Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the description of more than one, if they differ *** then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And the description of more than one, if they differ":
Do you have "and the description" and "and the description"?
The student: And the description!
The Shaykh :"And the description of more than one, if they differ *** then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree":
It means if we want to describe two people, and we must separate the two descriptions with a conjunction, you say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the noble and the stingy," so separate them with a conjunction: the noble and the stingy. Is it permissible for me to say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the nobles, the stingy"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because you are including one in a description that does not apply to him. Rather, you say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the noble and the stingy," and this is from the chapter of what?
The student: Al-laf wa al-nashr (repetition and distribution).
The Shaykh : Al-laf wa al-nashr al-murattab (ordered repetition and distribution), yes, so the noble is for the first and the stingy is for the second.
The student: Look, they are all noble!
The Shaykh : Look, the author says:
"If they differ *** then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree".
As for if they agree, we do not separate them with a conjunction. Both are noble, we say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the nobles," or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because as long as restricting the speech and shortening it is possible, that is what is obligatory. How do we lengthen it?!
Fine, and it is permissible for us in the first case: to assign each description to its owner, so we say: "I passed by Zayd, the noble, and 'Amr, the stingy," and is that not permissible?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but if I want to combine with Zayd and 'Amr, it is necessary to separate with a conjunction. Fine, if I say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the noble, the stingy," hmm?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is possible that the noble and the stingy are two descriptions for each of them. So if you say: "and the stingy," the conjunction implies difference, and it is distributed over what came before.
"Then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree":
Fine, his saying: "Separate them with a conjunction": What is the grammatical case of "with a conjunction"?!
The student: Object.
The Shaykh : Object of a deleted verb, explained by what follows it. And here, what is the stronger opinion?
The student: Here, the accusative is apparent.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The accusative is obligatory?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: From the chapter of "ishtighal" (occupation).
The Shaykh : From the chapter of al-ishtighal (occupation), yes, but the chapter of al-ishtighal previously established that the accusative is obligatory, the nominative is obligatory, the accusative is stronger, the nominative is stronger, the two are equal, five rulings.
The student: So this is obligatory.
The Shaykh : What is obligatory?
The student: The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the verb is imperative.
The Shaykh : And if it becomes imperative?
The student: The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : What do you say? The accusative is obligatory? The accusative is not obligatory. The accusative is only obligatory if it is followed by something that is only followed by a verb, something that is only followed by a verb. As for this, the accusative is stronger, or not?! The accusative is stronger, there is no doubt in it. "If the verb is imperative, then the accusative is stronger, but if the name is followed by something that is only followed by a verb, then the accusative is obligatory", for example: "If Zayd, whom you saw, then honor him," and his saying: "Then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree".
"And the description of more than one, if they differ":
Do you have "and the description" and "and the description"?
The student: And the description!
The Shaykh :"And the description of more than one, if they differ *** then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree":
It means if we want to describe two people, and we must separate the two descriptions with a conjunction, you say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the noble and the stingy," so separate them with a conjunction: the noble and the stingy. Is it permissible for me to say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the nobles, the stingy"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because you are including one in a description that does not apply to him. Rather, you say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the noble and the stingy," and this is from the chapter of what?
The student: Al-laf wa al-nashr (repetition and distribution).
The Shaykh : Al-laf wa al-nashr al-murattab (ordered repetition and distribution), yes, so the noble is for the first and the stingy is for the second.
The student: Look, they are all noble!
The Shaykh : Look, the author says:
"If they differ *** then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree".
As for if they agree, we do not separate them with a conjunction. Both are noble, we say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the nobles," or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because as long as restricting the speech and shortening it is possible, that is what is obligatory. How do we lengthen it?!
Fine, and it is permissible for us in the first case: to assign each description to its owner, so we say: "I passed by Zayd, the noble, and 'Amr, the stingy," and is that not permissible?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but if I want to combine with Zayd and 'Amr, it is necessary to separate with a conjunction. Fine, if I say: "I passed by Zayd and 'Amr, the noble, the stingy," hmm?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is possible that the noble and the stingy are two descriptions for each of them. So if you say: "and the stingy," the conjunction implies difference, and it is distributed over what came before.
"Then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree":
Fine, his saying: "Separate them with a conjunction": What is the grammatical case of "with a conjunction"?!
The student: Object.
The Shaykh : Object of a deleted verb, explained by what follows it. And here, what is the stronger opinion?
The student: Here, the accusative is apparent.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The accusative is obligatory?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: From the chapter of "ishtighal" (occupation).
The Shaykh : From the chapter of al-ishtighal (occupation), yes, but the chapter of al-ishtighal previously established that the accusative is obligatory, the nominative is obligatory, the accusative is stronger, the nominative is stronger, the two are equal, five rulings.
The student: So this is obligatory.
The Shaykh : What is obligatory?
The student: The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the verb is imperative.
The Shaykh : And if it becomes imperative?
The student: The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : What do you say? The accusative is obligatory? The accusative is not obligatory. The accusative is only obligatory if it is followed by something that is only followed by a verb, something that is only followed by a verb. As for this, the accusative is stronger, or not?! The accusative is stronger, there is no doubt in it. "If the verb is imperative, then the accusative is stronger, but if the name is followed by something that is only followed by a verb, then the accusative is obligatory", for example: "If Zayd, whom you saw, then honor him," and his saying: "Then separate them with a conjunction, not if they agree".