Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And they described with a masdar (verbal noun) frequently *** so they adhered to the singular and the masculine."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said (may Allah have mercy on him):
"And they described with a masdar (verbal noun) frequently":
"They described": So the issue is one of usage, a matter of usage. The pronoun in "they described" refers to the users, and they are?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, not the grammarians. "They described" means the Arabs.
"With a masdar (verbal noun) frequently": "Frequently" is an absolute object for "they described," meaning they described with a masdar (verbal noun) frequently. For this reason, you encounter the description with a masdar (verbal noun) in the Qur'an, in the Sunnah, in the speech of the Arabs, and in the speech of people. It often passes by you. For example, you say: "This is a just man," a just man. The word "just" here?
The student: A verbal noun.
The Shaykh : It is a masdar (verbal noun), because it is the masdar (verbal noun) of "to be just" (yadulu), "justice" (adlan). Yes. Therefore, this usage is frequent. Likewise, you say: "This is a trustworthy man," a trustworthy man. "Trustworthy" is a masdar (verbal noun) of "to be trustworthy" (yathiqu), "trust" (thiqah), like "to promise" (ya'idu), "a promise" (idatun). Is that clear? And you say: "This is a man of satisfaction," "satisfaction" is a masdar (verbal noun), the masdar (verbal noun) of "to be satisfied" (yardha), "satisfaction" (rida), or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And you say: "This is a man of evil," is this of that type?
The student: Is it the masdar (verbal noun) of "shaykh" (scholar)?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not a masdar (verbal noun). Yes, you say: "This is a man of good," and likewise "good" is not a masdar (verbal noun). Well, if one describes with a masdar (verbal noun), the author says:
"So they adhered to the singular and the masculine":
"They adhered" means the Arabs who described with a masdar (verbal noun) adhered to the singular, even if the described noun was dual or plural.
And they adhered to the masculine, even if the described noun was feminine. That is, they kept the masdar (verbal noun) in its state. So you say: "This is a just man," and "this is a just woman," and "these are two just men," and "these are just men," and "these are just women," and "these are two just women." It does not change. They adhered to the singular and the masculine, because a masdar (verbal noun) is not pluralized or dualized; it is not pluralized or dualized, it remains as it is. But how is this masdar (verbal noun) interpreted?
Because we know that the masdar (verbal noun) is a description, and a description is an attribute indicating a self. So "justice" is not the "just one," and "satisfaction" is not the "satisfied one," or the "satisfactory one." —Put down your pens, everyone— So how do we say?
They mentioned one of three ways in its interpretation. They said: If the masdar (verbal noun) is in the state of the described noun, it means the active participle; or if it is in the state of the described noun being acted upon, it means the passive participle. So your saying: "Justice, satisfaction," "satisfaction" means?
The student: Satisfactory.
The Shaykh : Satisfactory. And "justice" means "just." The first is the meaning of the active participle, and the second is the meaning of the passive participle. That is, they said: The masdar (verbal noun) is interpreted as a derived noun, either an active participle or a passive participle. So it is by its meaning. It was also said: The masdar (verbal noun) is in its state, and it is on the assumption of an added noun, meaning: "Possessor of justice." You say: "This is a man possessing justice," and "these are two men"?
The student: Possessors of justice.
The Shaykh : No, "possessors of justice" (dhuwa 'adl). And I saw two men possessing justice. Allah the Exalted said:[At-Talaq 65:2], and on this basis, the masdar (verbal noun) is on the assumption of what?
The student: It is attached.
The Shaykh : An added noun, on the assumption of an added noun.
The third opinion, or the third possibility: That this described noun, the description indicates an attribute and its possessor. So "standing": "I passed by a standing man," "standing" indicates an attribute and the self which is the possessor of the attribute. So we made the masdar (verbal noun), or we made this described noun, the masdar (verbal noun) itself from the perspective of exaggeration. As if he is that meaning itself, as if he is justice itself. Exaggeration by naming. "A just man": as if he is justice itself. The meaning by which people are described is this man. As you say: "This is a man of mercy," "mercy" is a masdar (verbal noun), meaning "possessor of mercy," or that he is mercy itself, from the perspective of exaggeration. This is the explanation of the masdar (verbal noun) when one is described with it.
Well, it passed us in the book of Fiqh: "And the entry of the month other than Ramadan is established by the testimony of two just men": "Two just men," what is this here?
The student: What is this form?
The Shaykh : And it is written.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But this masdar (verbal noun) they called it
The student: But "two just men" and what?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: An attribute of the two men, "two just men."
Another student: Yes, an attribute of the two men, meaning "two just men."
The Shaykh : Yes, but the original of "justice" is a masdar (verbal noun). The original of "justice" is a masdar (verbal noun). We say: This is from the perspective of the leniency of the jurists. Otherwise, he would have said: "By the testimony of two just", or: "Possessors of justice", as Allah the Exalted said:[At-Talaq 65:2], and He did not say (Glorified and Exalted is He): "And call two just men as witnesses." He did not say: "Call two just men as witnesses." Yes, well, then he said:
The student: Shaykh, for other attributes too, we adhere to "two just men"!
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: Two men, just; two witnesses, just.
The Shaykh : Two witnesses, just!
The student: Is this addition here a description here?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Is it a description here?
