Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the description of the two objects of the two verbs that agree in meaning *** and the following of the action without any exception."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the description of the two objects of the two verbs that agree in meaning *** and the following of the action without any exception":
"And the description of the two objects of the two verbs that agree in meaning": "Action" is conjoined to "meaning," meaning the two verbs that agree in meaning and action.
"Follow": This "follow" is a verb of command, and the object is his saying: "And the description of the two objects".
"Follow without exception": This means you do not exclude anything, if the description is for two objects governed by two verbs that agree in action and meaning, and are unique in meaning and action, follow without exception. Now we have two objects, two objects, and what next?
For two verbs that are unified, what is there?
In meaning and action, for then the author says: "Follow without exception": meaning follow those two objects without exception. Okay, what is an example? First: we must bring a verb, yes, and another verb, then apply them to two objects, then bring the description. For example, you say: "I saw Zayd and I honored 'Amr, the two honorable ones." Is this valid? Let us see: these are two unique verbs, their action is one, which is accusative case, the action is one, which is accusative case, but the meaning is different, so it is not valid. We must distinguish, we must distinguish, but: "I saw Zayd and I perceived 'Amr, the two honorable ones"? Is it valid or not?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is valid, why? Because "I saw" means "I perceived," and their action is one, and both objects are in the accusative case, so it is permissible to follow without exception, meaning you do not exclude whether you distinguished or not, for it is followed without exception. If the two verbs differ in action or differ in meaning or differ in wording, but the author only mentioned meaning, then it is not followed. So you say: "Zayd came and I honored 'Amr, the two diligent ones." "The two diligent ones" is not valid, why?
The student: This one is in the nominative case, and this one is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : Yes? Because this one is in the nominative case and this one is in the accusative case. "Zayd came and I honored 'Amr, the two diligent ones." This is not valid, because 'Amr is in the accusative case and Zayd is in the nominative case. If you make it nominative to accommodate Zayd, you contradict 'Amr, and if you make it accusative to accommodate 'Amr, you contradict Zayd. So what do I do? What do I do? I want to describe!
We say: describe each one separately, so you say: "Zayd the diligent one came, and I honored 'Amr the diligent one." Clear? Okay, if they differ in meaning, if they differ in meaning, like if you say: "Zayd succeeded and 'Amr failed, the two beloved ones." What do you say?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not valid, why? Because of the difference in meaning, and Ibn Malik says: "Two verbs that agree in meaning and action", "Two verbs that agree in meaning and action, follow". Okay, what do I do in an example like this? What do I say? Yes?
The student: I distinguish.
The Shaykh : I distinguish and make the description of each one follow it, and I do not combine them, and that is because of their difference in meaning. Okay, if they differ in wording but not in meaning: like "Zayd walked and 'Amr walked, the two honorable ones." Is it valid or not?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : "Zayd walked and 'Amr walked, the two honorable ones." On the surface of Ibn Malik's words, it is permissible, because the meaning is one and the action is one, so he says: "Follow without exception", and the summary is: "that if the two described things are multiple, and their verb is different, what? In meaning or in action -it is not in both meaning and action- or in action, then distinguishing is obligatory. But if the two verbs agree in action and meaning, then following is permissible, and distinguishing is permissible". Distinguishing is the original rule, but following is permissible. So the author's saying here: "Follow": this is on the way of permissibility and not on the way of obligation and necessity, because I have the option to follow each one with its description and not combine them. Okay, if the two descriptions differ?!
The student: Distinguishing is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes, distinguishing is obligatory, so if the two descriptions differ, distinguishing is obligatory, right?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the two verbs differ in meaning?!
The student: Distinguishing is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Distinguishing is obligatory. If the two verbs differ in action?! Distinguishing is obligatory. Clear, my brothers?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.
"And the description of the two objects of the two verbs that agree in meaning": "Action" is conjoined to "meaning," meaning the two verbs that agree in meaning and action.
"Follow": This "follow" is a verb of command, and the object is his saying: "And the description of the two objects".
"Follow without exception": This means you do not exclude anything, if the description is for two objects governed by two verbs that agree in action and meaning, and are unique in meaning and action, follow without exception. Now we have two objects, two objects, and what next?
For two verbs that are unified, what is there?
In meaning and action, for then the author says: "Follow without exception": meaning follow those two objects without exception. Okay, what is an example? First: we must bring a verb, yes, and another verb, then apply them to two objects, then bring the description. For example, you say: "I saw Zayd and I honored 'Amr, the two honorable ones." Is this valid? Let us see: these are two unique verbs, their action is one, which is accusative case, the action is one, which is accusative case, but the meaning is different, so it is not valid. We must distinguish, we must distinguish, but: "I saw Zayd and I perceived 'Amr, the two honorable ones"? Is it valid or not?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is valid, why? Because "I saw" means "I perceived," and their action is one, and both objects are in the accusative case, so it is permissible to follow without exception, meaning you do not exclude whether you distinguished or not, for it is followed without exception. If the two verbs differ in action or differ in meaning or differ in wording, but the author only mentioned meaning, then it is not followed. So you say: "Zayd came and I honored 'Amr, the two diligent ones." "The two diligent ones" is not valid, why?
The student: This one is in the nominative case, and this one is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : Yes? Because this one is in the nominative case and this one is in the accusative case. "Zayd came and I honored 'Amr, the two diligent ones." This is not valid, because 'Amr is in the accusative case and Zayd is in the nominative case. If you make it nominative to accommodate Zayd, you contradict 'Amr, and if you make it accusative to accommodate 'Amr, you contradict Zayd. So what do I do? What do I do? I want to describe!
We say: describe each one separately, so you say: "Zayd the diligent one came, and I honored 'Amr the diligent one." Clear? Okay, if they differ in meaning, if they differ in meaning, like if you say: "Zayd succeeded and 'Amr failed, the two beloved ones." What do you say?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not valid, why? Because of the difference in meaning, and Ibn Malik says: "Two verbs that agree in meaning and action", "Two verbs that agree in meaning and action, follow". Okay, what do I do in an example like this? What do I say? Yes?
The student: I distinguish.
The Shaykh : I distinguish and make the description of each one follow it, and I do not combine them, and that is because of their difference in meaning. Okay, if they differ in wording but not in meaning: like "Zayd walked and 'Amr walked, the two honorable ones." Is it valid or not?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : "Zayd walked and 'Amr walked, the two honorable ones." On the surface of Ibn Malik's words, it is permissible, because the meaning is one and the action is one, so he says: "Follow without exception", and the summary is: "that if the two described things are multiple, and their verb is different, what? In meaning or in action -it is not in both meaning and action- or in action, then distinguishing is obligatory. But if the two verbs agree in action and meaning, then following is permissible, and distinguishing is permissible". Distinguishing is the original rule, but following is permissible. So the author's saying here: "Follow": this is on the way of permissibility and not on the way of obligation and necessity, because I have the option to follow each one with its description and not combine them. Okay, if the two descriptions differ?!
The student: Distinguishing is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes, distinguishing is obligatory, so if the two descriptions differ, distinguishing is obligatory, right?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the two verbs differ in meaning?!
The student: Distinguishing is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Distinguishing is obligatory. If the two verbs differ in action?! Distinguishing is obligatory. Clear, my brothers?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.