Continuation of the explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And if the descriptions are many and have followed *** in need of their mention, they are attached."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is established without them, so attachment is obligatory. This is the rule: "If it is not established without them, attachment is obligatory", and this is the meaning of his saying:
"And they have followed", is it complete here?!
"In need of their mention, they are attached":
This is the answer to the condition. "Attached" is the answer to "if." When it becomes in need of their mention, and it is obligatory that it be attached, attachment is obligatory and separation is not permissible, because it is not established without them. Therefore, it must be attached to it. For example, you say: "I saw the noble Isa," or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, attached: the jurist!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The generous! Is it correct here?
The student: Correct, yes.
The Shaykh : All of it is attached. Is separation permissible?
The student: I mean?!
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because Isa is established without them. As soon as I say Isa, there is no Isa but one, so he is established without these descriptions. So we say: "The noble" is a known attached description, and what comes after it is permissible to be attached, and permissible to be separated. So you say: "I saw the noble Isa, the jurist, the generous." This is separation. Is that good? And you say: "Ghanim the diligent came." Is that correct here?
The student: Ghanim the generous!
The Shaykh : It does not contradict—do not be upset—the generous, the brave. Is separation permissible in this or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : What is the reason?
The student: It is known.
The Shaykh : Because it is established without them. There is no Ghanim but one, meaning there is no one named Ghanim but one. As for the Ghanims, they are many, if Allah wills, but as for the one named Ghanim, there is no one but one. Yes, and we also take Rashid, and we take Husayn, it is like him. But Muhammad, here? It is common. And Hajjaj is one. Yes, the important thing is the rule now: "If this described thing is established without them—meaning it is known without these descriptions—then separation is permissible in the first description, but if it is not known except by them, then attachment is obligatory". Yes, for example, you say, for example, there is one with names: Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman. They differ in tribe. Two of them are all Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman. They differ in tribe. This one is al-Shamri, and this one is al-Utaybi, for example. So we say: "Muhammad ibn Abdullah came to me," here what? "Ibn Abd al-Rahman," or is it not valid? Because "Ibn Abd al-Rahman" is attached to Abdullah. We leave it as a description, you say for example: "Muhammad the noble, the brave, the jurist came." And we have two men, each of their names is Muhammad, and he is noble and brave, here? Is attachment obligatory or not? Here?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Attachment is obligatory, because it is not known without them.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : So if it is not known without them, and it must be attached, but if it is known by the first one, or without them, then separation is permissible in everything except the first. I do not know if this is understood or not?!
The student: It is not clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It did not become clear to us.
The Shaykh : It did not become clear to you, okay.
The student: How is its grammatical analysis?
The Shaykh : Separation means: that you do not leave it attached to it in grammatical analysis. You leave it raised as the predicate of a deleted subject, or accusative as the object of a deleted verb. For example: "Muhammad the noble, the jurist, the generous." And you say: "Muhammad the noble," this is a description. "The jurist": the estimation is: "I mean the jurist." "The generous": "I mean the generous," on the estimation of a deleted word. Or you say: "I saw Muhammad the noble, the generous, the jurist." So you say: "The generous" is the predicate for a deleted subject, the estimation is?
The student: The generous.
The Shaykh : No, it is "the generous," and "the jurist," and so on.
The student: ... these descriptions are in need of them, it is not one!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: O Shaykh, these descriptions!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: They do not specify one person.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If the one engaged in the description is one, it must be, yes, or with two, it must be on two, or with three, it must be on the three. The important thing... okay.
"And they have followed", is it complete here?!
"In need of their mention, they are attached":
This is the answer to the condition. "Attached" is the answer to "if." When it becomes in need of their mention, and it is obligatory that it be attached, attachment is obligatory and separation is not permissible, because it is not established without them. Therefore, it must be attached to it. For example, you say: "I saw the noble Isa," or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, attached: the jurist!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The generous! Is it correct here?
The student: Correct, yes.
The Shaykh : All of it is attached. Is separation permissible?
The student: I mean?!
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because Isa is established without them. As soon as I say Isa, there is no Isa but one, so he is established without these descriptions. So we say: "The noble" is a known attached description, and what comes after it is permissible to be attached, and permissible to be separated. So you say: "I saw the noble Isa, the jurist, the generous." This is separation. Is that good? And you say: "Ghanim the diligent came." Is that correct here?
The student: Ghanim the generous!
The Shaykh : It does not contradict—do not be upset—the generous, the brave. Is separation permissible in this or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : What is the reason?
The student: It is known.
The Shaykh : Because it is established without them. There is no Ghanim but one, meaning there is no one named Ghanim but one. As for the Ghanims, they are many, if Allah wills, but as for the one named Ghanim, there is no one but one. Yes, and we also take Rashid, and we take Husayn, it is like him. But Muhammad, here? It is common. And Hajjaj is one. Yes, the important thing is the rule now: "If this described thing is established without them—meaning it is known without these descriptions—then separation is permissible in the first description, but if it is not known except by them, then attachment is obligatory". Yes, for example, you say, for example, there is one with names: Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman. They differ in tribe. Two of them are all Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman. They differ in tribe. This one is al-Shamri, and this one is al-Utaybi, for example. So we say: "Muhammad ibn Abdullah came to me," here what? "Ibn Abd al-Rahman," or is it not valid? Because "Ibn Abd al-Rahman" is attached to Abdullah. We leave it as a description, you say for example: "Muhammad the noble, the brave, the jurist came." And we have two men, each of their names is Muhammad, and he is noble and brave, here? Is attachment obligatory or not? Here?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Attachment is obligatory, because it is not known without them.
The student: The time is up.
The Shaykh : So if it is not known without them, and it must be attached, but if it is known by the first one, or without them, then separation is permissible in everything except the first. I do not know if this is understood or not?!
The student: It is not clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It did not become clear to us.
The Shaykh : It did not become clear to you, okay.
The student: How is its grammatical analysis?
The Shaykh : Separation means: that you do not leave it attached to it in grammatical analysis. You leave it raised as the predicate of a deleted subject, or accusative as the object of a deleted verb. For example: "Muhammad the noble, the jurist, the generous." And you say: "Muhammad the noble," this is a description. "The jurist": the estimation is: "I mean the jurist." "The generous": "I mean the generous," on the estimation of a deleted word. Or you say: "I saw Muhammad the noble, the generous, the jurist." So you say: "The generous" is the predicate for a deleted subject, the estimation is?
The student: The generous.
The Shaykh : No, it is "the generous," and "the jurist," and so on.
The student: ... these descriptions are in need of them, it is not one!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: O Shaykh, these descriptions!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: They do not specify one person.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : If the one engaged in the description is one, it must be, yes, or with two, it must be on two, or with three, it must be on the three. The important thing... okay.