The Shaykh : "Two just men"?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is not said this way by the Arabs. It is considered a grammatical error. "By the testimony of a just one," or "by the testimony of two men, just," or "possessors of justice."
"And they described with a masdar (verbal noun) frequently":
"They described": So the issue is one of usage, a matter of usage. The pronoun in "they described" refers to the users, and they are?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, not the grammarians. "They described" means the Arabs.
"With a masdar (verbal noun) frequently": "Frequently" is an absolute object for "they described," meaning they described with a masdar (verbal noun) frequently. For this reason, you encounter the description with a masdar (verbal noun) in the Qur'an, in the Sunnah, in the speech of the Arabs, and in the speech of people. It often passes by you. For example, you say: "This is a just man," a just man. The word "just" here?
The student: A verbal noun.
The Shaykh : It is a masdar (verbal noun), because it is the masdar (verbal noun) of "to be just" (yadulu), "justice" (adlan). Yes. Therefore, this usage is frequent. Likewise, you say: "This is a trustworthy man," a trustworthy man. "Trustworthy" is a masdar (verbal noun) of "to be trustworthy" (yathiqu), "trust" (thiqah), like "to promise" (ya'idu), "a promise" (idatun). Is that clear? And you say: "This is a man of satisfaction," "satisfaction" is a masdar (verbal noun), the masdar (verbal noun) of "to be satisfied" (yardha), "satisfaction" (rida), or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And you say: "This is a man of evil," is this of that type?
The student: Is it the masdar (verbal noun) of "shaykh" (scholar)?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not a masdar (verbal noun). Yes, you say: "This is a man of good," and likewise "good" is not a masdar (verbal noun). Well, if one describes with a masdar (verbal noun), the author says:
"So they adhered to the singular and the masculine":
"They adhered" means the Arabs who described with a masdar (verbal noun) adhered to the singular, even if the described noun was dual or plural.
And they adhered to the masculine, even if the described noun was feminine. That is, they kept the masdar (verbal noun) in its state. So you say: "This is a just man," and "this is a just woman," and "these are two just men," and "these are just men," and "these are just women," and "these are two just women." It does not change. They adhered to the singular and the masculine, because a masdar (verbal noun) is not pluralized or dualized; it is not pluralized or dualized, it remains as it is. But how is this masdar (verbal noun) interpreted?
Because we know that the masdar (verbal noun) is a description, and a description is an attribute indicating a self. So "justice" is not the "just one," and "satisfaction" is not the "satisfied one," or the "satisfactory one." —Put down your pens, everyone— So how do we say?
They mentioned one of three ways in its interpretation. They said: If the masdar (verbal noun) is in the state of the described noun, it means the active participle; or if it is in the state of the described noun being acted upon, it means the passive participle. So your saying: "Justice, satisfaction," "satisfaction" means?
The student: Satisfactory.
The Shaykh : Satisfactory. And "justice" means "just." The first is the meaning of the active participle, and the second is the meaning of the passive participle. That is, they said: The masdar (verbal noun) is interpreted as a derived noun, either an active participle or a passive participle. So it is by its meaning. It was also said: The masdar (verbal noun) is in its state, and it is on the assumption of an added noun, meaning: "Possessor of justice." You say: "This is a man possessing justice," and "these are two men"?
The student: Possessors of justice.
The Shaykh : No, "possessors of justice" (dhuwa 'adl). And I saw two men possessing justice. Allah the Exalted said:
And bring to witness two just men from among you
وأشهدوا ذوي عدل منكمThe student: It is attached.
The Shaykh : An added noun, on the assumption of an added noun.
The third opinion, or the third possibility: That this described noun, the description indicates an attribute and its possessor. So "standing": "I passed by a standing man," "standing" indicates an attribute and the self which is the possessor of the attribute. So we made the masdar (verbal noun), or we made this described noun, the masdar (verbal noun) itself from the perspective of exaggeration. As if he is that meaning itself, as if he is justice itself. Exaggeration by naming. "A just man": as if he is justice itself. The meaning by which people are described is this man. As you say: "This is a man of mercy," "mercy" is a masdar (verbal noun), meaning "possessor of mercy," or that he is mercy itself, from the perspective of exaggeration. This is the explanation of the masdar (verbal noun) when one is described with it.
Well, it passed us in the book of Fiqh: "And the entry of the month other than Ramadan is established by the testimony of two just men": "Two just men," what is this here?
The student: What is this form?
The Shaykh : And it is written.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But this masdar (verbal noun) they called it
The student: But "two just men" and what?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: An attribute of the two men, "two just men."
Another student: Yes, an attribute of the two men, meaning "two just men."
The Shaykh : Yes, but the original of "justice" is a masdar (verbal noun). The original of "justice" is a masdar (verbal noun). We say: This is from the perspective of the leniency of the jurists. Otherwise, he would have said: "By the testimony of two just", or: "Possessors of justice", as Allah the Exalted said:
And bring to witness two just men
وأشهدوا ذوي عدلThe student: Shaykh, for other attributes too, we adhere to "two just men"!
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: Two men, just; two witnesses, just.
The Shaykh : Two witnesses, just!
The student: Is this addition here a description here?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Is it a description here?
The Shaykh : "Two just men"?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is not said this way by the Arabs. It is considered a grammatical error. "By the testimony of a just one," or "by the testimony of two men, just," or "possessors of justice."