Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "So conjoin with a waw a preceding or a following *** in ruling, or a companion that agrees."

The Shaykh : He said:
"So conjoin with a waw a preceding or a following *** in ruling, or a companion that agrees".
The waw is called the head of the chapter, because everything is conjoined with it.
"So conjoin with a waw a preceding or a following *** in ruling": The preceding is the one that comes before, the following is the one that comes after, and the companion is the one that agrees?
The student: The one that agrees.

The Shaykh : The one that agrees, the one that is with it. For example, you say: "Muhammad and his son." In this example, which one is first?
The student: The son.

The Shaykh : Yes, good. His son is following. His son is following, or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : His son is following. Good. And you say: "Ramadan and Sha'ban passed for me." Ramadan and Sha'ban passed for me, and I am here.
The student: There is no conjunction.

The Shaykh : No, no, we conjoined: "Ramadan and Sha'ban passed for me." We conjoined a preceding with a following. We conjoined a preceding.
The student: According to the wording.

The Shaykh : It is all one. Sha'ban is before Ramadan in any case. We are in Rabi' al-Thani, or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : You say: "I remained in such-and-such a place for Ramadan and Sha'ban," correct or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : Which one is the following?
The student: Ramadan.

The Shaykh : Ramadan. So we conjoined a preceding with a following. That means you cannot make a mistake with it. You cannot say: "This is a mistake. Sha'ban is the first." But if I say to you: "I stayed in such-and-such a place for Ramadan, then Sha'ban!" Is that a mistake or not?
The student: Wrong.

The Shaykh : It is called a mistake. Why? Because Sha'ban is the first. For this reason, they needed to respond to the poet's saying:
"Indeed, he who ruled, then his father ruled *** then his grandfather ruled after that":
What does that mean?! Yes, this is the reverse. It does not happen. But some people are demons. He said: There is no reverse. The person's rule is immediate, and the one after it, here, is his father's rule, and the one after that is his grandfather's rule.
So the person benefits from his own rule first. Then, if he is not a ruler, does his father's rule benefit him or not? For this reason, you find the son of a minister, for example, has no value. But if his father holds his hand, what did he do with him?!
The student: He rules.

The Shaykh : He rules. So it returned to him with blessing in our view. Yes, because his father ruled, or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : If the father did not rule, then the grandfather. So I said: I did not intend to arrange them by existence. Their arrangement by existence is: the grandfather is first, then the father, then the son. But I want to arrange them by what this ruler benefits from. The person benefits first from his own rule, then from his father's, then from his grandfather's. But does the criticism apply to him or not?
The student: It applies.

The Shaykh : It applies. But if I said: "I remained in this place for Ramadan and Sha'ban," no one can say anything to you. "Conjoin a preceding or a following".
"Or a companion that agrees": What is a companion that agrees? Here?
The student: All together, meaning.

The Shaykh : All together.
The student: Zayd and 'Ali came together.

The Shaykh : All together. Zayd and 'Ali came together, all together, or not? Zayd and 'Ali entered upon me. Here, does it agree?
The student: There is criticism.

The Shaykh : Let us see. If the chapter is narrow, yes, then there is a preceding and a following. If the chapter is wide, it is permissible for both to be an agreement.
The student: Shaykh ... did he add a waw?

The Shaykh : Hm? No, no, we said: with consideration there. Yes.