Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it, in the case of singularity and masculinity, or *** otherwise, is like the verb, so stop where they stopped"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And it, in the case of singularity and masculinity, or *** otherwise, is like the verb, so stop where they stopped":
Now, "and it": the pronoun refers back to the attribute (na't), "in the case of": means "at" or "in the state of", "singularity": means that which is tawhid al-rububiyyah, tawhid al-uluhiyyah, and tawhid al-asma' wa al-sifat!!
The student: Singularity (al-ifrad).
The Shaykh : No, tawhid in every context is according to its context. Now we are speaking about grammar, so what is the meaning of tawhid in grammar?
The student: Singularity (al-ifrad).
The Shaykh : Singularity, now, "and masculinity": what is it?! The masculine.
"or otherwise": other than singularity, namely the dual and the plural, because it is either singular: like Zayd, or dual: like the two Zayds, or plural: like the Zayds, or like the two Zayds, now.
"or otherwise is like the verb": "like the verb" here is the predicate (khabar) of the subject (mubtada'), where is the subject? It, meaning it in these matters is like the verb. How many matters are with us now?
Singularity, dual, plural, masculinity, and femininity, these are five. It in these five is like the verb; it follows what comes before it. It becomes like the verb: if it refers back to what is before it, it follows it; and if it is an attribute describing something else, it follows that described thing. I don't know, we are speaking about the Arabic language, it seems!!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : We say: if it is with respect to singularity and masculinity and their opposites, if it is an attribute describing the described noun, it follows it in that; if it is an attribute describing something else, it follows that other thing. Now we say: let us give an example so that it becomes clear by example. You say: I passed by a man standing, right?
The student: An attribute describing the described noun.
The Shaykh : Is this an attribute describing the described noun?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It follows the described noun, it becomes singular masculine, because the described noun is "man," which is singular masculine. Complete. I passed by a woman sitting, "sitting": an attribute for the woman, so it follows her. So the woman is singular feminine, and "sitting"?
The student: Singular feminine.
The Shaykh : Singular feminine. I passed by men standing, I passed by men standing, correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because "men" is plural, and "standing" is an attribute for the men, so it follows them. I passed by women sitting, right?
The student: Yes, correct.
The Shaykh : Is it authentic?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, this is if the attribute is describing the described noun, it follows it. As if you said: I passed by a man who stood, I passed by a woman who sat, I passed by men who stood, I passed by women?!
The student: They sat.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: They sat.
The Shaykh : They sat. We left the example as "standing" and "sitting" so that no one says: you mixed the men with the women. Let the men be standing and the women be sitting.
Now you also say: I passed by two men standing, and I passed by two women sitting, just as you say: I passed by two men who stood, and two women who sat, like the verb, exactly like the verb. Now, but if the attribute is describing something else, it has the ruling of the verb with respect to that other thing. So you say: I passed by a man whose father is standing, correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Now, I passed by a man whose mother is sitting, or "sitting" his mother?!
The student: Sitting.
The Shaykh : Sitting his mother, how with a man sitting?! Parse "sitting"?
The student: An attribute for the man.
The Shaykh : An attribute for the man.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the attribute refers back?
The student: To his mother.
The Shaykh : To his mother, to something else, because it has a connection to it by the pronoun. So: I passed by a man whose mother is sitting, I passed by a woman whose father is standing, right? Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Standing, people!! Standing and a woman!! "Standing" is an attribute for a woman, and "standing" is masculine and the woman is feminine?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because the attribute is for her father, and he is masculine, so it is given the ruling of the verb. Just as you say: I passed by a woman whose father stood, and I passed by a man whose mother sat. Good, people. Now, I passed by a man whose two fathers are standing, right, what do you say?
The student: No.
Another student: If you repeat it.
The Shaykh : I passed by a man whose two fathers are standing?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Right, it is obligatory except in the dialect of "the locusts ate it." In this dialect, it is correct to say: "two fathers standing." But in the standard language, we say: I passed by a man whose father is standing.
The student: His two fathers!
The Shaykh : His two fathers, correct, his two fathers. Just as you say: I passed by a man, change "standing" to a verb: I passed by a man whose two fathers stood, I passed by a man whose two fathers stood. For this reason, the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) are precise, he said:
"And it, in the case of singularity and masculinity, or *** otherwise, is like the verb".
Now, I passed by a man whose grandmothers are sitting, right?
The student: Sitting (feminine plural).
The Shaykh : What do you say?
The student: It must be feminized.
The Shaykh : It must be feminized, because grandmothers are feminine. So: sitting (feminine singular) his grandmothers, right?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, just as you say: his grandmothers sat, his grandmothers sat, and "sitting" (feminine plural) in which dialect?
The student: The locusts.
The Shaykh : The locusts, the locusts do not have a dialect. In the dialect of: "the locusts ate it", yes, correct, now.
The student: The locusts ate it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Now, the important thing is that in singularity, masculinity, dual, and plural, its ruling is the ruling of the verb. So it follows: the attribute follows the described noun in one of the cases of inflection, in one of the cases of inflection. What are the cases of inflection?! Nominative, accusative, and genitive, and one of definiteness and indefiniteness. These are five, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And one of singularity, dual, plural, masculinity, and femininity, ten. It follows it in four out of ten. And it seems that some people say to you: where did you get these from?!
So it follows the described noun in inflection. Leave one from the side of inflection. In inflection, it follows it in inflection. It follows it in definiteness and indefiniteness without exception?
The student: Without exception.
The Shaykh : Yes, without exception. It follows it: in singularity, in dual, plural, masculinity, and femininity, right? If the attribute refers back to the described noun, then if the attribute refers back to something else, its ruling is the ruling of the verb. Yes, it is made masculine with the masculine, and feminine with the feminine.
