Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "This is if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from), and if you do not intend it, it is parallel to what it is paired with."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But the author's condition is his saying:
"This is if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from)":
"This is if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from)", and if you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from)! "It is parallel to what it is paired with":
Yes, meaning that both options are permissible when? When you intend the meaning of 'min' (from). If you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from), then agreement is obligatory. So if you say: "Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, is the best of the prophets," it is known that you intended 'min' (from), meaning the best of all the prophets. Are the students of Islamic jurisprudence the best students in the world, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, did you intend 'min' (from) or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning the best of all the students in the world. So if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from), both options are permissible. And if you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from) but rather intend absolute excellence, then it must be parallel to what it is paired with, "parallel to what it is paired with". You say, for example: "So-and-so is the most just of people", you did not intend the most just of all people, but you intended that he holds the palm of excellence in justice.
And you say: "The two men are just," "Zayd and 'Amr are the just ones of the sons of So-and-so," "the just ones of the sons of So-and-so." Here, what is intended? "The most just of the sons of So-and-so" is not appropriate, because they are from the sons of So-and-so. But your intention is: that they are the just ones of the sons of So-and-so. And from this is their saying: "Al-Ashajj and Al-Naqis are the just ones of the Banu Marwan", "Al-Ashajj and Al-Naqis are the just ones of the Banu Marwan". Who is Al-Ashajj?
The student: 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz.
The Shaykh : 'Umar ibn al-'Aziz, and Al-Naqis?
The student: Yazid.
The Shaykh : Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, for he is Al-Naqis (the deficient one), because he was moderate in his gifts, not extravagant. So they called him Al-Naqis. No one is safe from the people; if he gave the most, they said he was a squanderer, and if he was moderate, they said he was deficient.
The student: Yazid, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Ibn Mu'awiyah?
The Shaykh : Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, but not Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. "The just ones of the Banu Marwan": what is intended? That they are just, not that they are the most just of all people, or the most just of all the Banu Marwan. Yes.
Now the divisions are four. What are they? The author says:
"And if to an indefinite it is added or stripped *** Then masculine and singular are imposed".
This is one thing.
The student: Not two!
The Shaykh : Two, yes, correct. Two: if it is added to an indefinite, and if it is stripped of 'al' (the definite article) and addition, then singularity and masculinity are obligatory in it.
The third: if it is paired with 'al' (the definite article), agreement is obligatory in it in all cases.
The fourth: if it is added to a definite noun, then either you intend the meaning of 'min' (from), or you do not intend it. If you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from), what is obligatory?
The student: Agreement.
The Shaykh : Agreement. And if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from), both options are permissible in it. And we read now, yes, we read the explanation.
The student: From the beginning, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Huh? Did we not read it at the beginning? Yes.
"This is if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from)":
"This is if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from)", and if you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from)! "It is parallel to what it is paired with":
Yes, meaning that both options are permissible when? When you intend the meaning of 'min' (from). If you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from), then agreement is obligatory. So if you say: "Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, is the best of the prophets," it is known that you intended 'min' (from), meaning the best of all the prophets. Are the students of Islamic jurisprudence the best students in the world, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, did you intend 'min' (from) or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning the best of all the students in the world. So if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from), both options are permissible. And if you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from) but rather intend absolute excellence, then it must be parallel to what it is paired with, "parallel to what it is paired with". You say, for example: "So-and-so is the most just of people", you did not intend the most just of all people, but you intended that he holds the palm of excellence in justice.
And you say: "The two men are just," "Zayd and 'Amr are the just ones of the sons of So-and-so," "the just ones of the sons of So-and-so." Here, what is intended? "The most just of the sons of So-and-so" is not appropriate, because they are from the sons of So-and-so. But your intention is: that they are the just ones of the sons of So-and-so. And from this is their saying: "Al-Ashajj and Al-Naqis are the just ones of the Banu Marwan", "Al-Ashajj and Al-Naqis are the just ones of the Banu Marwan". Who is Al-Ashajj?
The student: 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz.
The Shaykh : 'Umar ibn al-'Aziz, and Al-Naqis?
The student: Yazid.
The Shaykh : Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, for he is Al-Naqis (the deficient one), because he was moderate in his gifts, not extravagant. So they called him Al-Naqis. No one is safe from the people; if he gave the most, they said he was a squanderer, and if he was moderate, they said he was deficient.
The student: Yazid, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Ibn Mu'awiyah?
The Shaykh : Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, but not Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. "The just ones of the Banu Marwan": what is intended? That they are just, not that they are the most just of all people, or the most just of all the Banu Marwan. Yes.
Now the divisions are four. What are they? The author says:
"And if to an indefinite it is added or stripped *** Then masculine and singular are imposed".
This is one thing.
The student: Not two!
The Shaykh : Two, yes, correct. Two: if it is added to an indefinite, and if it is stripped of 'al' (the definite article) and addition, then singularity and masculinity are obligatory in it.
The third: if it is paired with 'al' (the definite article), agreement is obligatory in it in all cases.
The fourth: if it is added to a definite noun, then either you intend the meaning of 'min' (from), or you do not intend it. If you do not intend the meaning of 'min' (from), what is obligatory?
The student: Agreement.
The Shaykh : Agreement. And if you intend the meaning of 'min' (from), both options are permissible in it. And we read now, yes, we read the explanation.
The student: From the beginning, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Huh? Did we not read it at the beginning? Yes.