Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And both, mention in the scope, and both *** both, all together, connected by the pronoun."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And the author also said:
"And both, mention in the scope, and both":
"And both, mention in the scope": It is emphasized with "kull" (all) when the scope is intended. And naturally, since we are talking about scope, it means it is not emphasized except for that which has distinct individuals, like the people: "The people all came." So for that which does not have distinct individuals, it is said "kull." For this reason, he said: "in the scope". Now, if it is indivisible, it is not emphasized with "kull." That which is indivisible is not emphasized with "kull." Why is it not emphasized? Because the possibility of metaphorical usage is not applicable in it. The possibility of metaphorical usage is not applicable in it. Do you understand?
So the scope does not occur except in that which has multiple parts or individuals, in that which has multiple parts or individuals. As for that in which multiplicity is not possible, it is not emphasized with "kull." If I said: "Zayd all came"?
The student: It is not appropriate.
The Shaykh : Is it appropriate?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It does not have parts.
The Shaykh : Yes, because its parts cannot be separated from one another in coming. It is known that it is not possible for his head to come on its own, or his hand on its own. Yes, so it is not possible to emphasize with "kull," because the possibility of metaphorical usage is not applicable here. "I freed the slave all of him," is that possible?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is appropriate, why? Because it has parts, but the shared portion can be freed, and the parts cannot be freed. Now, if I said: "I ate the sheep all of it," is that appropriate?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It can be divided.
The Shaykh : It can be divided, it can be divided.
The student: "Zayd all entered"?
The Shaykh : This can be divided, it is possible. Yes, and I do not know, in any case, it is possible that in some things it is appropriate. Yes, like if the place was narrow and I said: "So-and-so entered this car," yes, and he said: "He all entered," the meaning is: that it accommodated him. This is possible. So the rule is: "That which has multiple parts can be emphasized with 'kull'". For this reason, he said: "in the scope", "And as for that in which the parts cannot be multiplied, it is not possible". Yes.
The student: Shaykh, the lesson is over.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is over.
"And both, mention in the scope, and both":
"And both, mention in the scope": It is emphasized with "kull" (all) when the scope is intended. And naturally, since we are talking about scope, it means it is not emphasized except for that which has distinct individuals, like the people: "The people all came." So for that which does not have distinct individuals, it is said "kull." For this reason, he said: "in the scope". Now, if it is indivisible, it is not emphasized with "kull." That which is indivisible is not emphasized with "kull." Why is it not emphasized? Because the possibility of metaphorical usage is not applicable in it. The possibility of metaphorical usage is not applicable in it. Do you understand?
So the scope does not occur except in that which has multiple parts or individuals, in that which has multiple parts or individuals. As for that in which multiplicity is not possible, it is not emphasized with "kull." If I said: "Zayd all came"?
The student: It is not appropriate.
The Shaykh : Is it appropriate?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It does not have parts.
The Shaykh : Yes, because its parts cannot be separated from one another in coming. It is known that it is not possible for his head to come on its own, or his hand on its own. Yes, so it is not possible to emphasize with "kull," because the possibility of metaphorical usage is not applicable here. "I freed the slave all of him," is that possible?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is appropriate, why? Because it has parts, but the shared portion can be freed, and the parts cannot be freed. Now, if I said: "I ate the sheep all of it," is that appropriate?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It can be divided.
The Shaykh : It can be divided, it can be divided.
The student: "Zayd all entered"?
The Shaykh : This can be divided, it is possible. Yes, and I do not know, in any case, it is possible that in some things it is appropriate. Yes, like if the place was narrow and I said: "So-and-so entered this car," yes, and he said: "He all entered," the meaning is: that it accommodated him. This is possible. So the rule is: "That which has multiple parts can be emphasized with 'kull'". For this reason, he said: "in the scope", "And as for that in which the parts cannot be multiplied, it is not possible". Yes.
The student: Shaykh, the lesson is over.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is over.