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
Now, "and it": the pronoun refers back to the attribute (na't), "in the case of": means "at" or "in the state of", "singularity": means that which is tawhid al-rububiyyah, tawhid al-uluhiyyah, and tawhid al-asma' wa al-sifat!!
The student: Singularity (al-ifrad).
The Shaykh : No, tawhid in every context is according to its context. Now we are speaking about grammar, so what is the meaning of tawhid in grammar?
The student: Singularity (al-ifrad).
The Shaykh : Singularity, now, "and masculinity": what is it?! The masculine.
"or otherwise": other than singularity, namely the dual and the plural, because it is either singular: like Zayd, or dual: like the two Zayds, or plural: like the Zayds, or like the two Zayds, now.
"or otherwise is like the verb": "like the verb" here is the predicate (khabar) of the subject (mubtada'), where is the subject? It, meaning it in these matters is like the verb. How many matters are with us now?
Singularity, dual, plural, masculinity, and femininity, these are five. It in these five is like the verb; it follows what comes before it. It becomes like the verb: if it refers back to what is before it, it follows it; and if it is an attribute describing something else, it follows that described thing. I don't know, we are speaking about the Arabic language, it seems!!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : We say: if it is with respect to singularity and masculinity and their opposites, if it is an attribute describing the described noun, it follows it in that; if it is an attribute describing something else, it follows that other thing. Now we say: let us give an example so that it becomes clear by example. You say: I passed by a man standing, right?
The student: An attribute describing the described noun.
The Shaykh : Is this an attribute describing the described noun?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It follows the described noun, it becomes singular masculine, because the described noun is "man," which is singular masculine. Complete. I passed by a woman sitting, "sitting": an attribute for the woman, so it follows her. So the woman is singular feminine, and "sitting"?
The student: Singular feminine.
The Shaykh : Singular feminine. I passed by men standing, I passed by men standing, correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because "men" is plural, and "standing" is an attribute for the men, so it follows them. I passed by women sitting, right?
The student: Yes, correct.
The Shaykh : Is it authentic?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, this is if the attribute is describing the described noun, it follows it. As if you said: I passed by a man who stood, I passed by a woman who sat, I passed by men who stood, I passed by women?!
The student: They sat.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: They sat.
The Shaykh : They sat. We left the example as "standing" and "sitting" so that no one says: you mixed the men with the women. Let the men be standing and the women be sitting.
Now you also say: I passed by two men standing, and I passed by two women sitting, just as you say: I passed by two men who stood, and two women who sat, like the verb, exactly like the verb. Now, but if the attribute is describing something else, it has the ruling of the verb with respect to that other thing. So you say: I passed by a man whose father is standing, correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Now, I passed by a man whose mother is sitting, or "sitting" his mother?!
The student: Sitting.
The Shaykh : Sitting his mother, how with a man sitting?! Parse "sitting"?
The student: An attribute for the man.
The Shaykh : An attribute for the man.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the attribute refers back?
The student: To his mother.
The Shaykh : To his mother, to something else, because it has a connection to it by the pronoun. So: I passed by a man whose mother is sitting, I passed by a woman whose father is standing, right? Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Standing, people!! Standing and a woman!! "Standing" is an attribute for a woman, and "standing" is masculine and the woman is feminine?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because the attribute is for her father, and he is masculine, so it is given the ruling of the verb. Just as you say: I passed by a woman whose father stood, and I passed by a man whose mother sat. Good, people. Now, I passed by a man whose two fathers are standing, right, what do you say?
The student: No.
Another student: If you repeat it.
The Shaykh : I passed by a man whose two fathers are standing?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Right, it is obligatory except in the dialect of "the locusts ate it." In this dialect, it is correct to say: "two fathers standing." But in the standard language, we say: I passed by a man whose father is standing.
The student: His two fathers!
The Shaykh : His two fathers, correct, his two fathers. Just as you say: I passed by a man, change "standing" to a verb: I passed by a man whose two fathers stood, I passed by a man whose two fathers stood. For this reason, the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) are precise, he said:
"And it, in the case of singularity and masculinity, or *** otherwise, is like the verb".
Now, I passed by a man whose grandmothers are sitting, right?
The student: Sitting (feminine plural).
The Shaykh : What do you say?
The student: It must be feminized.
The Shaykh : It must be feminized, because grandmothers are feminine. So: sitting (feminine singular) his grandmothers, right?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, just as you say: his grandmothers sat, his grandmothers sat, and "sitting" (feminine plural) in which dialect?
The student: The locusts.
The Shaykh : The locusts, the locusts do not have a dialect. In the dialect of: "the locusts ate it", yes, correct, now.
The student: The locusts ate it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Now, the important thing is that in singularity, masculinity, dual, and plural, its ruling is the ruling of the verb. So it follows: the attribute follows the described noun in one of the cases of inflection, in one of the cases of inflection. What are the cases of inflection?! Nominative, accusative, and genitive, and one of definiteness and indefiniteness. These are five, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And one of singularity, dual, plural, masculinity, and femininity, ten. It follows it in four out of ten. And it seems that some people say to you: where did you get these from?!
So it follows the described noun in inflection. Leave one from the side of inflection. In inflection, it follows it in inflection. It follows it in definiteness and indefiniteness without exception?
The student: Without exception.
The Shaykh : Yes, without exception. It follows it: in singularity, in dual, plural, masculinity, and femininity, right? If the attribute refers back to the described noun, then if the attribute refers back to something else, its ruling is the ruling of the verb. Yes, it is made masculine with the masculine, and feminine with the feminine.
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?