Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it is not obligatory in my view, since it has come *** in valid poetry and prose, affirmed."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says: "And it is not obligatory in my view":
This is the choice of Ibn Malik: "And it is not obligatory in my view": The hidden pronoun in "is not" refers to what? It refers to the repetition of the preposition, meaning: And the repetition of the preposition is not obligatory in my view.
The student: His saying: "since it has come."
The Shaykh : Why? Huh?
The student: "Since it has come."
The Shaykh : This is the reason, for "idh" indicates reason:
"Since it has come *** in valid poetry and prose, affirmed":
And since it has come in valid, eloquent poetry and prose, how can it be obligatory? Yes, Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Baqarah 2:217], look, [Al-Baqarah 2:217] and He did not say: "and the Sacred Mosque," and He the Exalted said: [An-Nisa 4:1]: on the reading of the genitive, the famous reading, and "the ties of kinship," but on the reading of the genitive, "the ties of kinship."
The student: What is its implied meaning, O Shaykh, and "with the ties of kinship"?
The Shaykh : It is this that we are saying, but the implied meaning is not like the existing one, and the original of every conjunction is on the assumption of repeating the operator, every conjunction, even if you say: "Zayd stood up and 'Umar," the implied meaning is: "and 'Umar stood up," yes, the point is that Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: I do not see that it is obligatory to repeat the preposition, why?
Because it has come in the Noble Qur'an, which is the most correct of speech, yes,[Al-Baqarah 2:217].
The student: But if he said it is conjoined to "disbelief," meaning the evidence is forbidden.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And it is a Sacred Mosque.
The Shaykh : It is not suitable, it is a clumsy phrase, and likewise:[An-Nisa 4:1] on the reading of what?
The student: The genitive.
The Shaykh : The genitive, they swear by Allah and they swear by the ties of kinship, I ask you by the kinship, by the relationship between you and me: that you save me, for example, or that you defend me, and the like, but the problem is that the one who is fanatical about a school of thought tries to distort, some of them say: perhaps the waw in his saying[An-Nisa 4:1] that the waw is a letter of oath, Allah swears by the ties of kinship!! This is far-fetched, rather He informs, saying: "Fear Allah by Whom you swear and by the ties of kinship," yes, so you fear Allah, as for the reading of the accusative and "the ties of kinship," the matter has nothing in it, now, do you have examples in poetry, I think in poetry?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: He says:
"So today you have come near to mocking us and insulting us *** So go, for there is nothing in you or the days that is astonishing".
The Shaykh : Yes, "So go, for there is nothing in you or the days that is astonishing": meaning: So there is nothing in you or the days that is astonishing, yes, and this verse can be interpreted: it is said: "and the days" is an oath, meaning that he swore by the days, yes, but in any case the original is contrary to that, the result now, the summary of the lesson: if we conjoin to a connected nominative pronoun and it is required? The student: Separation is required.
The Shaykh : Separation is required, either by a separate pronoun or otherwise, due to the saying of Ibn Malik: "or a separator".
If we conjoin to a genitive pronoun, it is obligatory to repeat the preposition according to the famous opinion of the grammarians, and it is not obligatory according to Ibn Malik, and that is the correct one.
Now, if we conjoin to an accusative pronoun, the author did not mention it, we say: what is not mentioned is excused, so then, if you conjoin to an accusative pronoun, you do not repeat the operator, and it is not obligatory for you to separate, so you say: "I honored you and Zayd," or not? Yes, "I honored my friend and me," is it suitable?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : We do not say: "and I honored my friend," it is not obligatory, nor "I honored you and Zayd and I honored Zayd," it is not obligatory, clear?
So now, the conjunction to pronouns, the discussion on it has ended:
Number one, on the nominative pronoun, if it is separate, it does not need a separator, if it is connected, it needs a separator, either by a separate pronoun or otherwise, the conjunction to the genitive pronoun, or a genitive pronoun, it is obligatory to repeat the preposition according to the majority, and it is not obligatory according to Ibn Malik, and that is the correct one.
