Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the fa' is specific for conjoining what is not a relative clause *** to that which is established as being a relative clause."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the fa' is specific for conjoining what is not a relative clause *** to that which is established as being a relative clause":
This is also one of the specific features of the fa': that it is used to conjoin what cannot validly serve as a relative clause to the relative pronoun, to that which can validly serve as a relative clause to the relative pronoun. From where do we understand that the intended meaning is the relative clause of the relative pronoun?
Because the term "relative clause," when used in its general sense, refers to the relative clause of the relative pronoun. Therefore, it is used specifically to conjoin what cannot validly serve as a relative clause. So, the author's statement:
"what is not a relative clause": means what cannot validly serve as a relative clause.
"to that which is established as being a relative clause":
To something that can validly serve as a relative clause. Why?
Because it signifies a connection between the two sentences. This is the reason. Since it signifies a connection between the two sentences, the conjoining with it suffices in place of the presence of a resumptive pronoun that refers back to the relative pronoun.
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So, and what about Ghanim?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, a relative clause requires a connector, or more accurately, a resumptive pronoun that refers back to the relative pronoun. It requires a resumptive pronoun that refers back to the relative pronoun. If I said: "The one who came to me was the one who stood up, Zayd," "The one who came to me was the one who stood up, Zayd," is that valid?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because there is no resumptive pronoun.
The Shaykh : Because there is no resumptive pronoun. But if I said: "The one who came to me was the one who stood up," meaning he, is that valid? Or if I said: "The one who came to me was the one whose father stood up," is that valid? Because of the presence of its resumptive pronoun. Complete, or not? Okay: "I honored the two who exerted themselves," is that valid?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay: "I honored the two who exerted himself, 'Amr"?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. Okay, he says: "I honored the two who exerted themselves, so Zayd became angry"?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is valid because there is a resumptive pronoun.
The Shaykh : "So Zayd became angry." "I honored the two who exerted themselves, so Zayd became angry." Is that valid? Is it valid or not? So?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is valid. Why? Even though "Zayd became angry" does not contain a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun, we say: because it was conjoined with the fa'.
The grammarians gave a strange example, and we say: they exemplified with their saying: "The fly that flies, so Zayd becomes angry!"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Look, now let us say: "The rain that thunders, so the students are disturbed!"
The student: The rain!
The Shaykh : Is that valid? Yes, is it valid? Yes. Let us look now: "The rain that thunders." "Thunders" is the relative clause of the relative pronoun. Does it contain a resumptive pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun or not?
The student: It does.
The Shaykh : It does. And what is it?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun in "thunders" is it. "So the students are disturbed." "The students are disturbed" is this sentence. Does it contain a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It does not. It does not contain a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun. So, we conjoined what cannot validly serve as a relative clause to that which can validly serve as a relative clause, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, the summary: "What is the fa' specific for? It is specific for conjoining what cannot validly serve as a relative clause to what can validly serve as a relative clause". If you came with the waw instead of the fa', it would not be valid. If you said: "The rain that thunders and the students are disturbed," it is not permissible except on the assumption of the deletion of a resumptive pronoun in the second sentence. So the assumed meaning would be: "and the students are disturbed by it." "And the students are disturbed by it." On this assumption, yes, it is valid. But without assuming a resumptive pronoun, it is not valid except with the fa' only.
So the difference between it and others—as I said a moment ago—is that it signifies a connection between the two sentences to each other. For this reason, we inferred that the brothers, along with the father and mother, block them from one-third to one-sixth, even though they do not inherit, even though they do not inherit, by His saying, the Exalted:[An-Nisa 4:11] This fa' is connected to the one before it. "If he has brothers, they inherit from him one-sixth." Yes, okay. So: if we came with the waw instead of the fa', it would not be valid. If we came with "thumma" instead of it, it would not be valid. If we came with "aw" instead of it, it would not be valid. It is not valid except with the fa' only. Yes.
The student: An example of the one who speaks!
The Shaykh : You have it?
This is also one of the specific features of the fa': that it is used to conjoin what cannot validly serve as a relative clause to the relative pronoun, to that which can validly serve as a relative clause to the relative pronoun. From where do we understand that the intended meaning is the relative clause of the relative pronoun?
Because the term "relative clause," when used in its general sense, refers to the relative clause of the relative pronoun. Therefore, it is used specifically to conjoin what cannot validly serve as a relative clause. So, the author's statement:
"what is not a relative clause": means what cannot validly serve as a relative clause.
"to that which is established as being a relative clause":
To something that can validly serve as a relative clause. Why?
Because it signifies a connection between the two sentences. This is the reason. Since it signifies a connection between the two sentences, the conjoining with it suffices in place of the presence of a resumptive pronoun that refers back to the relative pronoun.
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So, and what about Ghanim?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, a relative clause requires a connector, or more accurately, a resumptive pronoun that refers back to the relative pronoun. It requires a resumptive pronoun that refers back to the relative pronoun. If I said: "The one who came to me was the one who stood up, Zayd," "The one who came to me was the one who stood up, Zayd," is that valid?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because there is no resumptive pronoun.
The Shaykh : Because there is no resumptive pronoun. But if I said: "The one who came to me was the one who stood up," meaning he, is that valid? Or if I said: "The one who came to me was the one whose father stood up," is that valid? Because of the presence of its resumptive pronoun. Complete, or not? Okay: "I honored the two who exerted themselves," is that valid?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay: "I honored the two who exerted himself, 'Amr"?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. Okay, he says: "I honored the two who exerted themselves, so Zayd became angry"?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is valid because there is a resumptive pronoun.
The Shaykh : "So Zayd became angry." "I honored the two who exerted themselves, so Zayd became angry." Is that valid? Is it valid or not? So?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : It is valid. Why? Even though "Zayd became angry" does not contain a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun, we say: because it was conjoined with the fa'.
The grammarians gave a strange example, and we say: they exemplified with their saying: "The fly that flies, so Zayd becomes angry!"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Look, now let us say: "The rain that thunders, so the students are disturbed!"
The student: The rain!
The Shaykh : Is that valid? Yes, is it valid? Yes. Let us look now: "The rain that thunders." "Thunders" is the relative clause of the relative pronoun. Does it contain a resumptive pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun or not?
The student: It does.
The Shaykh : It does. And what is it?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun in "thunders" is it. "So the students are disturbed." "The students are disturbed" is this sentence. Does it contain a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It does not. It does not contain a pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun. So, we conjoined what cannot validly serve as a relative clause to that which can validly serve as a relative clause, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, the summary: "What is the fa' specific for? It is specific for conjoining what cannot validly serve as a relative clause to what can validly serve as a relative clause". If you came with the waw instead of the fa', it would not be valid. If you said: "The rain that thunders and the students are disturbed," it is not permissible except on the assumption of the deletion of a resumptive pronoun in the second sentence. So the assumed meaning would be: "and the students are disturbed by it." "And the students are disturbed by it." On this assumption, yes, it is valid. But without assuming a resumptive pronoun, it is not valid except with the fa' only.
So the difference between it and others—as I said a moment ago—is that it signifies a connection between the two sentences to each other. For this reason, we inferred that the brothers, along with the father and mother, block them from one-third to one-sixth, even though they do not inherit, even though they do not inherit, by His saying, the Exalted:
And for one's parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers
ولأبويه لكل واحد منهما السدس مما ترك إن كان له ولد ، فإن لم يكن له ولد وورثه أبواه فلأمه الثلث ، فإن كان له إخوةThe student: An example of the one who speaks!
The Shaykh : You have it?