Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And if the emphasis of an indefinite is accepted *** and the prohibition of the Basrans encompassed it."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author moved on to another topic, which is: Is the indefinite emphasized? Is the indefinite emphasized or not?! Some grammarians said: It is not emphasized. Others said: It is emphasized. The author took a middle position and said:
"And if the emphasis of an indefinite is accepted":
Yes, "And if the emphasis of an indefinite is accepted": This means that it is permissible. The rule is that it is permissible to emphasize an indefinite if there is a benefit in it. Yes, and if there is no benefit in it, then it is not emphasized. From this is the saying of the poet:
"Oh, would that a full year were all Rajab":
"Oh, would that a full year were all Rajab": Look at "a full year"; it provides a benefit, so it is permissible to emphasize it. He did not say: "Oh, would that the full year were all Rajab." He said: "Oh, would that a full year were all Rajab"
And from this is the verse we mentioned earlier:
"Oh, would that I were a nursing infant *** carried by a she-camel, a year, a one-eyed one":
"A year" here is an indefinite, and "a one-eyed one" is an emphasis for it. But Ibn Malik says:
"And the prohibition of the Basrans encompassed it":
And what does: "the prohibition encompassed it" mean? It means that the indefinite is not emphasized, whether it provides a benefit or not. Accordingly, it is prohibited in their view to say: "I sat with you for a month, the whole of it." It is prohibited according to the Basrans. And what has come through oral transmission is, in their view, either anomalous or rare and few. And the anomalous is not used as a basis for analogy. As for the opinion of Ibn Malik, which is the correct one: If you find a benefit in the emphasis, there is no obstacle. You say: "I sat with you for a month, the whole of it." You emphasized it so that no one would think that I sat with you for more than the month. So there is a benefit in this. If there is a benefit, there is no harm. Yes.
"And if the emphasis of an indefinite is accepted":
Yes, "And if the emphasis of an indefinite is accepted": This means that it is permissible. The rule is that it is permissible to emphasize an indefinite if there is a benefit in it. Yes, and if there is no benefit in it, then it is not emphasized. From this is the saying of the poet:
"Oh, would that a full year were all Rajab":
"Oh, would that a full year were all Rajab": Look at "a full year"; it provides a benefit, so it is permissible to emphasize it. He did not say: "Oh, would that the full year were all Rajab." He said: "Oh, would that a full year were all Rajab"
And from this is the verse we mentioned earlier:
"Oh, would that I were a nursing infant *** carried by a she-camel, a year, a one-eyed one":
"A year" here is an indefinite, and "a one-eyed one" is an emphasis for it. But Ibn Malik says:
"And the prohibition of the Basrans encompassed it":
And what does: "the prohibition encompassed it" mean? It means that the indefinite is not emphasized, whether it provides a benefit or not. Accordingly, it is prohibited in their view to say: "I sat with you for a month, the whole of it." It is prohibited according to the Basrans. And what has come through oral transmission is, in their view, either anomalous or rare and few. And the anomalous is not used as a basis for analogy. As for the opinion of Ibn Malik, which is the correct one: If you find a benefit in the emphasis, there is no obstacle. You say: "I sat with you for a month, the whole of it." You emphasized it so that no one would think that I sat with you for more than the month. So there is a benefit in this. If there is a benefit, there is no harm. Yes.