Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And describe with a derivative, like *sa'b* and *dharrab* *** and its like, and *dha* and the one who is attributed."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said: "And describe with a derivative":
"Describe": this is an imperative verb, meaning that it is not permissible to describe except with a derivative. "Describe with a derivative": The meaning of a derivative is: that which indicates a quality and the doer. Whatever indicates a quality and its doer is a derivative, such as: the active participle, the passive participle, the adjective of comparison, and the superlative. This is a derivative because it indicates the quality and its doer. For example: *qaim* (standing). What does it indicate? It indicates standing and the entity characterized by standing.
*Mudrab* (struck): it indicates being struck and the entity characterized by being struck upon it. Yes.
*Batil* (champion): it indicates championship and a man characterized by it. *Afdal* (better): it indicates superiority and a man characterized by it, for example.
And the description must be with a derivative because the derivative is a description of an entity. It is a description of an entity, so it must necessarily contain the quality and the entity. The description is a description of an entity, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or are you with me?
The student: I am with you.
The Shaykh : I passed by the noble man. The noble here is a description of what?
The student: Of the man.
The Shaykh : Of the man, and he is an entity. So it must necessarily contain a quality and an entity. And this does not occur except in a derivative. This is the reason why the description must be a derivative. Ibn Malik gave an example for it:
"Like *sa'b* and *dharrab*":
-May Allah have mercy on him- he gave you the ruling and the example. So by the ruling, the rule is established, and by the example, the rule becomes clear. This is part of good teaching: when a person presents the rulings, he follows them with examples, so that the rulings become firmly established in the person's mind, especially things that are difficult to understand. For: "By means of examples, meanings are understood". In a book called *Al-Nahw al-Wadhih* (Clear Grammar) and *Al-Balaghah al-Wadihah* (Clear Rhetoric), which we read in the institutes, he presents the examples first, then explains them, then deduces the rule. This is the opposite of the method of the earlier scholars, who present the rulings first, then the examples.
"Describe with a derivative, like *sa'b* and *dharrab*":
"*Sa'b*": What is *sa'b*? Where is it derived from? From *sa'bah* (difficulty). So it is a derivative.
"And *dharrab*": From *dhurabah* (agility). So it is a derivative. Now, what do difficulty and agility imply? That a person is resolute. He does not have softness that makes him weak, nor does he have sluggishness that makes him broken. He is a person who is agile and *dharrab*, with difficulty (resoluteness) in him.
"Like *sa'b* and *dharrab* *** and its like": The like of a derivative is such as:
"And *dha* and the one who is attributed":
He also says: It is permissible to describe with what resembles a derivative. It is permissible to describe with what resembles a derivative, such as *dha*, which is a demonstrative noun. Is it, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because: *dha* is interpreted as a derivative. How is the interpretation? The one referred to. You say: Honor this man. Honor this man. *This*: is it a description of the man, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if someone says: Demonstrative nouns are not derivatives, we say: But they are interpreted as derivatives: Honor the man referred to. *Mushar* (referred to) and *mushar* are passive participles, or are they not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So it is a derivative. So he says: And its like: meaning what is interpreted as a derivative, like the demonstrative noun *dha* and *dhi*, which is a demonstrative noun. But *dha* is for the singular masculine, and *dhi* is for the singular feminine. "And the one who is attributed": The one who is attributed: the one attributed to a place, a tribe, a profession, or something similar. You say: I saw the Tamimi man. The Tamimi man. What is your opinion about Tamim? Is Tamim a derivative or a static noun?
The student: Non-derived.
The Shaykh : It is static. So *Tamimi* is static. But we say: This is an attribution, so *Tamimi*, the one attributed to Tamim, is interpreted. -And peace be upon you, pray two rak'ahs, the greeting of the mosque, pray two rak'ahs, pray two rak'ahs and attend the lesson- *Tamimi*: meaning the one attributed to Tamim. Yes. In front of me is Ghanim al-Jurumi. Is that so?
The student: Attributed to Ibn Jurum.
The Shaykh : Attributed to Ibn Jurum?
The student: Yes, Shaykh, he has it.
The Shaykh : It does not contradict. A man. Now, is this acceptable or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is acceptable, meaning the one attributed to such-and-such. Now, the one attributed to a tribe, to a place, to a place?
The student: So-and-so al-Madani!
The Shaykh : Yes, so-and-so al-Madani. Honor the Madani man. Honor the Maki man. And so on. So this is attributed to a place. So one describes with a derivative and what is interpreted as a derivative, which is the demonstrative noun. What else? And the one who is attributed. The demonstrative noun and the one who is attributed. Now, what is your opinion if it is said: This is a Hajar man? Is *Hajar* static or a derivative?
The student: Non-derived.
The Shaykh : Is this description with it acceptable? The description with it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is not acceptable unless it is interpreted. Unless it is interpreted. Do you not say: This is a Hajar man, meaning the actual stone without interpretation? So that is not allowed. It is interpreted: This is a Hajar man, meaning a man who is hard. Is that so? And it is said: This is a student who is *zubdah* (butter). Is *zubdah* a derivative or not?
The student: No, it is static.
The Shaykh : Static?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it acceptable to interpret and describe with it?
The student: By interpretation.
The Shaykh : Yes, by interpretation. Meaning, does *zubdah* give anything or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because *zubdah* is soft. If you say it like this, your fingers would slip. So *zubdah* means: is that so?
The student: Not hard.
