
The Shaykh : Let us leave blindness of the heart, blindness of the heart, even "blinder than so-and-so" is correct, but blindness of the sight!
The student: Blindness is one.
The Shaykh : Blindness is one, but the one whose sight is weak is not said to be: blind, it is not said blind.
The student: Blindness of the heart.
The Shaykh : Except, but let us leave blindness of the heart, they who prevent it is blindness of the sight, the person who does not see, does not see, and there is no difference, or not? There is no preference.
The student: Okay, some see the light and some do not see!!
The Shaykh : It does not become completely blind, it does not become completely blind.
The student: Blind, he does not see anything except the light.
The Shaykh : He sees something, he sees the light, meaning the equivalent of this exists, some people become deaf, they hear speech but do not distinguish it, they hear speech but do not distinguish it, or not?! You find for example he hears the sound but does not distinguish what you are saying, this is like the one who sees the thing but does not distinguish it, but he sees its light, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: Is he called deaf, this one who hears the sound and does not distinguish it?
The Shaykh : Yes, is he called? No, it is not said deaf, it appears that it is said deficient in hearing, the deaf one is the one who does not hear at all, yes, correct.
Okay, the important thing is that if we want to reach to preference of what cannot be formed from preference, here? To preference of what cannot be formed from preference, we come with 'ashadd' or its like.