Continuation of the explanation of Ibn Malik’s (may Allah have mercy on him) saying: “By attaching the object of a removed verb that remained, *** a suspicion was averted that was guarded against”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We say: Ibn Malik states that it is permissible to omit the conjunction (waw) and its conjoined element; one omits the conjunction and its conjoined element. An example of this is this verse:
“And we made the eyebrows and the eyes glossy”.
Yes, he said:
“And the omission of a following element became apparent”.
And his saying:
“To avert a suspicion that was guarded against”:
This is an explanation for the estimation of the omitted element; it is not its meaning. It is not that its object remained to avert [something]; no, this is an explanation for the estimation. That is, we estimated it in order to avert the suspicion, the suspicion derived from making it conjoined to the existing element. “We made the eyebrows and the eyes glossy”: If we did not estimate “and we applied kohl to the eyes,” the one who suspects would assume that the eyes were made glossy, which is not the case.
“And I fed her straw and cold water”: If we did not say “and I gave her drink,” the listener would assume that the water was fed, which is not the case. So the author’s saying: “To avert a suspicion that was guarded against”: is not an explanation for its omission, but rather an explanation for its estimation. That is, this omitted verb is estimated in order to avert the suspicion, so that the listener does not assume that it is conjoined to the existing verb, which would corrupt the meaning.
“And we made the eyebrows and the eyes glossy”.
Yes, he said:
“And the omission of a following element became apparent”.
And his saying:
“To avert a suspicion that was guarded against”:
This is an explanation for the estimation of the omitted element; it is not its meaning. It is not that its object remained to avert [something]; no, this is an explanation for the estimation. That is, we estimated it in order to avert the suspicion, the suspicion derived from making it conjoined to the existing element. “We made the eyebrows and the eyes glossy”: If we did not estimate “and we applied kohl to the eyes,” the one who suspects would assume that the eyes were made glossy, which is not the case.
“And I fed her straw and cold water”: If we did not say “and I gave her drink,” the listener would assume that the water was fed, which is not the case. So the author’s saying: “To avert a suspicion that was guarded against”: is not an explanation for its omission, but rather an explanation for its estimation. That is, this omitted verb is estimated in order to avert the suspicion, so that the listener does not assume that it is conjoined to the existing verb, which would corrupt the meaning.