The Shaykh : Soft, interpreted as not strong. Now.
"And the one who is attributed":
"Describe": this is an imperative verb, meaning that it is not permissible to describe except with a derivative. "Describe with a derivative": The meaning of a derivative is: that which indicates a quality and the doer. Whatever indicates a quality and its doer is a derivative, such as: the active participle, the passive participle, the adjective of comparison, and the superlative. This is a derivative because it indicates the quality and its doer. For example: *qaim* (standing). What does it indicate? It indicates standing and the entity characterized by standing.
*Mudrab* (struck): it indicates being struck and the entity characterized by being struck upon it. Yes.
*Batil* (champion): it indicates championship and a man characterized by it. *Afdal* (better): it indicates superiority and a man characterized by it, for example.
And the description must be with a derivative because the derivative is a description of an entity. It is a description of an entity, so it must necessarily contain the quality and the entity. The description is a description of an entity, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or are you with me?
The student: I am with you.
The Shaykh : I passed by the noble man. The noble here is a description of what?
The student: Of the man.
The Shaykh : Of the man, and he is an entity. So it must necessarily contain a quality and an entity. And this does not occur except in a derivative. This is the reason why the description must be a derivative. Ibn Malik gave an example for it:
"Like *sa'b* and *dharrab*":
-May Allah have mercy on him- he gave you the ruling and the example. So by the ruling, the rule is established, and by the example, the rule becomes clear. This is part of good teaching: when a person presents the rulings, he follows them with examples, so that the rulings become firmly established in the person's mind, especially things that are difficult to understand. For: "By means of examples, meanings are understood". In a book called *Al-Nahw al-Wadhih* (Clear Grammar) and *Al-Balaghah al-Wadihah* (Clear Rhetoric), which we read in the institutes, he presents the examples first, then explains them, then deduces the rule. This is the opposite of the method of the earlier scholars, who present the rulings first, then the examples.
"Describe with a derivative, like *sa'b* and *dharrab*":
"*Sa'b*": What is *sa'b*? Where is it derived from? From *sa'bah* (difficulty). So it is a derivative.
"And *dharrab*": From *dhurabah* (agility). So it is a derivative. Now, what do difficulty and agility imply? That a person is resolute. He does not have softness that makes him weak, nor does he have sluggishness that makes him broken. He is a person who is agile and *dharrab*, with difficulty (resoluteness) in him.
"Like *sa'b* and *dharrab* *** and its like": The like of a derivative is such as:
"And *dha* and the one who is attributed":
He also says: It is permissible to describe with what resembles a derivative. It is permissible to describe with what resembles a derivative, such as *dha*, which is a demonstrative noun. Is it, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because: *dha* is interpreted as a derivative. How is the interpretation? The one referred to. You say: Honor this man. Honor this man. *This*: is it a description of the man, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if someone says: Demonstrative nouns are not derivatives, we say: But they are interpreted as derivatives: Honor the man referred to. *Mushar* (referred to) and *mushar* are passive participles, or are they not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So it is a derivative. So he says: And its like: meaning what is interpreted as a derivative, like the demonstrative noun *dha* and *dhi*, which is a demonstrative noun. But *dha* is for the singular masculine, and *dhi* is for the singular feminine. "And the one who is attributed": The one who is attributed: the one attributed to a place, a tribe, a profession, or something similar. You say: I saw the Tamimi man. The Tamimi man. What is your opinion about Tamim? Is Tamim a derivative or a static noun?
The student: Non-derived.
The Shaykh : It is static. So *Tamimi* is static. But we say: This is an attribution, so *Tamimi*, the one attributed to Tamim, is interpreted. -And peace be upon you, pray two rak'ahs, the greeting of the mosque, pray two rak'ahs, pray two rak'ahs and attend the lesson- *Tamimi*: meaning the one attributed to Tamim. Yes. In front of me is Ghanim al-Jurumi. Is that so?
The student: Attributed to Ibn Jurum.
The Shaykh : Attributed to Ibn Jurum?
The student: Yes, Shaykh, he has it.
The Shaykh : It does not contradict. A man. Now, is this acceptable or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is acceptable, meaning the one attributed to such-and-such. Now, the one attributed to a tribe, to a place, to a place?
The student: So-and-so al-Madani!
The Shaykh : Yes, so-and-so al-Madani. Honor the Madani man. Honor the Maki man. And so on. So this is attributed to a place. So one describes with a derivative and what is interpreted as a derivative, which is the demonstrative noun. What else? And the one who is attributed. The demonstrative noun and the one who is attributed. Now, what is your opinion if it is said: This is a Hajar man? Is *Hajar* static or a derivative?
The student: Non-derived.
The Shaykh : Is this description with it acceptable? The description with it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is not acceptable unless it is interpreted. Unless it is interpreted. Do you not say: This is a Hajar man, meaning the actual stone without interpretation? So that is not allowed. It is interpreted: This is a Hajar man, meaning a man who is hard. Is that so? And it is said: This is a student who is *zubdah* (butter). Is *zubdah* a derivative or not?
The student: No, it is static.
The Shaykh : Static?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it acceptable to interpret and describe with it?
The student: By interpretation.
The Shaykh : Yes, by interpretation. Meaning, does *zubdah* give anything or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because *zubdah* is soft. If you say it like this, your fingers would slip. So *zubdah* means: is that so?
The student: Not hard.
The Shaykh : Soft, interpreted as not strong. Now.
"And the one who is attributed":