Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "They may be indefinite *** just as they may be definite."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He pointed to this in his saying:
"They may be indefinite *** just as they may be definite":
He analogized the disputed case to the agreed-upon case. The grammarians, both Basran and Kufan, agreed that the apposition of explanation (‘atf al-bayan) occurs between two definite nouns. It occurs between two definite nouns, because it is permissible to specify it. For example, you say: "Abu Bakr, Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafah, came." What is "Abdullah" here?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : No, my brothers!
The student: It is not definite.
Another student: It is an apposition of explanation.
The Shaykh : An apposition of explanation, an apposition of explanation. And now, is it between two definite nouns or between two indefinite nouns?
The student: Between two indefinite nouns!
The Shaykh : Huh? "Abu Bakr, Abdullah, came"?!
The student: Between two definite nouns.
The Shaykh : Between two definite nouns. Abu Bakr is the principal noun (mutaba‘) and it is definite, and Abdullah is the dependent noun (tabi‘) and it is definite. This is something agreed upon.
The student: What does "between two definite nouns" mean?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: And what does "between two definite nouns" mean?
The Shaykh : It means that they are both definite nouns.
The student: This is the principal noun!
The Shaykh : The dependent noun and the principal noun are both definite nouns. Yes. Now, can it occur between two indefinite nouns?
Answer: Yes. This is the view Ibn Malik adopted, even though Ibn Malik is counted among the Basrans. However, he is a Basran who exercises independent reasoning (ijtihad) and leans toward what he sees as correct. For this reason, the Kufans, including Ibn Jarum, hold that the apposition of explanation occurs between two indefinite nouns. Yes.
The student: So he agreed with them on this.
The Shaykh : He agreed with them on this, and they cited evidence from the Qur'an for it. They said that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) says: "from water." This "water" is indefinite. What kind of water is it?
The student: Pus.
The Shaykh : "Pus." "Pus" is a static noun (ism jami‘), a static noun, and yet it became an apposition of explanation. Yes. It is a static dependent noun, so it became an apposition of explanation.
What do the Basrans answer regarding the verse? They say: This is a substitute (badal). We make it a substitute, and the substitute will come to us later. The criterion for a substitute is that if the substituted noun (al-mubdal minhu) is deleted, it takes its place. They said: If Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) had said: "and is given to drink from pus," the speech would be correct. Therefore, it is a substitute, not an apposition of explanation. As for these [Kufans], they say: Yes, we say that it is permissible for it to be a substitute; it is permissible for it to be a substitute. But it is also permissible for it to be an apposition of explanation. What prevents Allah from specifying the type of this water as pus? Yes. And likewise:[An-Nur 24:35]: "olive." A blessed tree, an olive. "Blessed"—what is it?
The student: An attribute.
The Shaykh : An attribute, a description. "Olive"?
The student: An apposition of explanation.
The Shaykh : An apposition of explanation, because "olive" is not a derived noun, so it is an apposition of explanation. And those [Basrans] say that it is a substitute, because if one said: "is kindled from a blessed olive," it would be correct. But we say: there is no harm in it being an apposition of explanation.
They say that the obstacle is that the intent in an apposition of explanation is that it clarifies its principal noun, specifies it, and distinguishes it from others. And an indefinite noun does not clarify an indefinite noun. The response to them is very simple: it is that the described or specified indefinite noun specifies it. Instead of us saying: "from water" and leaving it general, meaning suitable for any water, he distinguished this water by saying:.
[An-Nur 24:35]: Instead of it being general for every blessed tree, he specified it by saying: . So specification exists even in indefinite nouns. Therefore, their evidence is not correct. For this reason, Ibn Malik followed this view: that it is permissible for the apposition of explanation and its principal noun to be two indefinite nouns.
"They may be indefinite *** just as they may be definite":
He analogized the disputed case to the agreed-upon case. The grammarians, both Basran and Kufan, agreed that the apposition of explanation (‘atf al-bayan) occurs between two definite nouns. It occurs between two definite nouns, because it is permissible to specify it. For example, you say: "Abu Bakr, Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafah, came." What is "Abdullah" here?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : No, my brothers!
The student: It is not definite.
Another student: It is an apposition of explanation.
The Shaykh : An apposition of explanation, an apposition of explanation. And now, is it between two definite nouns or between two indefinite nouns?
The student: Between two indefinite nouns!
The Shaykh : Huh? "Abu Bakr, Abdullah, came"?!
The student: Between two definite nouns.
The Shaykh : Between two definite nouns. Abu Bakr is the principal noun (mutaba‘) and it is definite, and Abdullah is the dependent noun (tabi‘) and it is definite. This is something agreed upon.
The student: What does "between two definite nouns" mean?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: And what does "between two definite nouns" mean?
The Shaykh : It means that they are both definite nouns.
The student: This is the principal noun!
The Shaykh : The dependent noun and the principal noun are both definite nouns. Yes. Now, can it occur between two indefinite nouns?
Answer: Yes. This is the view Ibn Malik adopted, even though Ibn Malik is counted among the Basrans. However, he is a Basran who exercises independent reasoning (ijtihad) and leans toward what he sees as correct. For this reason, the Kufans, including Ibn Jarum, hold that the apposition of explanation occurs between two indefinite nouns. Yes.
The student: So he agreed with them on this.
The Shaykh : He agreed with them on this, and they cited evidence from the Qur'an for it. They said that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) says:
and is given to drink from water of pus
ويُسقى مِن ماء صديدThe student: Pus.
The Shaykh : "Pus." "Pus" is a static noun (ism jami‘), a static noun, and yet it became an apposition of explanation. Yes. It is a static dependent noun, so it became an apposition of explanation.
What do the Basrans answer regarding the verse? They say: This is a substitute (badal). We make it a substitute, and the substitute will come to us later. The criterion for a substitute is that if the substituted noun (al-mubdal minhu) is deleted, it takes its place. They said: If Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) had said: "and is given to drink from pus," the speech would be correct. Therefore, it is a substitute, not an apposition of explanation. As for these [Kufans], they say: Yes, we say that it is permissible for it to be a substitute; it is permissible for it to be a substitute. But it is also permissible for it to be an apposition of explanation. What prevents Allah from specifying the type of this water as pus? Yes. And likewise:
lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree
يوقد مِن شجرة مباركة زيتونةThe student: An attribute.
The Shaykh : An attribute, a description. "Olive"?
The student: An apposition of explanation.
The Shaykh : An apposition of explanation, because "olive" is not a derived noun, so it is an apposition of explanation. And those [Basrans] say that it is a substitute, because if one said: "is kindled from a blessed olive," it would be correct. But we say: there is no harm in it being an apposition of explanation.
They say that the obstacle is that the intent in an apposition of explanation is that it clarifies its principal noun, specifies it, and distinguishes it from others. And an indefinite noun does not clarify an indefinite noun. The response to them is very simple: it is that the described or specified indefinite noun specifies it. Instead of us saying: "from water" and leaving it general, meaning suitable for any water, he distinguished this water by saying: