Reading from Ibn Aqil’s commentary (may Allah have mercy on him), with the Shaykh’s annotations: " .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: " And they described an indefinite noun with a clause *** so it was given what a predicate is given.
A clause can function as a description just as it can function as a predicate or a state, and it is interpreted as an indefinite noun; therefore, it is used to describe only indefinite nouns, such as: 'I passed by a man whose father stood up' or 'whose father is standing.' It is not used to describe definite nouns, so you do not say: 'I passed by Zayd whose father stood up' or 'whose father is standing.' Some claimed that it is permissible to describe a definite noun with the generic alif and lam using a clause, and they cited as an example the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Ya-Sin 36:37], and the saying of the poet:
And I have certainly passed by the wretch who insults me *** so I went on, then I said: it does not concern me,
so "naslakh" (We peel off) is a description of the night, and "yasubbi" (insults me) is a description of the wretch. However, this is not definitive, as it is possible for "naslakh" and "yasubbi" to be states (hal) ".
The Shaykh : This is an interpretation of the verse and the poem. Some interpreted "the night" and "the wretch" as meaning an indefinite noun, with the intended meaning being: "And a sign for them is a night from which We peel off the day," and "I have certainly passed by a wretch who insults me." In this case, it carries the meaning of an indefinite noun because it refers to the genus, and the genus is general in its individuals, so it is like an absolute indefinite noun in its individuals. And as we learned from what came before, in "And a sign for them is the night," the clause "naslakh" can be placed in the position of accusative as a state (hal), meaning in the state of us peeling off the day from it. "And I have certainly passed by the wretch who insults me": meaning in the state of him insulting me. And they say: "If a proof is subject to ambiguity, the argumentation based on it is invalid". Yes, the summary now, what did we understand?
We understood that a clause can be a description, but on the condition that the described noun is indefinite. "I passed by a man who is reading," "I passed by a man whose book is with him." But if you say: "I passed by the man who is reading," the clause comes after a definite noun, so make the clause a state (hal). For this reason, they say—among the known rules or guidelines with them—: "Clauses after indefinite nouns are descriptions, and after definite nouns are states". Yes, that is correct.
A clause can function as a description just as it can function as a predicate or a state, and it is interpreted as an indefinite noun; therefore, it is used to describe only indefinite nouns, such as: 'I passed by a man whose father stood up' or 'whose father is standing.' It is not used to describe definite nouns, so you do not say: 'I passed by Zayd whose father stood up' or 'whose father is standing.' Some claimed that it is permissible to describe a definite noun with the generic alif and lam using a clause, and they cited as an example the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And a sign for them is the night. We remove from it [the light of] day
وآية لهم الليل نسلخُ منه النهارAnd I have certainly passed by the wretch who insults me *** so I went on, then I said: it does not concern me,
so "naslakh" (We peel off) is a description of the night, and "yasubbi" (insults me) is a description of the wretch. However, this is not definitive, as it is possible for "naslakh" and "yasubbi" to be states (hal) ".
The Shaykh : This is an interpretation of the verse and the poem. Some interpreted "the night" and "the wretch" as meaning an indefinite noun, with the intended meaning being: "And a sign for them is a night from which We peel off the day," and "I have certainly passed by a wretch who insults me." In this case, it carries the meaning of an indefinite noun because it refers to the genus, and the genus is general in its individuals, so it is like an absolute indefinite noun in its individuals. And as we learned from what came before, in "And a sign for them is the night," the clause "naslakh" can be placed in the position of accusative as a state (hal), meaning in the state of us peeling off the day from it. "And I have certainly passed by the wretch who insults me": meaning in the state of him insulting me. And they say: "If a proof is subject to ambiguity, the argumentation based on it is invalid". Yes, the summary now, what did we understand?
We understood that a clause can be a description, but on the condition that the described noun is indefinite. "I passed by a man who is reading," "I passed by a man whose book is with him." But if you say: "I passed by the man who is reading," the clause comes after a definite noun, so make the clause a state (hal). For this reason, they say—among the known rules or guidelines with them—: "Clauses after indefinite nouns are descriptions, and after definite nouns are states". Yes, that is correct.