Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "With the self or the eye, the noun is affirmed *** with a pronoun matching the affirmed."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As for the conceptual, the author mentioned it in these verses. He said:
"With the self or the eye, the noun is affirmed":
The noun is the subject, and the clause "affirmed" is its predicate. "With the self or the eye" is attached to "affirmed." The author (may Allah have mercy on him) is a teacher even in his expression. He said in the title: "Affirmation", and he said in the verse: "affirmed", and he did not say "wakkida" with a waw. Even though if he had used the waw, the meter would have been correct and the meter would not have been disrupted. But it is as if he is saying: it is permissible with the hamza and it is permissible with the waw. Now, "with the self or the eye": the noun is affirmed with the self and affirmed with the eye. So you say: "I honored Zayd himself." "Himself." This is affirmation. And what is the benefit of affirmation?
The benefit of affirmation is two things: strengthening, and negating the possibility of metaphor. Because if you say: "I honored Zayd," it is understood that you honored his father, you honored his relative, you honored his slave, you honored his messenger whom he sent to you. So if you say: "himself," this possibility is removed, is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This possibility is removed. So its benefit with affirmation is negating the possibility of metaphor, negating the possibility of metaphor.
And "the eye": you say: "I saw Zayd with his own eye." "I saw Zayd with his own eye." So "eye" here means "self," it is affirmation. For the grammatical analysis, you say: "I honored Zayd himself": "I honored" is a verb and a subject, and "Zayd" is the object, in the accusative case with an explicit fathah, and "self" is an affirming word for Zayd, in the accusative case with an explicit fathah, and "self" is a possessive, and the pronoun is the possessed, built on the dammah in the position of the genitive. But know that it does not mean that whenever "self" and "eye" appear, it is affirmation. No, it may be for other than affirmation, as if you said: "I extinguished Zayd's life." This is not affirmation. "I extinguished Zayd's life." This is a substitute, or an explanatory apposition, because you did not intend to affirm Zayd with the self, but rather you intend to clarify what the action fell upon. And likewise you say: "I poked out Zayd's eye." Do you analyze "his eye" as affirmation?
The student: No, it is a substitute of part for the whole.
The Shaykh : Is it? A substitute of part for the whole, or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Because it is known that Zayd himself is not the one whose eye is poked out. So we know that "self" and "eye" do not mean that whenever they come after a noun, they are affirmation. But if they come affirming that noun, they are affirmation. The author stipulated and said:
"With a pronoun matching the affirmed":
"With a pronoun matching the affirmed": It must have a pronoun—in "self" and "eye"—that matches the affirmed. You say: "I honored Zayd himself." "Himself." Where is the pronoun? The student: The hah.
The Shaykh : The hah. Now, I said a second time: "I honored Zayd herself"?!
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Is that correct?
The student: It must match.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not correct, it must match. And this is not correct except for a woman. Now, "I honored Zayd both of them"?
The student: Similarly.
The Shaykh : It is not correct, it must match. "I honored the two men both of them"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Both of them.
The student: No, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: It must match "both of them."
The Shaykh : No, no, he says "with a pronoun," with a pronoun. Now, the pronoun "both of them," is this correct?
The student: Affirmation?
The Shaykh : Only if it matches. Now: "With a pronoun matching the affirmed":
So: "I honored the two men both of them" is permissible, because the author did not tell us that the affirming word must match the affirmed, but rather he said: "With a pronoun matching the affirmed".
Now: "I honored the men them." Is this correct or not correct?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct, because the pronoun matches.
"With the self or the eye, the noun is affirmed":
The noun is the subject, and the clause "affirmed" is its predicate. "With the self or the eye" is attached to "affirmed." The author (may Allah have mercy on him) is a teacher even in his expression. He said in the title: "Affirmation", and he said in the verse: "affirmed", and he did not say "wakkida" with a waw. Even though if he had used the waw, the meter would have been correct and the meter would not have been disrupted. But it is as if he is saying: it is permissible with the hamza and it is permissible with the waw. Now, "with the self or the eye": the noun is affirmed with the self and affirmed with the eye. So you say: "I honored Zayd himself." "Himself." This is affirmation. And what is the benefit of affirmation?
The benefit of affirmation is two things: strengthening, and negating the possibility of metaphor. Because if you say: "I honored Zayd," it is understood that you honored his father, you honored his relative, you honored his slave, you honored his messenger whom he sent to you. So if you say: "himself," this possibility is removed, is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : This possibility is removed. So its benefit with affirmation is negating the possibility of metaphor, negating the possibility of metaphor.
And "the eye": you say: "I saw Zayd with his own eye." "I saw Zayd with his own eye." So "eye" here means "self," it is affirmation. For the grammatical analysis, you say: "I honored Zayd himself": "I honored" is a verb and a subject, and "Zayd" is the object, in the accusative case with an explicit fathah, and "self" is an affirming word for Zayd, in the accusative case with an explicit fathah, and "self" is a possessive, and the pronoun is the possessed, built on the dammah in the position of the genitive. But know that it does not mean that whenever "self" and "eye" appear, it is affirmation. No, it may be for other than affirmation, as if you said: "I extinguished Zayd's life." This is not affirmation. "I extinguished Zayd's life." This is a substitute, or an explanatory apposition, because you did not intend to affirm Zayd with the self, but rather you intend to clarify what the action fell upon. And likewise you say: "I poked out Zayd's eye." Do you analyze "his eye" as affirmation?
The student: No, it is a substitute of part for the whole.
The Shaykh : Is it? A substitute of part for the whole, or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Because it is known that Zayd himself is not the one whose eye is poked out. So we know that "self" and "eye" do not mean that whenever they come after a noun, they are affirmation. But if they come affirming that noun, they are affirmation. The author stipulated and said:
"With a pronoun matching the affirmed":
"With a pronoun matching the affirmed": It must have a pronoun—in "self" and "eye"—that matches the affirmed. You say: "I honored Zayd himself." "Himself." Where is the pronoun? The student: The hah.
The Shaykh : The hah. Now, I said a second time: "I honored Zayd herself"?!
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Is that correct?
The student: It must match.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not correct, it must match. And this is not correct except for a woman. Now, "I honored Zayd both of them"?
The student: Similarly.
The Shaykh : It is not correct, it must match. "I honored the two men both of them"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Both of them.
The student: No, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: It must match "both of them."
The Shaykh : No, no, he says "with a pronoun," with a pronoun. Now, the pronoun "both of them," is this correct?
The student: Affirmation?
The Shaykh : Only if it matches. Now: "With a pronoun matching the affirmed":
So: "I honored the two men both of them" is permissible, because the author did not tell us that the affirming word must match the affirmed, but rather he said: "With a pronoun matching the affirmed".
Now: "I honored the men them." Is this correct or not correct?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct, because the pronoun matches.