The conjunction to the accusative pronoun?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible and does not need separation.
This is the choice of Ibn Malik: "And it is not obligatory in my view": The hidden pronoun in "is not" refers to what? It refers to the repetition of the preposition, meaning: And the repetition of the preposition is not obligatory in my view.
The student: His saying: "since it has come."
The Shaykh : Why? Huh?
The student: "Since it has come."
The Shaykh : This is the reason, for "idh" indicates reason:
"Since it has come *** in valid poetry and prose, affirmed":
And since it has come in valid, eloquent poetry and prose, how can it be obligatory? Yes, Allah the Exalted said:
and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah
وكفرٌ به والمسجدِ الحرام وإخراج أهله منه أكبر عند اللهdisbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram
وكفرٌ به والمسجدِ الحرامAnd fear Allah, through whom you ask one another, and the wombs
واتقوا الله الذي تساءلون به والأرحامِThe student: What is its implied meaning, O Shaykh, and "with the ties of kinship"?
The Shaykh : It is this that we are saying, but the implied meaning is not like the existing one, and the original of every conjunction is on the assumption of repeating the operator, every conjunction, even if you say: "Zayd stood up and 'Umar," the implied meaning is: "and 'Umar stood up," yes, the point is that Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: I do not see that it is obligatory to repeat the preposition, why?
Because it has come in the Noble Qur'an, which is the most correct of speech, yes,
disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram
وكفر به والمسجدِ الحرامThe student: But if he said it is conjoined to "disbelief," meaning the evidence is forbidden.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And it is a Sacred Mosque.
The Shaykh : It is not suitable, it is a clumsy phrase, and likewise:
And fear Allah, through whom you ask one another, and the wombs
واتقوا الله الذي تساءلون به والأرحامِThe student: The genitive.
The Shaykh : The genitive, they swear by Allah and they swear by the ties of kinship, I ask you by the kinship, by the relationship between you and me: that you save me, for example, or that you defend me, and the like, but the problem is that the one who is fanatical about a school of thought tries to distort, some of them say: perhaps the waw in his saying
And fear Allah, through whom you ask one another, and the wombs
واتقوا الله الذي تساءلون به والأرحامThe student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: He says:
"So today you have come near to mocking us and insulting us *** So go, for there is nothing in you or the days that is astonishing".
The Shaykh : Yes, "So go, for there is nothing in you or the days that is astonishing": meaning: So there is nothing in you or the days that is astonishing, yes, and this verse can be interpreted: it is said: "and the days" is an oath, meaning that he swore by the days, yes, but in any case the original is contrary to that, the result now, the summary of the lesson: if we conjoin to a connected nominative pronoun and it is required? The student: Separation is required.
The Shaykh : Separation is required, either by a separate pronoun or otherwise, due to the saying of Ibn Malik: "or a separator".
If we conjoin to a genitive pronoun, it is obligatory to repeat the preposition according to the famous opinion of the grammarians, and it is not obligatory according to Ibn Malik, and that is the correct one.
Now, if we conjoin to an accusative pronoun, the author did not mention it, we say: what is not mentioned is excused, so then, if you conjoin to an accusative pronoun, you do not repeat the operator, and it is not obligatory for you to separate, so you say: "I honored you and Zayd," or not? Yes, "I honored my friend and me," is it suitable?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : We do not say: "and I honored my friend," it is not obligatory, nor "I honored you and Zayd and I honored Zayd," it is not obligatory, clear?
So now, the conjunction to pronouns, the discussion on it has ended:
Number one, on the nominative pronoun, if it is separate, it does not need a separator, if it is connected, it needs a separator, either by a separate pronoun or otherwise, the conjunction to the genitive pronoun, or a genitive pronoun, it is obligatory to repeat the preposition according to the majority, and it is not obligatory according to Ibn Malik, and that is the correct one.
The conjunction to the accusative pronoun?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible and does not need separation.