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 here, prevent the placement of the interrogative sentence *** And if it comes, then the implied 'saying' is what you hit.
: An interrogative sentence does not function as an attribute, so do not say: 'I passed by Zayd, I hit him' .
The student: A man!
The Shaykh : A man!
The reader: " So do not say: 'I passed by a man, I hit him,' and it functions as a predicate, contrary to !
The Shaykh : And it functions as a predicate!!
The reader: " And it functions as a predicate, contrary to Ibn al-Anbari, so you say: 'Zayd, I hit him.' And since his statement: 'So I was given what I was given,' is a predicate: it suggests that any sentence that functions as a predicate is permissible to function as an attribute. He said: 'And here, prevent the placement of the interrogative sentence,' meaning prevent the interrogative sentence from functioning in the chapter of attributes, even though it is not prevented in the chapter of predicates. Then he said: 'If something comes that appears on its surface to be an attribute containing an interrogative sentence, it is to be understood as an implied 'saying,' and the implied 'saying' becomes the attribute' .
The Shaykh : Meaning it becomes an attribute, it becomes an implied attribute, meaning it is the attribute, yes, correct.
The reader: " And the implied 'saying' becomes the attribute, and the interrogative sentence is the object of the implied 'saying.' And this is like his saying:
Until the darkness of night descended and mixed *** They came with a stick, 'Have you ever seen a wolf?'
The surface meaning of this is that your statement: 'Have you ever seen a wolf?' is an attribute for 'stick,' and it is an interrogative sentence. But it is not on its surface meaning; rather: 'Have you ever seen a wolf?' is the object of an implied 'saying' which is the attribute for 'stick,' and the intended meaning is: 'with a stick in which it is said, "Have you ever seen a wolf?"' If you ask: Does this intended meaning necessarily apply to an interrogative sentence when it functions in the chapter of predicates, such that the intended meaning of your statement 'Zayd, I hit him' is: 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him"'???
The answer is: that there is a difference of opinion on this. The position of Ibn al-Sarraj and al-Farisi is to adhere to this, and the position of the majority is not to adhere to it .
The Shaykh : I am pleased with the first one. He said: Only Ibn al-Anbari, " And it functions as a predicate, contrary to Ibn al-Anbari" , he says: " Does this intended meaning necessarily apply to an interrogative sentence when it functions in the chapter of predicates, such that the intended meaning of your statement 'Zayd, I hit him' is: 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him"'? The answer is that there is a difference of opinion" : The correct view is that it is not necessary to adhere to 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him."' It is known that there is no adherence to that; 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him."'
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
: An interrogative sentence does not function as an attribute, so do not say: 'I passed by Zayd, I hit him' .
The student: A man!
The Shaykh : A man!
The reader: " So do not say: 'I passed by a man, I hit him,' and it functions as a predicate, contrary to !
The Shaykh : And it functions as a predicate!!
The reader: " And it functions as a predicate, contrary to Ibn al-Anbari, so you say: 'Zayd, I hit him.' And since his statement: 'So I was given what I was given,' is a predicate: it suggests that any sentence that functions as a predicate is permissible to function as an attribute. He said: 'And here, prevent the placement of the interrogative sentence,' meaning prevent the interrogative sentence from functioning in the chapter of attributes, even though it is not prevented in the chapter of predicates. Then he said: 'If something comes that appears on its surface to be an attribute containing an interrogative sentence, it is to be understood as an implied 'saying,' and the implied 'saying' becomes the attribute' .
The Shaykh : Meaning it becomes an attribute, it becomes an implied attribute, meaning it is the attribute, yes, correct.
The reader: " And the implied 'saying' becomes the attribute, and the interrogative sentence is the object of the implied 'saying.' And this is like his saying:
Until the darkness of night descended and mixed *** They came with a stick, 'Have you ever seen a wolf?'
The surface meaning of this is that your statement: 'Have you ever seen a wolf?' is an attribute for 'stick,' and it is an interrogative sentence. But it is not on its surface meaning; rather: 'Have you ever seen a wolf?' is the object of an implied 'saying' which is the attribute for 'stick,' and the intended meaning is: 'with a stick in which it is said, "Have you ever seen a wolf?"' If you ask: Does this intended meaning necessarily apply to an interrogative sentence when it functions in the chapter of predicates, such that the intended meaning of your statement 'Zayd, I hit him' is: 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him"'???
The answer is: that there is a difference of opinion on this. The position of Ibn al-Sarraj and al-Farisi is to adhere to this, and the position of the majority is not to adhere to it .
The Shaykh : I am pleased with the first one. He said: Only Ibn al-Anbari, " And it functions as a predicate, contrary to Ibn al-Anbari" , he says: " Does this intended meaning necessarily apply to an interrogative sentence when it functions in the chapter of predicates, such that the intended meaning of your statement 'Zayd, I hit him' is: 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him"'? The answer is that there is a difference of opinion" : The correct view is that it is not necessary to adhere to 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him."' It is known that there is no adherence to that; 'Zayd, in which it is said, "I hit him."'
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?