Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And cut off or follow if it is specified *** without it or some of it, cut off with a clear indication."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And cut off or follow":
What do you say: "or follow," because the hamza in the word "atbi'" (follow) is a hamza of separation (qat'), and "aw" (or) is a static letter, so the movement of the hamza of separation was transferred to the static waw, so the pronunciation became like this: "waqtac' aw atbi'" or "aw atbi'."
If someone asks: How do you drop the hamza of separation when it is not dropped?! The one that is dropped is the hamza of connection (wasl)?! We say: Because of the necessity of poetry, and al-Hariri (may Allah have mercy on him) said in *al-Malaha*,:
"And it is permissible in the state of the boldness of poetry *** for the poet to inflect what is not inflected",
The evidence is his word: "the boldness", that poetry is bold and does not leave one as he wishes, so he may inflect what is not inflected, and he may prevent from inflection what is inflected, and this is as you have seen, it has been changed even by the movement.
The student: O Shaykh, is it permissible for the poet to make the raised (marfu') accusative (mansub) due to the necessity of poetry?
The Shaykh : Yes, some of them permitted it. Al-Suyuti mentioned in his *Alfiyyah* that some of them permitted it, yes.
The student: Shaykh, what is the difference between our saying here and our saying: "If two static letters meet, move them," or "Move for the meeting of two static letters," is there a difference?
The Shaykh : Yes, a great difference, because "if two static letters meet" means that the hamza is static, and here the hamza is not static, it is open (fathah), yes: "And cut off or follow": because it is from "atba'a" (to follow), and the command from it is: "atbi'" (follow), this is the difference:
"And cut off or follow if it is specified *** without it":
So if it is specified and known without it, then cutting off is allowed, even at the beginning of one of them, as is apparent from the words of the author, even at the beginning of one, it is permissible to cut off, but he says:
"Or some of it, cut off with a clear indication":
Meaning, or cut off some of it when? If it is specified by the rest. So if we say: "Zayd the noble, the brave, the Tamimi came," there is a man named Zayd the noble, but he is Qurashi, what is permissible to cut off from these descriptions?
The student: The brave.
The Shaykh : And the Tamimi, the brave and the Tamimi, what is the reason here? The reason: that it is specified without it. First: is the example correct or not?
The student: No, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : "Zayd the noble, the brave, the Tamimi came," and there is a noble Qurashi Zayd, but he is not brave, what is permissible to cut off? Here? Only the Tamimi, the brave must be followed, because it is not specified without it. The important point: "If the described one is not specified without the many descriptions, then it is obligatory to follow them, and if it is specified by some of them, it is permissible to cut off what is specified without it, and it is permissible to follow as well, because following is the original rule, and if it is specified without all of them, it is permissible to cut off all of them and to follow", yes.
"Or some of it, cut off with a clear indication".
What do you say: "or follow," because the hamza in the word "atbi'" (follow) is a hamza of separation (qat'), and "aw" (or) is a static letter, so the movement of the hamza of separation was transferred to the static waw, so the pronunciation became like this: "waqtac' aw atbi'" or "aw atbi'."
If someone asks: How do you drop the hamza of separation when it is not dropped?! The one that is dropped is the hamza of connection (wasl)?! We say: Because of the necessity of poetry, and al-Hariri (may Allah have mercy on him) said in *al-Malaha*,
The Malaha of I'rab
ملحة الإعراب"And it is permissible in the state of the boldness of poetry *** for the poet to inflect what is not inflected",
The evidence is his word: "the boldness", that poetry is bold and does not leave one as he wishes, so he may inflect what is not inflected, and he may prevent from inflection what is inflected, and this is as you have seen, it has been changed even by the movement.
The student: O Shaykh, is it permissible for the poet to make the raised (marfu') accusative (mansub) due to the necessity of poetry?
The Shaykh : Yes, some of them permitted it. Al-Suyuti mentioned in his *Alfiyyah* that some of them permitted it, yes.
The student: Shaykh, what is the difference between our saying here and our saying: "If two static letters meet, move them," or "Move for the meeting of two static letters," is there a difference?
The Shaykh : Yes, a great difference, because "if two static letters meet" means that the hamza is static, and here the hamza is not static, it is open (fathah), yes: "And cut off or follow": because it is from "atba'a" (to follow), and the command from it is: "atbi'" (follow), this is the difference:
"And cut off or follow if it is specified *** without it":
So if it is specified and known without it, then cutting off is allowed, even at the beginning of one of them, as is apparent from the words of the author, even at the beginning of one, it is permissible to cut off, but he says:
"Or some of it, cut off with a clear indication":
Meaning, or cut off some of it when? If it is specified by the rest. So if we say: "Zayd the noble, the brave, the Tamimi came," there is a man named Zayd the noble, but he is Qurashi, what is permissible to cut off from these descriptions?
The student: The brave.
The Shaykh : And the Tamimi, the brave and the Tamimi, what is the reason here? The reason: that it is specified without it. First: is the example correct or not?
The student: No, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : "Zayd the noble, the brave, the Tamimi came," and there is a noble Qurashi Zayd, but he is not brave, what is permissible to cut off? Here? Only the Tamimi, the brave must be followed, because it is not specified without it. The important point: "If the described one is not specified without the many descriptions, then it is obligatory to follow them, and if it is specified by some of them, it is permissible to cut off what is specified without it, and it is permissible to follow as well, because following is the original rule, and if it is specified without all of them, it is permissible to cut off all of them and to follow", yes.
"Or some of it, cut off with a clear indication".